sv1za
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 8, 2006
Registration
No. 333-124858
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Amendment No. 3
to
Form S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
Mariner Energy, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware |
|
1311 |
|
86-0460233 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number) |
One Briar Lake Plaza, Suite 2000
2000 West Sam Houston Parkway South
Houston, Texas 77042
(713) 954-5500
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number,
including area code, of registrants principal executive
offices)
Teresa Bushman
Vice President and General Counsel
Mariner Energy, Inc.
One Briar Lake Plaza, Suite 2000
2000 West Sam Houston Parkway South
Houston, Texas 77042
(713) 954-5505
(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number,
including area code, of agent for service)
Copies to:
|
|
|
Kelly B. Rose
Baker Botts L.L.P.
One Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 229-1796
|
|
Brian J. Lynch, Esq.
Robert A. Welp, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1100
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 610-6100 |
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: From time to time after the effective date of this
registration statement.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act, check the following
box. þ
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act,
please check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If delivery of the prospectus is expected to be made pursuant to
Rule 434, please check the following
box. o
The registrant hereby amends this registration statement on
such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective
date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this registration statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act or until the registration statement shall
become effective on such date as the Commission, acting pursuant
to said Section 8(a), may determine.
The information in
this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. These
securities may not be sold until the registration statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective.
This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it
is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state
where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
|
Subject to Completion dated
February 8, 2006
PROSPECTUS
33,348,130 Shares
Common Stock
This prospectus relates to up to 33,348,130 shares of the
common stock of Mariner Energy, Inc., which may be offered for
sale by the selling stockholders named in this prospectus. The
selling stockholders acquired the shares of common stock offered
by this prospectus in private equity placements. We are
registering the offer and sale of the shares of common stock to
satisfy registration rights we have granted.
We are not selling any shares of common stock under this
prospectus and will not receive any proceeds from the sale of
common stock by the selling stockholders. The shares of common
stock to which this prospectus relates may be offered and sold
from time to time directly from the selling stockholders or
alternatively through underwriters or broker-dealers or agents.
The shares of common stock may be sold in one or more
transactions, at fixed prices, at prevailing market prices at
the time of sale or at negotiated prices. Please read Plan
of Distribution.
Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our
common stock. Our common stock has been approved for listing on
the New York Stock Exchange, subject to the completion of our
proposed merger with Forest Energy Resources, Inc.
Investing in our common stock involves risks. You should read
the section entitled Risk Factors beginning on
page 24 for a discussion of certain risk factors that you
should consider before investing in our common stock.
You should rely only on the information contained in this
prospectus or any prospectus supplement or amendment. We have
not authorized anyone to provide you with different information.
We are not making an offer of these securities in any state
where the offer is not permitted.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC) nor any state securities commission has
approved or disapproved of these securities or determined
whether this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any
representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The date of this prospectus
is ,
2006.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WHERE YOU CAN FIND INFORMATION
We have filed with the SEC, under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act), a registration
statement on
Form S-1 with
respect to the common stock offered by this prospectus. This
prospectus, which constitutes part of the registration
statement, does not contain all the information set forth in the
registration statement or the exhibits and schedules which are
part of the registration statement, portions of which are
omitted as permitted by the rules and regulations of the SEC.
Statements made in this prospectus regarding the contents of any
contract or other documents are summaries of the material terms
of the contract or document. With respect to each contract or
document filed as an exhibit
(i)
to the registration statement, reference is made to the
corresponding exhibit. For further information pertaining to us
and to the common stock offered by this prospectus, reference is
made to the registration statement, including the exhibits and
schedules thereto, copies of which may be inspected without
charge at the public reference facilities of the SEC at
100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Copies of
all or any portion of the registration statement may be obtained
from the SEC at prescribed rates. Information on the public
reference facilities may be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330. In
addition, the SEC maintains a web site that contains reports,
proxy and information statements and other information that is
filed electronically with the SEC. The web site can be accessed
at www.sec.gov.
Upon completion of this offering, we will be required to comply
with the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and,
accordingly, will file current reports on
Form 8-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q, annual
reports on
Form 10-K, proxy
statements and other information with the SEC. Those reports,
proxy statements and other information will be available for
inspection and copying at the public reference facilities and
internet site of the SEC referred to above.
(ii)
SUMMARY
This summary highlights selected information from this
prospectus, but does not contain all information that you should
consider before investing in the shares. You should read this
entire prospectus carefully, including the Risk
Factors beginning on page 24 of this prospectus and
the financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
References to Mariner, the Company,
we, us, and our refer to
Mariner Energy, Inc. The estimates of our proved reserves as of
December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004 included in this
prospectus are based on reserve reports prepared by Ryder Scott
Company, L.P., independent petroleum engineers (Ryder
Scott). A summary of their report on our proved reserves
as of December 31, 2004 is attached to this prospectus as
Annex A. We have provided definitions for some of the
industry terms used in this prospectus in the Glossary of
Oil and Natural Gas Terms beginning on page 190 of
this prospectus.
In this prospectus:
|
|
|
|
|
The terms we, us, our and
like terms, and the term Mariner, refer to Mariner
Energy, Inc.; |
|
|
|
MEI Sub refers to MEI Sub, Inc.; |
|
|
|
Forest refers to Forest Oil Corporation; |
|
|
|
Forest Energy Resources refers to Forest Energy
Resources, Inc.; and |
|
|
|
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations refers to the
offshore Gulf of Mexico operations conducted by Forest that have
been contributed to Forest Energy Resources and the shares of
which will be spun-off to Forest shareholders. |
About Mariner Energy, Inc.
Mariner Energy, Inc. is an independent oil and gas exploration,
development and production company with principal operations in
the Gulf of Mexico, both shelf and deepwater, and the Permian
Basin in West Texas. As of December 31, 2004, we had
237.5 Bcfe of estimated proved reserves, of which
approximately 64% were natural gas and 36% were oil and
condensate. As of December 31, 2004, the present value,
discounted at 10% per annum, of estimated future net
revenues from our estimated proved reserves, before income tax
(PV10), was approximately $668 million, and our
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
attributable to its estimated proved reserves was approximately
$494.4 million. Please see Business Estimated
Proved Reserves for a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. As of
December 31, 2004, approximately 46% of our estimated
proved reserves were classified as proved developed. For the
year ended December 31, 2004, our total net production was
37.6 Bcfe. Of our estimated proved reserves, 48% are
located in the Permian Basin in West Texas, 37% in the Gulf of
Mexico deepwater and 15% on the Gulf of Mexico shelf as of
December 31, 2004. In the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, we deployed approximately
$337 million of capital on acquisitions, exploration and
development while adding approximately 191 Bcfe of
estimated proved reserves and producing approximately
111 Bcfe.
1
Significant Properties
We own oil and gas properties, producing and non-producing,
onshore in Texas and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, primarily
in federal waters. Our largest properties, based on the present
value of estimated future net proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004, are shown in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate | |
|
|
|
Date | |
|
Estimated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Water | |
|
Gross | |
|
Production | |
|
Proved | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working | |
|
Depth | |
|
Producing | |
|
Commenced/ | |
|
Reserves | |
|
PV10 | |
|
Standardized | |
|
|
Operator | |
|
Interest | |
|
(Feet) | |
|
Wells(1) | |
|
Expected | |
|
(Bcfe) | |
|
Value(2) | |
|
Measure | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in $ millions) | |
|
(in $ millions) | |
West Texas Permian Basin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aldwell Unit
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
66.5 |
(3) |
|
|
Onshore |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
1949 |
|
|
|
112.7 |
|
|
$ |
203.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 296/252 (Rigel)
|
|
|
Dominion |
|
|
|
22.5 |
|
|
|
5,200 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
Second Quarter 2006 |
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
82.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Viosca Knoll 917/961/962 (Swordfish)
|
|
|
Mariner(4 |
) |
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
4,700 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2005 |
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
59.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 516 (Yosemite)
|
|
|
ENI |
|
|
|
44.0 |
|
|
|
3,900 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
66.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto)(5)
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
51.0 |
|
|
|
2,830 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
31.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat)
|
|
|
W&T |
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
Third Quarter 2005 |
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 472/473 (King Kong)
|
|
|
ENI |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
3,850 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre)(6)
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
75.0 |
|
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56.1 |
|
|
|
195.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237.5 |
|
|
$ |
668.0 |
|
|
$ |
494.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Wells producing or capable of producing as of December 31,
2004. |
|
(2) |
Please see Business Estimated Proved Reserves
for a definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. |
|
(3) |
We operate the field and own working interests in individual
wells ranging from approximately 33% to 84%. |
|
(4) |
Mariner served as operator until December 2005, at which time
pursuant to certain contractual arrangements, Noble Energy,
Inc., a 60% partner in the project, began serving as operator. |
|
(5) |
This field was shut-in in April 2004 pending the drilling of a
new well and installation of an extension to the existing
infield flowline and umbilical. As a result, as of
December 31, 2004, 9.0 Bcfe of our net proved reserves
attributable to this project were classified as proved
undeveloped reserves. We expect production from Pluto to
recommence in the second quarter of 2006. |
|
(6) |
Field has been shut in since September 2004 due to destruction
of host platform by Hurricane Ivan. |
The distribution of our proved reserves reflects our efforts
over the last three years to diversify our asset base, which in
prior years had been focused primarily in the Gulf of Mexico
deepwater. We have shifted some of our focus on deepwater
activities to increased exploration and development on the Gulf
of Mexico shelf and exploitation of our West Texas Permian Basin
properties. By allocating our resources among these three areas,
we expect to balance the risks associated with the exploration
and development of our asset base. We intend to continue to
pursue moderate-risk exploratory and development drilling
projects in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater and on the Gulf of
Mexico shelf, including select deep shelf
2
prospects, and also target low-risk infill drilling projects in
West Texas. It is our practice to generate most of our prospects
internally, but from time to time we also acquire third-party
generated prospects. We then drill to find oil and natural gas
reserves, a process that we refer to as growth through the
drill bit.
We operate and own working interests in individual wells ranging
from 33% to 84% (with an average working interest of
approximately 66.5%), in the
18,500-acre Aldwell
Unit. The field is located in the heart of the Spraberry
geologic trend southeast of Midland, Texas, and has produced oil
and gas since 1949. We began our recent redevelopment of the
Aldwell Unit by drilling eight wells in the fourth quarter of
2002, 43 wells in 2003, and 54 wells in 2004. As of
December 31, 2004, there were a total of 185 wells
producing or capable of producing in the field. Our aggregate
net capital expenditures for the 2004 drilling program in the
field were approximately $20.3 million, and we added
27 Bcfe of proved reserves, while producing 4.0 Bcfe.
During 2005, we have accelerated our development program in West
Texas. Through September 30, 2005, we had drilled 65 new
wells at our Aldwell and North Stiles Units. All of our drilling
in the Aldwell and North Stiles Units has resulted in
commercially successful wells that are expected to produce in
quantities sufficient to exceed costs of drilling and
completion. Our net production from onshore wells for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 averaged approximately
17 MMcfe per day. We have completed construction of our own
oil and gas gathering system and compression facilities in the
Aldwell Unit. We began flowing gas production through the new
facilities on June 1, 2005. We have also entered into new
contracts with third parties to provide processing of our
natural gas and transportation of our oil produced in the unit.
The new gas arrangement also provides us with the option to sell
our gas to one of four firm or five interruptible sales
pipelines versus a single outlet under the former arrangement.
We expect these arrangements to improve the economics of
production from the Aldwell Unit.
In August 2005, but effective in October 2005, we entered into
an agreement covering approximately 33,000 acres in West
Texas, pursuant to which, upon closing, we acquired an
approximate 35% working interest in approximately 200 existing
producing wells effective November 1, 2005, and committed
to drill an additional 150 wells within a four year period,
funding $36.5 million of our partners share of
drilling costs for such
150-well drilling
program. We will obtain an assignment of an approximate 35%
working interest in the entire committed acreage upon completion
of the 150-well program.
As of September 30, 2005 we held interests in
11 fields in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater, four of which we
operate. The Gulf of Mexico deepwater accounts for 37%, or
86.7 Bcfe, of our December 31, 2004 proved reserves.
Our net production from deepwater wells for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 averaged approximately
33 MMcfe per day (see Recent Developments below
for a discussion of the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita).
As of September 30, 2005, we held interests in 55 Gulf
of Mexico blocks with water depths of over 1,300 feet and
had approximately 132,000 net undeveloped acres under
lease. In 2004, we spent approximately $63.5 million net on
drilling and completion activities in the deepwater. We drilled
five exploratory wells, four of which were successful, and one
development well, which was also successful.
In 2004, four subsea tiebacks were in the development phase in
the deepwater: Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto), Viosca
Knoll 917 (Swordfish), Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat) and
Mississippi Canyon 296 (Rigel). These four subsea tieback
projects contain approximately 49 Bcfe of proved reserves
as of December 31, 2004. Swordfish, Baccarat and Rigel are
the results of Mariner-generated prospects. The Swordfish and
Pluto projects are operated by Mariner, and the Baccarat and
Rigel projects are operated by other working interest owners.
Currently approximately 7 MMcfe per day of production
remains shut-in awaiting repairs due to Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, primarily associated with the Baccarat property. While we
believe physical damage to our existing platforms and facilities
was relatively minor from both hurricanes, the effects of the
storms caused damage to onshore pipeline and processing
3
facilities that resulted in a portion of our production being
temporarily shut-in, or
in the case of our Swordfish project, postponed. In addition,
Hurricane Katrina caused damage to platforms that host three of
our development projects: Pluto, Rigel, and Mississippi
Canyon 66 (Ochre). Repairs to these facilities may take up
to six months, pushing commencement of production on these
projects into 2006.
In the past two years, we have increased our drilling activities
on the Gulf of Mexico shelf. As of September 30, 2005, we
held interests in 21 fields on the Gulf of Mexico shelf,
eight of which we operate. Gulf of Mexico shelf properties
comprise 15%, or 36 Bcfe, of our proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004. Our net production from these wells for
the nine months ended September 30, 2005 averaged
approximately 32 MMcfe per day (see Recent
Developments below for a discussion of the effects of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita). As of September 30, 2005, we
held interests in 59 Gulf of Mexico shelf blocks and had
approximately 81,000 net undeveloped acres under lease.
During 2004, we spent approximately $38.3 million to drill
nine exploratory wells, three of which were successful, and two
development wells, one of which was successful, on the Gulf of
Mexico shelf.
First production from our Ewing Bank 977 (Dice) project, a
subsea tieback, and High Island 46 (Green Pepper) commenced
in January 2005. First production from our two West Cameron
333 wells (Royal Flush) commenced during February 2005.
Recent Developments
Approximately 29 Mmcfe per day of natural gas and
approximately 3,000 bbls per day of oil and condensate net
to our interest were initially
shut-in as a result of
the effects of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. The majority of
this production was returned within two weeks of the hurricane,
and substantially all within three weeks of the hurricane.
Additionally, we are experiencing delays in startup of three of
our projects primarily as a result of Hurricane Katrina which is
anticipated to defer commencement of production to as late as
the second quarter of 2006. Approximately 60 MMcfe per day
of production net to our interest was shut-in initially as a
result of the effects of Hurricane Rita in late September 2005.
Approximately 53 MMcfe per day of production, or
approximately 90% of our pre-hurricane production, was restored
within two weeks of the hurricane. Our operated platforms appear
to have sustained minimal damage attributable to the storm.
First reports from operators of other facilities handling our
production indicated varying degrees of damage to their
facilities, the full extent of which may not be known for some
time. Although a submersible rig engaged in drilling operations
on our East Cameron Block 79 property was moved off
location by Hurricane Rita, a substitute rig was subsequently
provided, the damage to the well was repaired and drilling
recommenced in the last quarter of 2005. Other planned
operations also are delayed as a result of the effects of both
hurricanes. We cannot estimate a range of loss arising from the
hurricanes until we are able to more completely assess the
impacts on our properties and the properties of our operational
partners. Until we are able to complete all the repair work and
submit costs to our insurance underwriters for review, the full
extent of our insurance recovery and the resulting net cost to
us for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be unknown. For the
insurance period ending September 30, 2005, we carry a
$3.0 million annual deductible and a $.375 million
single occurrence deductible.
We entered into an agreement effective in October 2005 covering
approximately 33,000 acres in West Texas, pursuant to
which, upon closing, we acquired an approximate 35% working
interest in approximately 200 existing producing wells effective
November 1, 2005, and committed to drill an additional
150 wells within a four year period, funding
$36.5 million of our partners share of drilling costs
for such 150-well
drilling program. We will obtain an assignment of an approximate
35% working interest in the entire committed acreage upon
completion of the
150-well program.
4
The Offering
|
|
|
Common stock offered by selling stockholders |
|
33,348,130 shares. |
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares of
common stock by the selling stockholders. |
|
|
Listing |
|
Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York
Stock Exchange, subject to the completion of our proposed merger
with Forest Energy Resources, Inc. |
|
|
Common stock split |
|
Unless specifically indicated or the context requires otherwise,
the share and per share information of this offering gives
effect to a 21,556.61594 to 1 stock split, which was
effected on March 3, 2005. |
|
Dividend Policy |
|
We do not expect to pay dividends in the near future. |
Risk Factors
You should carefully consider all of the information contained
in this prospectus prior to investing in the common stock. In
particular, we urge you to carefully consider the information
under Risk Factors, beginning on page 24 of
this prospectus so that you understand the risks associated with
an investment in our company and the common stock. These risks
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and natural gas prices are volatile, and a decline in oil
and natural gas prices would affect significantly our financial
results and impede our growth. |
|
|
|
Reserve estimates depend on many assumptions that may turn out
to be inaccurate. Any material inaccuracies in these reserve
estimates or underlying assumptions will affect materially the
quantities and present value of our reserves. |
|
|
|
Unless we replace our oil and natural gas reserves, our reserves
and production will decline. |
|
|
|
Relatively short production periods or reserve life for Gulf of
Mexico properties subject us to higher reserve replacement needs
and may impair our ability to replace production during periods
of low oil and natural gas prices. |
Corporate Information
We were incorporated in August 1983 as a Delaware corporation.
We have three subsidiaries, Mariner LP LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Mariner Energy Texas LP, a Delaware limited
partnership, and MEI Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
On March 2, 2004, Mariner was acquired by MEI Acquisitions
Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of the private equity funds,
Carlyle/ Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund II, L.P.
and ACON Investments LLC, through a merger of Mariners
former indirect parent with MEI. Prior to the merger, we were
owned indirectly by Joint Energy Development Investments Limited
Partnership (JEDI), which was an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Enron Corp. As a result of the merger, we
are no longer affiliated with Enron Corp. See
Business Enron Related Matters.
In March 2005, we completed a private placement of
16,350,000 shares of our common stock to qualified
institutional buyers,
non-U.S. persons
and accredited investors. Our former sole stockholder, MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, also sold 15,102,500 shares of
our common stock in the private placement. We used the net
proceeds from the sale of 12,750,000 shares of our common
stock to purchase and retire an equal number of shares of our
common stock from our former sole stockholder. As a result,
after the private placement an affiliate of our former sole
stockholder beneficially owned 5.3% of our outstanding common
stock. See Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
and Management.
Our principal executive office is located at One Briar Lake
Plaza, Suite 2000, 2000 West Sam Houston Parkway
South, Houston, Texas 77042. Our telephone number is
(713) 954-5500.
5
Proposed Merger with Forest Energy Resources, Inc.
On September 9, 2005, we entered into a merger agreement
with Forest Oil Corporation (which we refer to as Forest),
Forest Energy Resources, Inc. (which we refer to as Forest
Energy Resources), and MEI Sub, Inc. The consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement is subject to
several conditions, including the adoption of the merger
agreement by our stockholders. Accordingly, we cannot assure you
that the merger and related transactions will ever be
consummated. Our annual stockholder meeting, at which Mariner
stockholders will vote to adopt the merger agreement, is
scheduled to occur on March 2, 2006.
The following provides a summary of the material terms of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.
Overview of the Proposed Transactions
Forest has transferred and contributed the assets and certain
liabilities associated with its offshore Gulf of Mexico
operations to Forest Energy Resources, a newly formed subsidiary
of Forest. Immediately prior to the merger, Forest will
distribute all of the outstanding shares of Forest Energy
Resources to Forest shareholders on a pro rata basis. Forest
Energy Resources will then merge with a newly formed subsidiary
of Mariner, and become a new wholly owned subsidiary of Mariner.
When the merger is complete, approximately 58% of the Mariner
common stock will be held by shareholders of Forest and
approximately 42% of Mariner common stock will be held by the
pre-merger stockholders of Mariner, each on a pro forma basis.
Following the merger, Mariner will:
|
|
|
|
|
be an independent public company; |
|
|
|
own both the Mariner operations and the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations; and |
|
|
|
have total assets of approximately $2.1 billion and total
debt of approximately $279.0 million on a pro forma
combined basis, assuming the spin-off and the merger occurred on
September 30, 2005. |
About Forest and Forest Energy Resources
Forest is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development and production of natural
gas and liquids in North America and selected international
locations. Forest was incorporated in New York in 1924, as the
successor to a company formed in 1916, and has been a publicly
held company since 1969. Forest operates from offices located in
Denver, Colorado; Lafayette and Metairie, Louisiana; Anchorage,
Alaska; and Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Forest Energy Resources is a wholly owned subsidiary of Forest.
Forest Energy Resources was formed in Delaware on
August 18, 2005 for the purpose of completing the spin-off
of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. As of December 31,
2004, the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations that have been
contributed to Forest Energy Resources had 339.7 Bcfe of
estimated proved reserves, of which approximately 79% were
natural gas and 21% were oil and condensate. As of
December 31, 2004, the PV10 of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations was approximately $1,222.2 million, and the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
attributable to its estimated proved reserves was approximately
$925.8 million. Please see The Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations Estimated Proved Reserves for a
reconciliation of PV10 to the standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows. As of December 31, 2004,
approximately 76% of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
estimated proved reserves were classified as proved developed.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations total net production was 81.1 Bcfe.
In the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations deployed approximately
$560 million of capital on acquisitions, exploration and
development while adding approximately 182 Bcfe of
estimated proved reserves and producing approximately
215 Bcfe.
6
Transaction Structure
The following diagrams and accompanying descriptions serve to
describe generally the transactions that will take place in
connection with the spin-off and merger. For more information,
please read The Spin-off and Merger.
|
|
1. |
Current Corporate Ownership Structure |
Forest Energy Resources is a wholly owned subsidiary of Forest.
MEI Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mariner.
|
|
2. |
The Contribution and Spin-Off |
Forest has contributed the assets and certain liabilities
associated with its Gulf of Mexico operations to Forest Energy
Resources. Forest will, immediately prior to the merger,
distribute all of the shares of Forest Energy Resources to its
shareholders on a pro rata basis.
MEI Sub will merge with and into Forest Energy Resources, with
Forest Energy Resources surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary
of Mariner. Forest Energy Resources will be renamed Mariner
Energy Resources, Inc. In conjunction with the merger, shares of
Forest Energy Resources stock will automatically be converted
into shares of Mariner stock.
7
|
|
4. |
Corporate Ownership Structure following the Spin-Off and
Merger |
At the conclusion of the merger, Forest shareholders will own
approximately 58% of Mariner and the stockholders of Mariner who
owned shares prior to the merger will own the remaining
approximately 42% of Mariner.
What Forest and Mariner Stockholders Will Receive
If the merger is completed, each Forest shareholder will
ultimately receive shares of Mariner common stock. As a result
of the spin-off, Forest shareholders will initially receive
shares of Forest Energy Resources, which will then be converted
in the merger into the right to receive shares of Mariner. After
the merger, Forest shareholders will be entitled to receive
approximately 0.8 shares of Mariner for each Forest share
that they own. Forest shareholders will not be required to pay
for the shares of Forest Energy Resources distributed in the
spin-off transaction or the shares of Mariner issued in the
merger.
Mariner stockholders will keep the shares of Mariner common
stock they currently own, but will not receive any additional
shares in the merger.
Proposal to Amend Mariners Certificate of
Incorporation
We are proposing to amend Mariners certificate of
incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of
stock from 90 million to 200 million, subject to
completion of the merger. Mariners certificate of
incorporation currently does not authorize a sufficient number
of shares of common stock to complete the merger. Mariner
currently is authorized to issue 70 million shares of
Mariner common stock and 20 million shares of Mariner
preferred stock. As of February 1, 2006, approximately
35.6 million shares of Mariner common stock were issued and
outstanding. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Mariner
must issue approximately 50.6 million shares (representing
approximately 0.8 shares of Mariner common stock for each
share of Forest common stock) of common stock in the merger,
which would result in approximately 86 million shares of
Mariner common stock outstanding. Therefore, the number of
authorized shares of Mariner common stock must be increased in
order to complete the merger.
Recommendation of Mariners Board of Directors
The Mariner board of directors has determined that the merger is
fair to and in the best interests of Mariner and its
stockholders, and that the merger agreement is advisable. The
Mariner board of directors has unanimously approved the merger
agreement and the other proposals and recommends that the
Mariner stockholders vote for the adoption of the
merger agreement and the other proposals. A more detailed
description of the background and reasons for the merger is set
forth under The Spin-Off and Merger beginning on
page 95.
8
When considering the recommendations of the Mariner board of
directors, you should be aware that the directors and executive
officers of Mariner have interests and arrangements that may be
different from your interests as stockholders, including:
|
|
|
|
|
arrangements regarding the appointment of directors and officers
of Mariner following the merger; and |
|
|
|
arrangements whereby the executive officers of Mariner will
receive a cash payment of $1,000 each in exchange for the waiver
of certain rights under their employment agreements, including
the automatic vesting or acceleration of restricted stock and
options upon the completion of the merger and the right to
receive a lump sum cash payment if the officer voluntarily
terminates employment without good reason within nine months
following the completion of the merger. |
At the close of business on February 1, 2006, directors and
executive officers of Mariner and their affiliates as a group
beneficially owned and were entitled to vote approximately
3.7 million shares of Mariner common stock (including
restricted stock subject to vesting), representing approximately
10.4% of the shares of Mariner common stock outstanding on that
date. All of the directors and executive officers of Mariner who
are entitled to vote at the annual meeting of stockholders have
indicated that they intend to vote their shares of Mariner
common stock in favor of adoption of the merger agreement.
In reaching its decision on the merger, the Mariner board of
directors considered a number of factors, including the
following among others:
|
|
|
|
|
the increased size of the combined company could reduce
volatility and allow it to participate in larger scale drilling
projects and acquisition opportunities; |
|
|
|
the merger would be expected to increase Mariners
estimated proved reserves and undeveloped acreage; |
|
|
|
the merger could generate increased visibility in the capital
markets and trading liquidity for the combined company; |
|
|
|
the merger would increase the number of Mariners producing
fields, thereby reducing Mariners dependence on a
concentrated number of properties; |
|
|
|
the merger would be consummated only if approved by the holders
of a majority of the Mariner common stock; and |
|
|
|
the merger is structured as a tax-free reorganization for
U.S. federal income tax purposes and, accordingly, would
not be taxable either to Mariner or its stockholders. |
The Mariner board of directors also identified and considered
some risks and potential disadvantages associated with the
merger, including, among others, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the risk that there may be difficulties in combining the
business of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations; |
|
|
|
the risk that the potential benefits sought in the merger might
not be fully realized; |
|
|
|
the risk that the proved undeveloped, probable and possible
reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations may never be
converted to proved developed reserves; and |
|
|
|
the fact that, in order to preserve the tax-free treatment of
the spin-off, Mariner would be required to abide by restrictions
that could reduce its ability to engage in certain business
transactions. |
In the judgment of the Mariner board of directors, the potential
benefits of the merger outweigh the risks and the potential
disadvantages.
9
Opinion of Mariners Financial Advisor
Lehman Brothers Inc., Mariners financial advisor, has
delivered to Mariners board of directors a written opinion
that, as of September 9, 2005, based upon and subject to
the factors and assumptions set forth in the opinion, the
exchange ratio in the merger was fair from a financial point of
view to Mariner.
Directors and Officers of Mariner Following the Merger
If the merger is completed, Mariners board will consist of
seven members, five of whom will be the current directors of
Mariner, and two of whom will be mutually agreed between Mariner
and Forest prior to the completion of the merger. The Chairman
of the Mariner board will be Mr. Scott D. Josey, the
current Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
Mariner. The two Mariner directors to be mutually agreed by
Forest and Mariner pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement
have not yet been designated.
The current executive officers of Mariner will remain in their
current positions following the merger.
Material United States Federal Tax Consequences of the
Merger
It is a condition to the completion of the merger that Forest,
Forest Energy Resources and Mariner receive opinions from their
respective tax counsels to the effect that the merger will
constitute a tax-free reorganization for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. As a tax-free reorganization for
U.S. federal income tax purposes, the merger will be
tax-free to the stockholders of Mariner and tax-free to the
shareholders of Forest, except for cash received in lieu of
fractional shares of Mariner for shares of Forest Energy
Resources.
We encourage you to consult your own tax advisor for a full
understanding of the tax consequences of the merger to you.
Conditions to the Completion of the Merger
The merger will be completed only if certain conditions,
including the following, are satisfied (or waived in certain
cases):
|
|
|
|
|
the adoption of the merger agreement by Mariner stockholders
holding a majority of the Mariner common stock and the approval
of the proposed amendment to Mariners certificate of
incorporation; |
|
|
|
the absence of legal restrictions that would prevent the
completion of the transactions; |
|
|
|
the receipt by Forest, Mariner and Forest Energy Resources of an
opinion from their respective counsel to the effect that the
merger will be treated as a reorganization for federal income
tax purposes; |
|
|
|
the completion of the spin-off in accordance with the
distribution agreement; |
|
|
|
the receipt of material consents, approvals and authorizations
of governmental authorities; |
|
|
|
the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; |
|
|
|
the SEC declaring effective the registration statements of
Mariner relating to the shares of Mariner common stock to be
issued in the merger and those shares held by its existing
stockholders; |
|
|
|
the representations and warranties contained in the merger
agreement being materially true and correct, and the performance
in all material respects by the parties of their covenants and
other agreements in the merger agreement; |
|
|
|
the approval for listing on the New York Stock Exchange or
Nasdaq of Mariners common stock; and |
10
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner and Forest receiving the consents required pursuant to
their credit facilities (with Mariner or Forest Energy Resources
having entered into a new or amended credit facility sufficient
to operate the combined businesses), and Forest receiving any
consents required from its bondholders. |
On November 14, 2005, the waiting period under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act with respect to the merger expired. On
October 19, 2005, Forest received the consent required
pursuant to its credit facility. On February 7, 2006,
Mariners common stock was approved for listing on the New
York Stock Exchange upon the completion of the merger. As of
February 7, 2006, no other conditions to closing have been
satisfied. Mariner is currently negotiating the definitive
documents for its new credit facility, which documents also will
grant the consent required pursuant to its existing facility.
Mariner and Forest are actively working to obtain necessary
consents, approvals and authorizations from governmental
authorities, including the Minerals Management Service.
Based on its current valuation of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and the current amount of distributions permitted by
the covenants contained in the indentures governing
Forests outstanding bonds, Forest believes that no
consents of its bondholders will be required for the spin-off
and the merger. If Forests belief that bondholder consents
are not necessary remains unchanged as the merger closing
approaches, it intends to waive conditions in the merger
agreement and distribution agreement related to such consents.
Neither Mariner nor Forest currently believes that any other
condition to closing is likely to be waived.
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the closing of
the merger will occur as promptly as practicable, and in no
event later than the second business day following the
satisfaction or, if permissible, waiver of the conditions to
closing set forth in the merger agreement, or at such other time
as Mariner and Forest Energy Resources mutually agree. Unless
Mariner consents otherwise, the closing will not occur earlier
than the fifth business day following the record date for the
spin-off.
Termination of the Merger Agreement
Forest and Mariner may mutually agree to terminate the merger
agreement without completing the merger. In addition, either
party may terminate the merger agreement if:
|
|
|
|
|
the other party breaches its representations, warranties,
covenants or agreements under the merger agreement so as to
create a material adverse effect, and the breach has not been
cured within 30 days after notice was given of such breach; |
|
|
|
the parties do not complete the merger by March 31, 2006; |
|
|
|
a governmental order prohibits the merger; or |
|
|
|
Mariner does not receive the required approval of its
stockholders. |
In addition, Mariner may terminate the merger agreement if it
receives a proposal to acquire Mariner that Mariners board
of directors determines in good faith to be more favorable to
Mariners stockholders than the merger. Forest may
terminate the merger agreement if Mariners board of
directors withdraws or modifies its approval of the merger to
Mariners stockholders.
Termination Fee and Expenses
Mariner must pay Forest a termination fee of $25 million
and out-of-pocket fees
and expenses of up to $5 million if Mariner terminates the
merger agreement to accept an alternative proposal that
Mariners board of directors determines in good faith to be
more favorable to Mariners stockholders than the merger.
In addition, Mariner must pay Forest a termination fee of
$25 million and reimbursement of
11
out-of-pocket fees and
expenses of up to $5 million if the merger agreement is
terminated for the other reasons set forth under The
Merger Agreement Termination Fees and Expenses on
page 130.
Financing Arrangements Relating to the Spin-Off and the
Merger
At the closing of the merger Mariner and Mariner Energy
Resources expect to enter into a new $500 million senior
secured revolving credit facility, and Mariner will enter into
an additional $40 million senior secured letter of credit
facility. The revolving credit facility will mature on the
fourth anniversary of the closing, and the letter of credit
facility will mature on the third anniversary of the closing.
The outstanding principal balance of loans under the revolving
credit facility may not exceed the borrowing base, which will be
initially set at $400 million. In addition, Forest Energy
Resources expects to enter into a new senior term loan facility
in connection with the spin-off, which facility is expected to
be repaid with borrowings under Mariners and Mariner
Energy Resources $500 million revolving credit
facility.
Ancillary Agreements
In addition to the merger agreement and the distribution
agreement, Forest, Forest Energy Resources and Mariner have
entered into a tax sharing agreement relating to the allocation
of certain tax liabilities. See Ancillary Agreements
Tax Sharing Agreement beginning on page 135. In
addition, Forest and Forest Energy Resources have entered into
an employee benefits agreement addressing certain benefits
matters for former Forest employees who become employees of
Forest Energy Resources in connection with the spin-off and the
merger. See Ancillary Agreements Employee Benefits
Agreement beginning on page 136. Finally, Forest and
Forest Energy Resources have entered into a transition services
agreement under which Forest will provide certain services to
Forest Energy Resources for a limited period of time following
the merger. See Ancillary Agreements Transition
Services Agreement beginning on page 137.
Regulatory Matters
None of the parties is aware of any other material governmental
or regulatory approval required for the completion of the
merger, other than the effectiveness of the registration
statement of which this prospectus is a part and the
effectiveness of Mariners registration statement on
Form S-4 relating
to the shares of Mariner common stock to be issued to Forest
shareholders in the merger, and compliance with applicable
antitrust law (including the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended) and the
corporate law of the State of Delaware. On November 14,
2005, the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act with
respect to the merger expired.
Mariner Stockholder Vote
Our annual stockholder meeting, at which Mariner stockholders
will vote to adopt the merger agreement, is scheduled to occur
on Thursday, March 2, 2006. For the merger to occur, the
holders of a majority of the outstanding Mariner common stock
must adopt the merger agreement and approve the amendment to the
certificate of incorporation. Mariner stockholders will have one
vote for each share of Mariner common stock they own. On
February 1, 2006, the record date for Mariners annual
meeting, 35,615,400 shares of Mariner common stock were
issued and outstanding and entitled to vote at the meeting. The
approval of Forest shareholders is not required for the spin-off
or the merger.
Closing of the Transactions
If the merger agreement and the proposed amendment to the
certificate of incorporation are adopted and approved by the
stockholders of Mariner, then Mariner, Forest, Forest Energy
Resources and MEI Sub expect to complete the spin-off and the
merger as soon as possible after the satisfaction (or waiver,
where permissible) of the other conditions to the spin-off and
the merger. We currently anticipate that the merger will be
completed during the first calendar quarter of 2006.
12
SUMMARY SELECTED HISTORICAL AND PRO FORMA FINANCIAL DATA
Sources of Information
The following is summary selected consolidated financial data of
Mariner and selected consolidated financial data of the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations. We derived this information from the
audited and unaudited financial statements for Mariner and from
the audited and unaudited statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations for
the periods presented. You should read this information in
conjunction with the financial information included elsewhere in
this prospectus. See Index to Financial Statements
on page F-1 and
Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed Financial
Information beginning on page 44.
How We Prepared the Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed
Financial Information
The unaudited pro forma combined condensed financial information
is presented to show you how Mariner might have looked if the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations had been an independent company
and combined with Mariner for the periods presented. We prepared
the pro forma financial information using the purchase method of
accounting, with Mariner treated as the acquiror. See The
Spin-Off and Merger Accounting Treatment beginning
on page 117.
If the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations had been an independent
company, and if Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
had been combined in the past, they might have performed
differently. You should not rely on the pro forma financial
information as an indication of the financial position or
results of operations that Mariner would have reported if the
spin-off and merger had taken place earlier or of the future
results that Mariner will achieve after the merger. See
Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed Financial
Information beginning on page 44.
13
Summary Historical Consolidated Financial Data of Mariner
The following table shows Mariners summary historical
consolidated financial data as of and for each of the four years
ended December 31, 2003, the period from January 1,
2004 through March 2, 2004, the period from March 3,
2004 through December 31, 2004, the period from
March 3, 2004 through September 30, 2004 and the
nine-month period ended September 30, 2005. The summary
historical consolidated financial data as of and for the four
years ended December 31, 2003, the period from
January 1, 2004 through March 2, 2004 and the period
from March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004 are
derived from Mariners audited financial statements
included herein, and the summary historical consolidated
financial data for the period from March 3, 2004 through
September 30, 2004 and the nine-month period ended
September 30, 2005 are derived from unaudited financial
statements of Mariner. You should read the following data in
connection with Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and the
consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus, where there is additional disclosure regarding the
information in the following table, including pro forma
information regarding the merger. Mariners historical
results are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected
in future periods.
On March 2, 2004, Mariners former indirect parent,
Mariner Energy LLC, merged with MEI Acquisitions, LLC, an
affiliate of the private equity funds, Carlyle/ Riverstone
Global Energy and Power Fund II, L.P. and ACON Investments
LLC. The financial information contained herein is presented in
the style of Pre-2004 Merger activity (for all periods prior to
March 2, 2004) and Post-2004 Merger activity (for the
March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004 period and the
March 3, 2004 through September 30, 2004 period) to
reflect the impact of the restatement of assets and liabilities
to fair value as required by push-down purchase
accounting at the March 2, 2004 merger date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
March 3, | |
|
|
January 1, | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
2004 through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions, except per share data) | |
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues(1)
|
|
$ |
151.2 |
|
|
$ |
122.5 |
|
|
$ |
174.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
39.8 |
|
|
$ |
142.5 |
|
|
$ |
158.2 |
|
|
$ |
155.0 |
|
|
$ |
121.1 |
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
20.2 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
21.4 |
|
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
24.7 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
20.1 |
|
|
|
17.2 |
|
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
10.5 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
43.4 |
|
|
|
37.4 |
|
|
|
54.3 |
|
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
48.3 |
|
|
|
70.8 |
|
|
|
63.5 |
|
|
|
56.8 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of Enron related receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
29.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
26.7 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
58.7 |
|
|
|
59.1 |
|
|
|
88.2 |
|
|
|
|
22.9 |
|
|
|
51.9 |
|
|
|
39.9 |
|
|
|
20.6 |
|
|
|
32.8 |
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(5.4 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
|
(10.3 |
) |
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
(11.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
54.0 |
|
|
|
54.9 |
|
|
|
82.4 |
|
|
|
|
23.0 |
|
|
|
45.7 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(18.4 |
) |
|
|
(19.2 |
) |
|
|
(28.8 |
) |
|
|
|
(8.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method
net of tax effects
|
|
|
35.6 |
|
|
|
35.7 |
|
|
|
53.6 |
|
|
|
|
14.9 |
|
|
|
36.3 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
|
Income before cumulative effect per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.22 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.22 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
35.6 |
|
|
$ |
35.7 |
|
|
$ |
53.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.9 |
|
|
$ |
38.2 |
|
|
$ |
30.0 |
|
|
$ |
12.4 |
|
|
$ |
21.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.29 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.29 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
Capital Expenditure and Disposal Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration, including leasehold/seismic
|
|
$ |
23.6 |
|
|
$ |
35.7 |
|
|
$ |
40.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
7.5 |
|
|
$ |
31.6 |
|
|
$ |
40.4 |
|
|
$ |
66.3 |
|
|
$ |
46.7 |
|
|
Development and other
|
|
|
106.8 |
|
|
|
50.2 |
|
|
|
93.2 |
|
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
|
65.7 |
|
|
|
98.2 |
|
|
|
61.4 |
|
|
Proceeds from property conveyances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121.6 |
) |
|
|
(52.3 |
) |
|
|
(90.5 |
) |
|
|
(29.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures net of proceeds from property
conveyances
|
|
$ |
130.4 |
|
|
$ |
85.9 |
|
|
$ |
133.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
15.3 |
|
|
$ |
(38.3 |
) |
|
$ |
53.8 |
|
|
$ |
74.0 |
|
|
$ |
79.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes effects of hedging.
14
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Balance Sheet Data:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net, full cost method
|
|
$ |
393.3 |
|
|
$ |
303.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
207.9 |
|
|
$ |
287.6 |
|
|
$ |
290.6 |
|
|
$ |
287.8 |
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
502.2 |
|
|
|
376.0 |
|
|
|
|
312.1 |
|
|
|
360.2 |
|
|
|
363.9 |
|
|
|
335.4 |
|
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
|
79.0 |
|
|
|
115.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99.8 |
|
|
|
99.8 |
|
|
|
129.7 |
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
178.6 |
|
|
|
133.9 |
|
|
|
|
218.2 |
|
|
|
170.1 |
|
|
|
180.1 |
|
|
|
141.9 |
|
|
Working capital (deficit)(2)
|
|
|
(30.2 |
) |
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
|
|
|
38.3 |
|
|
|
(24.4 |
) |
|
|
(19.6 |
) |
|
|
(15.4 |
) |
|
|
(1) |
Balance sheet data as of December 31, 2004 reflects
purchase accounting adjustments to oil and gas properties, total
assets and stockholders equity resulting from the
acquisition of our former indirect parent on March 2, 2004. |
|
(2) |
Working capital (deficit) excludes current derivative assets and
liabilities, deferred tax assets and restricted cash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
March 3, | |
|
|
January 1, | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
2004 through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA(1)
|
|
$ |
102.7 |
|
|
$ |
97.5 |
|
|
$ |
143.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
$ |
100.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.9 |
|
|
$ |
113.6 |
|
|
$ |
89.6 |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
135.4 |
|
|
|
96.8 |
|
|
|
135.9 |
|
|
|
|
20.3 |
|
|
|
103.5 |
|
|
|
60.3 |
|
|
|
113.5 |
|
|
|
63.9 |
|
Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
(142.1 |
) |
|
|
(85.9 |
) |
|
|
(133.6 |
) |
|
|
|
(15.3 |
) |
|
|
38.3 |
|
|
|
(53.8 |
) |
|
|
(74.0 |
) |
|
|
(79.1 |
) |
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
(74.9 |
) |
|
|
64.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30.0 |
) |
|
|
17.4 |
|
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA(1)
|
|
$ |
102.7 |
|
|
$ |
97.5 |
|
|
$ |
143.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
$ |
100.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.9 |
|
|
$ |
113.6 |
|
|
$ |
89.6 |
|
Changes in working capital
|
|
|
25.1 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
|
(13.2 |
) |
|
|
21.8 |
|
|
|
(20.4 |
) |
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
(15.5 |
) |
Non-cash hedge gain(2)
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
|
|
(7.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
(23.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization/other
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest expense
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(5.8 |
) |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(9.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
(10.9 |
) |
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
135.4 |
|
|
$ |
96.8 |
|
|
$ |
135.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
20.3 |
|
|
$ |
103.5 |
|
|
$ |
60.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.5 |
|
|
$ |
63.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
EBITDA means earnings before interest, income taxes,
depreciation, depletion and amortization. For the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, EBITDA includes
$17.6 million in non-cash stock compensation expense
related to restricted stock and stock options granted in 2005.
We believe that EBITDA is a widely accepted financial indicator
that provides additional information about our ability to meet
our future requirements for debt service, capital expenditures
and working capital, but EBITDA should not be considered in
isolation or as a substitute for net income, operating income,
net cash provided by operating activities or any other measure
of financial performance presented in |
15
|
|
|
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or as a
measure of a companys profitability or liquidity. |
|
(2) |
In accordance with SFAS No. 133 Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended
by SFAS No. 137 and No. 138, we de-designated our
contracts effective December 2, 2001 after the counterparty
(an affiliate of Enron Corp.) filed for bankruptcy and
recognized all market value changes subsequent to such
de-designation in our earnings. The value recorded up to the
time of de-designation and included in Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income (AOCI), has reversed out of
AOCI and into earnings as the original corresponding production,
as hedged by the contracts, is produced. We have designated
subsequent hedge contracts as cash flow hedges with gains and
losses resulting from the transactions recorded at market value
in AOCI, as appropriate, until recognized as operating income in
our Statement of Operations as the physical production hedged by
the contracts is delivered. |
16
Summary Selected Consolidated Statements of Revenues and
Direct Operating Expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations
The summary selected financial data for the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 and 2004 and the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002 were derived from the historical records of Forest. You
should read the following data in connection with
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations and the consolidated statements of revenues and
direct operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations included elsewhere in this prospectus. Complete
financial and operating information related to the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations, including balance sheet and cash flow
information, are not presented below because the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations were not maintained as a separate business
unit, and therefore the assets, liabilities or indirect
operating costs applicable to the operations were not segregated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions, except production data) | |
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and natural gas revenues(1)
|
|
$ |
326.7 |
|
|
$ |
324.4 |
|
|
$ |
453.1 |
|
|
$ |
342.0 |
|
|
$ |
228.9 |
|
|
Direct Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
57.4 |
|
|
|
63.0 |
|
|
|
80.1 |
|
|
|
45.7 |
|
|
|
52.1 |
|
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
Production taxes
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total direct operating expenses
|
|
|
61.8 |
|
|
|
65.6 |
|
|
|
83.8 |
|
|
|
49.9 |
|
|
|
56.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues in excess of direct operating expenses
|
|
$ |
264.9 |
|
|
$ |
258.8 |
|
|
$ |
369.3 |
|
|
$ |
292.1 |
|
|
$ |
172.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
41,442 |
|
|
|
46,036 |
|
|
|
61,684 |
|
|
|
58,785 |
|
|
|
50,566 |
|
|
Oil and condensate (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,845 |
|
|
|
2,004 |
|
|
|
2,624 |
|
|
|
2,143 |
|
|
|
1,974 |
|
|
Natural gas liquids (MBbls)
|
|
|
628 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
56,280 |
|
|
|
59,176 |
|
|
|
81,064 |
|
|
|
71,655 |
|
|
|
62,446 |
|
|
Per day (MMcfe)
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
Average realized sales price per unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
7.14 |
|
|
$ |
6.02 |
|
|
$ |
6.30 |
|
|
$ |
5.41 |
|
|
$ |
3.39 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(1.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.45 |
) |
|
|
(0.56 |
) |
|
|
(0.63 |
) |
|
|
0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
|
6.01 |
|
|
|
5.57 |
|
|
|
5.74 |
|
|
|
4.78 |
|
|
|
3.56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions, except production data) | |
|
Oil ($/bbl):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
51.97 |
|
|
$ |
38.13 |
|
|
$ |
40.06 |
|
|
$ |
30.19 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(19.95 |
) |
|
|
(6.61 |
) |
|
|
(8.55 |
) |
|
|
(1.90 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
|
32.02 |
|
|
|
31.52 |
|
|
|
31.51 |
|
|
|
28.29 |
|
|
|
24.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas liquids ($/bbl):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
29.54 |
|
|
$ |
25.40 |
|
|
$ |
27.28 |
|
|
$ |
19.00 |
|
|
$ |
12.33 |
|
Average realized sales price per Mcfe (including effects of
hedging) ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
5.81 |
|
|
$ |
5.48 |
|
|
$ |
5.59 |
|
|
$ |
4.77 |
|
|
$ |
3.67 |
|
|
Production costs per Mcfe:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
|
1.06 |
|
|
|
0.99 |
|
|
|
0.64 |
|
|
|
0.83 |
|
|
Transportation
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
Production taxes
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes effects of hedging. |
18
Summary Selected Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed
Financial Information
The following summary selected unaudited pro forma combined
condensed financial information has been prepared to reflect the
proposed merger. This unaudited pro forma combined condensed
financial information is based on the historical financial
statements of Mariner and the historical statements of revenues
and direct operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, all of which are included in this prospectus, and
the estimates and assumptions set forth in the Notes to the
Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed Financial Information
beginning on page 44. The unaudited pro forma combined
condensed operating results give effect to the merger as if it
had occurred on January 1, 2004. The unaudited pro forma
combined condensed balance sheet gives effect to the merger as
if it had occurred on September 30, 2005.
The unaudited pro forma combined condensed financial information
is for illustrative purposes only. The financial results may
have been different had the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
been an independent company and had the companies always been
combined. You should not rely on the unaudited pro forma
combined condensed financial information as being indicative of
the historical results that would have been achieved had the
merger occurred in the past or the future financial results that
Mariner will achieve after the merger.
The merger will be accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting, with Mariner treated as the acquiror. In addition,
the purchase price allocation is preliminary and will be
finalized following the closing of the merger. The final
purchase price allocation will be determined after closing based
on the actual fair value of current assets, current liabilities,
indebtedness, long-term liabilities, proven and unproven oil and
gas properties, identifiable intangible assets and unvested
stock options that are outstanding at closing. We are continuing
to evaluate all of these items; accordingly, the final purchase
price may differ in material respects from that presented in the
unaudited pro forma combined condensed balance sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of and for the | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
For the Year Ended | |
|
|
September 30, 2005 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except per share | |
|
|
and proved reserve data) | |
OPERATING RESULTS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
477,967 |
|
|
$ |
667,326 |
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
71,221 |
|
|
$ |
106,298 |
|
Earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
0.86 |
|
|
$ |
1.32 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
$ |
1.32 |
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
83,075 |
|
|
|
80,385 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
83,950 |
|
|
|
80,385 |
|
BALANCE SHEET DATA:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
2,118,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
$ |
279,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
1,152,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of June 30, | |
|
As of December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ESTIMATED PROVED RESERVES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (MBbls)*
|
|
|
29,261 |
|
|
|
25,905 |
|
|
Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
423,352 |
|
|
|
421,741 |
|
|
Equivalent (MMcfe)
|
|
|
598,918 |
|
|
|
577,173 |
|
|
Proved developed percentage
|
|
|
63.9 |
% |
|
|
63.7 |
% |
|
|
* |
Includes 3,285.6 MBbls of natural gas liquids. |
19
Comparative Per Share Data
The following table presents historical per share data of
Mariner common stock and combined per share data of Mariner and
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations on an unaudited pro forma
basis after giving effect to the spin-off and the merger. The
merger will be accounted for using the purchase method of
accounting, with Mariner treated as the acquiror. The combined
pro forma per share data was derived from the Unaudited Pro
Forma Combined Condensed Financial Information as presented
beginning on page 44. The assumptions related to the
preparation of the Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed
Financial Information are described beginning at page 44.
The data presented below should be read in conjunction with the
historical consolidated financial statements of Mariner and the
historical statements of revenues and direct operating expenses
of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations included elsewhere in
this prospectus.
The Mariner unaudited pro forma equivalent data was calculated
with reference to the total number of shares of Mariner common
stock expected to be outstanding after the merger, including the
shares to be issued to Forest shareholders and the
currently-outstanding shares of Mariner common stock.
The pro forma combined per share data may not be indicative of
the operating results or financial position that would have
occurred if the merger had been consummated at the beginning of
the periods indicated, and may not be indicative of future
operating results or financial position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Combined | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Earnings per share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended September 30, 2005(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2004(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
2.30 |
|
|
$ |
1.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
2.30 |
|
|
$ |
1.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Book Value per shareAs of September 30, 2005(3)
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
$ |
13.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends declared per common share
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Mariners historical basic and diluted earnings per share
calculation for the nine months ended September 30, 2005
assumes Mariner had 32,438,240 and 33,312,831 weighted
average shares of common stock outstanding, respectively.
Mariners pro forma basic and diluted earnings per share
calculation for the nine months ended September 30, 2005
assumes Mariner had 83,075,250 and 83,949,841 weighted average
shares of common stock outstanding, respectively. |
|
(2) |
Mariners historical basic and diluted earnings per share
calculation for the year ended December 31, 2004 assumes
Mariner had 29,748,130 and 29,748,130 weighted average shares of
common stock outstanding, respectively. Mariners pro forma
basic and diluted earnings per share calculation for the year
ended December 31, 2004 assumes Mariner had 80,385,140 and
80,385,140 weighted average shares of common stock outstanding,
respectively. |
|
(3) |
Book value per share calculation assumes that Mariner had
35,615,400 shares of common stock outstanding and
86,252,410 combined pro forma shares of common stock outstanding
as of September 30, 2005. |
20
Summary Financial and Operational Data for the Year Ended
December 31, 2005
Set forth below is summary financial and operational data for
the year ended December 31, 2005 for Mariner and for the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. This information represents
the estimates of Mariners and Forests respective
management teams as of the date of this prospectus, but you
should be aware that this information has not been audited by
Mariners and Forests independent auditors. Neither
Mariners nor Forests independent auditors, nor any
other independent accountants, have compiled, examined or
performed any procedures with respect to the information set
forth below, nor have they expressed any opinion or any other
form of assurance on such information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
| |
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues(1)
|
|
$ |
199.7 |
|
|
Direct operating expenses
|
|
|
32.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues in excess of direct operating expenses
|
|
$ |
167.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Summary Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
18,354 |
|
|
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,791 |
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
29,098 |
|
|
Per day (MMcfe)
|
|
|
80 |
|
Average realized sales price per unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
8.33 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(1.67 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
$ |
6.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil ($/bbl):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
51.66 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(10.43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
$ |
41.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized sales price per Mcfe (including effects of
hedging) ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
6.74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Proved Reserves as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
21,647 |
|
|
Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
207,686 |
|
|
Equivalent (MMcfe)
|
|
|
337,568 |
|
Estimated Daily Production Rate as of December 31, 2005:
75 MMcfe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes effects of hedging. |
21
|
|
|
For the Forest Gulf of Mexico Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
| |
Summary Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
49,120 |
|
|
Oil and condensate (MBbls)
|
|
|
2,070 |
|
|
Natural gas liquids (MBbls)
|
|
|
713 |
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
65,818 |
|
|
Per day (MMcfe)
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
Estimated Proved Reserves as of December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and condensate (MBbls)
|
|
|
9,271 |
|
|
Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
231,142 |
|
|
Natural gas liquids (MBbls)
|
|
|
3,223 |
|
|
Equivalent (MMcfe)
|
|
|
306,105 |
|
|
Estimated Daily Production Rate as of December 31, 2005:
130 MMcfe
|
|
|
|
|
22
Comparative Stock Price and Dividends
In March 2005, Mariner completed a private placement of
16,350,000 shares of its common stock to qualified
institutional buyers,
non-U.S. persons
and accredited investors. There is no established public trading
market for the shares of Mariner common stock, and it is not
expected that a public trading market will be established until
the completion of the merger. The shares of Mariners
common stock issued to qualified institutional buyers in
connection with its March 2005 private equity placement are
eligible for the PORTAL
Market®.
Forest Energy Resources was incorporated as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Forest in August 2005. There is no established
public trading market for the shares of Forest Energy Resources
common stock.
Mariner has not paid any cash dividends on its shares of common
stock for the fiscal years 2003, 2004 or 2005, and it
anticipates that it will not pay any dividends in 2006. Forest
Energy Resources has not paid any cash dividends on its shares
of common stock for the fiscal year 2005, and it anticipates
that it will not pay any dividends in 2006. The payment of any
dividends by Mariner prior to the merger is subject to the
limitations included in the merger agreement and in its credit
facility, and following the merger the payment of dividends by
Mariner and Forest Energy Resources will be subject to
restrictions included in their credit facilities.
23
RISK FACTORS
You should consider carefully the following risk factors,
which we believe include all material risks associated with our
business, the merger, and the offering of our common stock,
together with all of the other information included in this
prospectus, before deciding to invest in our common stock.
Realization of any of the following risks could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows
and results of operations. In that case, the trading price of
our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of
your investment.
Risks Related to our Business and to the Combined Operations
After the Merger
|
|
|
Oil and natural gas prices are volatile, and a decline in
oil and natural gas prices would reduce our revenues,
profitability and cash flow and impede our growth. |
Our revenues, profitability and cash flow depend substantially
upon the prices and demand for oil and natural gas. The markets
for these commodities are volatile and even relatively modest
drops in prices can affect significantly our financial results
and impede our growth. Oil and natural gas prices are currently
at or near historical highs and may fluctuate and decline
significantly in the near future. Prices for oil and natural gas
fluctuate in response to relatively minor changes in the supply
and demand for oil and natural gas, market uncertainty and a
variety of additional factors beyond our control, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
domestic and foreign supply of oil and natural gas; |
|
|
|
price and quantity of foreign imports; |
|
|
|
actions of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and
other state-controlled oil companies relating to oil price and
production controls; |
|
|
|
level of consumer product demand; |
|
|
|
domestic and foreign governmental regulations; |
|
|
|
political conditions in or affecting other oil-producing and
natural gas-producing countries, including the current conflicts
in the Middle East and conditions in South America and Russia; |
|
|
|
weather conditions; |
|
|
|
technological advances affecting oil and natural gas consumption; |
|
|
|
overall U.S. and global economic conditions; and |
|
|
|
price and availability of alternative fuels. |
Further, oil prices and natural gas prices do not necessarily
fluctuate in direct relationship to each other. Because
approximately 64% of our estimated proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004 (73% on a pro forma basis, including
reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations) were natural
gas reserves, our financial results are more sensitive to
movements in natural gas prices. Lower oil and natural gas
prices may not only decrease our revenues on a per unit basis
but also may reduce the amount of oil and natural gas that we
can produce economically. This may result in our having to make
substantial downward adjustments to our estimated proved
reserves and could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition and results of operations.
|
|
|
Reserve estimates depend on many assumptions that may turn
out to be inaccurate. Any material inaccuracies in these reserve
estimates or underlying assumptions will affect materially the
quantities and present value of our reserves and the reserves of
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, which may lower our bank
borrowing base and reduce our access to capital. |
Estimating oil and natural gas reserves is complex and
inherently imprecise. It requires interpretation of the
available technical data and making many assumptions about
future conditions, including price and other economic
conditions. In preparing estimates we and Forest project
production rates and timing of development expenditures. We and
Forest also analyze the available geological, geophysical,
production
24
and engineering data. The extent, quality and reliability of
this data can vary. This process also requires economic
assumptions about matters such as oil and natural gas prices,
drilling and operating expenses, capital expenditures, taxes and
availability of funds. Actual future production, oil and natural
gas prices, revenues, taxes, development expenditures, operating
expenses and quantities of recoverable oil and natural gas
reserves most likely will vary from our and Forests
estimates, perhaps significantly. In addition, we may adjust
estimates of proved reserves to reflect production history,
results of exploration and development, prevailing oil and
natural gas prices and other factors, many of which are beyond
our control. At December 31, 2004, 54% of our proved
reserves (36% on a pro forma basis, including reserves of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations) were proved undeveloped.
If the interpretations or assumptions we use in arriving at our
estimates prove to be inaccurate, the amount of oil and natural
gas that we ultimately recover may differ materially from the
estimated quantities and net present value of reserves shown in
this prospectus. See BusinessEstimated Proved
Reserves for information about our oil and gas reserves
and The Forest Gulf of Mexico OperationsEstimated
Proved Reserves for more information about the oil and gas
reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
|
|
|
In estimating future net revenues from proved reserves, we
and Forest assume that future prices and costs are fixed and
apply a fixed discount factor. If these assumptions or discount
factor are materially inaccurate, our revenues, profitability
and cash flow could be materially less than our
estimates. |
The present value of future net revenues from our proved
reserves and the proved reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations referred to in this prospectus is not necessarily the
actual current market value of our estimated oil and natural gas
reserves. In accordance with SEC requirements, we and Forest
base the estimated discounted future net cash flows from our
proved reserves and the proved reserves of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations on fixed prices and costs as of the date of
the estimate. Actual future prices and costs fluctuate over time
and may differ materially from those used in the present value
estimate. In addition, discounted future net cash flows are
estimated assuming that royalties to the MMS with respect to our
affected offshore Gulf of Mexico properties will be paid or
suspended for the life of the properties based upon oil and
natural gas prices as of the date of the estimate. See
BusinessRoyalty Relief. Since actual future
prices fluctuate over time, royalties may be required to be paid
for various portions of the life of the properties and suspended
for other portions of the life of the properties.
The timing of both the production and expenses from the
development and production of oil and natural gas properties
will affect both the timing of actual future net cash flows from
our proved reserves and the proved reserves of the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations and their present value. In addition, the
10% discount factor that we and Forest use to calculate the net
present value of future net cash flows for reporting purposes in
accordance with the SECs rules may not necessarily be the
most appropriate discount factor. The effective interest rate at
various times and the risks associated with our business or the
oil and gas industry in general will affect the appropriateness
of the 10% discount factor in arriving at an accurate net
present value of future net cash flows.
|
|
|
Unless we replace our oil and natural gas reserves, our
reserves and production will decline. |
Our future oil and natural gas production depends on our success
in finding or acquiring additional reserves. If we fail to
replace reserves through drilling or acquisitions, our level of
production and cash flows will be affected adversely. In
general, production from oil and natural gas properties declines
as reserves are depleted, with the rate of decline depending on
reservoir characteristics. Our total proved reserves decline as
reserves are produced unless we conduct other successful
exploration and development activities or acquire properties
containing proved reserves, or both. Our ability to make the
necessary capital investment to maintain or expand our asset
base of oil and natural gas reserves would be impaired to the
extent cash flow from operations is reduced and external sources
of capital become limited or unavailable. We may not be
successful in exploring for, developing or acquiring additional
reserves.
25
|
|
|
Relatively short production periods or reserve life for
Gulf of Mexico properties subjects us to higher reserve
replacement needs and may impair our ability to replace
production during periods of low oil and natural gas
prices. |
Due to high production rates, production of reserves from
reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico generally declines more rapidly
than from reservoirs in other producing regions. As a result,
our reserve replacement needs from new prospects may be greater
than those of other oil and gas companies. If the merger is
consummated, the proportion of short-lived Gulf of Mexico
properties relative to our total properties will increase
substantially. Also, our revenues and return on capital will
depend significantly on prices prevailing during these
relatively short production periods. Our ability to slow or shut
in production from producing wells during periods of low prices
for oil and natural gas may be limited by reservoir
characteristics or by our need to generate revenues to fund
ongoing capital commitments or repay debt.
|
|
|
Any production problems related to our Gulf of Mexico
properties could reduce our revenue, profitability and cash flow
materially. |
A substantial portion of our exploration and production
activities are located in the Gulf of Mexico. This concentration
of activity makes us more vulnerable than some other industry
participants to the risks associated with the Gulf of Mexico,
including delays and increased costs relating to adverse weather
conditions such as hurricanes, which are common in the Gulf of
Mexico during certain times of the year, drilling rig and other
oilfield services and compliance with environmental and other
laws and regulations.
|
|
|
Our exploration and development activities may not be
commercially successful. |
Exploration activities involve numerous risks, including the
risk that no commercially productive oil or natural gas
reservoirs will be discovered. In addition, the future cost and
timing of drilling, completing and producing wells is often
uncertain. Furthermore, drilling operations may be curtailed,
delayed or canceled as a result of a variety of factors,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
unexpected drilling conditions; |
|
|
|
pressure or irregularities in formations; |
|
|
|
equipment failures or accidents; |
|
|
|
adverse weather conditions, including hurricanes, which are
common in the Gulf of Mexico during certain times of the year; |
|
|
|
compliance with governmental regulations; |
|
|
|
unavailability or high cost of drilling rigs, equipment or labor; |
|
|
|
reductions in oil and natural gas prices; and |
|
|
|
limitations in the market for oil and natural gas. |
If any of these factors were to occur with respect to a
particular project, we could lose all or a part of our
investment in the project, or we could fail to realize the
expected benefits from the project, either of which could
materially and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.
|
|
|
Our exploratory drilling projects are based in part on
seismic data, which is costly and cannot ensure the commercial
success of the project. |
Our decisions to purchase, explore, develop and exploit
prospects or properties depend in part on data obtained through
geophysical and geological analyses, production data and
engineering studies, the results of which are often uncertain.
Even when used and properly interpreted,
3-D seismic data and
visualization techniques only assist geoscientists and
geologists in identifying subsurface structures and hydrocarbon
indicators. They do not allow the interpreter to know
conclusively if hydrocarbons are present or producible
economically. In addition, the use of
3-D seismic and other
advanced technologies require greater
26
predrilling expenditures than traditional drilling strategies.
Because of these factors, we could incur losses as a result of
exploratory drilling expenditures. Poor results from exploration
activities could have a material adverse effect on our future
cash flows, ability to replace reserves and results of
operations.
|
|
|
Oil and gas drilling and production involve many business
and operating risks, any one of which could reduce our levels of
production, cause substantial losses or prevent us from
realizing profits. |
Our business is subject to all of the operating risks associated
with drilling for and producing oil and natural gas, including:
|
|
|
|
|
fires; |
|
|
|
explosions; |
|
|
|
blow-outs and surface cratering; |
|
|
|
uncontrollable flows of underground natural gas, oil and
formation water; |
|
|
|
natural disasters; |
|
|
|
pipe or cement failures; |
|
|
|
casing collapses; |
|
|
|
lost or damaged oilfield drilling and service tools; |
|
|
|
abnormally pressured formations; and |
|
|
|
environmental hazards, such as natural gas leaks, oil spills,
pipeline ruptures and discharges of toxic gases. |
If any of these events occurs, we could incur substantial losses
as a result of injury or loss of life, severe damage to and
destruction of property, natural resources and equipment,
pollution and other environmental damage,
clean-up
responsibilities, regulatory investigation and penalties,
suspension of our operations and repairs to resume operations.
|
|
|
Our offshore operations involve special risks that could
increase our cost of operations and adversely affect our ability
to produce oil and gas. |
Offshore operations are subject to a variety of operating risks
specific to the marine environment, such as capsizing,
collisions and damage or loss from hurricanes or other adverse
weather conditions. These conditions can cause substantial
damage to facilities and interrupt production. As a result, we
could incur substantial liabilities that could reduce or
eliminate the funds available for exploration, development or
leasehold acquisitions, or result in loss of equipment and
properties. For more information on the impact of recent
hurricanes on Mariners operations and the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations, see Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Recent Developments beginning on page 56 and
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations Recent Developments beginning on
page 141.
Exploration for oil or natural gas in the deepwater of the Gulf
of Mexico generally involves greater operational and financial
risks than exploration on the shelf. Deepwater drilling
generally requires more time and more advanced drilling
technologies, involving a higher risk of technological failure
and usually higher drilling costs. Our deepwater wells use
subsea completion techniques with subsea trees tied back to host
production facilities with flow lines. The installation of these
subsea trees and flow lines requires substantial time and the
use of advanced remote installation mechanics. These operations
may encounter mechanical difficulties and equipment failures
that could result in significant cost overruns. Furthermore, the
deepwater operations generally lack the physical and oilfield
service infrastructure present in the
27
shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, a significant
amount of time may elapse between a deepwater discovery and our
marketing of the associated oil or natural gas, increasing both
the financial and operational risk involved with these
operations. Because of the lack and high cost of infrastructure,
some reserve discoveries in the deepwater may never be produced
economically.
|
|
|
Our hedging transactions may not protect us adequately
from fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices and may limit
future potential gains from increases in commodity prices or
result in losses. |
We enter into hedging arrangements from time to time to reduce
our exposure to fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices and
to achieve more predictable cash flow. These financial
arrangements typically take the form of price swap contracts and
costless collars. Hedging arrangements expose us to the risk of
financial loss in some circumstances, including situations when
the other party to the hedging contract defaults on its contract
or production is less than expected. During periods of high
commodity prices, hedging arrangements may limit significantly
the extent to which we can realize financial gains from such
higher prices. For example, in calendar year 2004, our hedging
arrangements reduced the benefit we received from increases in
the prices for oil and natural gas by approximately
$27.6 million ($76.9 million on a pro forma basis,
including the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations). Although we
currently maintain an active hedging program, we may choose not
to engage in hedging transactions in the future. As a result, we
may be affected adversely during periods of declining oil and
natural gas prices.
|
|
|
We will require additional capital to fund our future
activities. If we fail to obtain additional capital, we may not
be able to implement fully our business plan, which could lead
to a decline in reserves. |
We depend on our ability to obtain financing beyond our cash
flow from operations. Historically, we have financed our
business plan and operations primarily with internally generated
cash flow, bank borrowings, proceeds from the sale of oil and
natural gas properties, entering into exploration arrangements
with other parties, the issuance of public debt, privately
raised equity and, prior to the bankruptcy of Enron Corp. (our
indirect parent company until March 2, 2004), borrowings
from Enron affiliates. In the future, we will require
substantial capital to fund our business plan and operations. We
expect to be required to meet our needs from our excess cash
flow, debt financings and additional equity offerings (subject
to certain federal tax limitations during the two-year period
following the spin-off). Sufficient capital may not be available
on acceptable terms or at all. If we cannot obtain additional
capital resources, we may curtail our drilling, development and
other activities or be forced to sell some of our assets on
unfavorable terms.
The issuance of additional debt would require that a portion of
our cash flow from operations be used for the payment of
interest on our debt, thereby reducing our ability to use our
cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures,
acquisitions and general corporate requirements, which could
place us at a competitive disadvantage relative to other
competitors. Additionally, if revenues decrease as a result of
lower oil or natural gas prices, operating difficulties or
declines in reserves, our ability to obtain the capital
necessary to undertake or complete future exploration and
development programs and to pursue other opportunities may be
limited, which could result in a curtailment of our operations
relating to exploration and development of our prospects, which
in turn could result in a decline in our oil and natural gas
reserves.
|
|
|
Properties we acquire (including the Forest Gulf of Mexico
properties) may not produce as projected, and we may be unable
to determine reserve potential, identify liabilities associated
with the properties or obtain protection from sellers against
such liabilities. |
Properties we acquire, including the Forest Gulf of Mexico
properties, may not produce as expected, may be in an unexpected
condition and may subject us to increased costs and liabilities,
including environmental liabilities. The reviews we conduct of
acquired properties prior to acquisition are not capable of
identifying all potential adverse conditions. Generally, it is
not feasible to review in depth every individual property
involved in each acquisition. Ordinarily, we will focus our
review efforts on the higher
28
value properties or properties with known adverse conditions and
will sample the remainder. However, even a detailed review of
records and properties may not necessarily reveal existing or
potential problems or permit a buyer to become sufficiently
familiar with the properties to assess fully their condition,
any deficiencies, and development potential. Inspections may not
always be performed on every well, and environmental problems,
such as ground water contamination, are not necessarily
observable even when an inspection is undertaken.
|
|
|
Market conditions or transportation impediments may hinder
our access to oil and natural gas markets or delay our
production. |
Market conditions, the unavailability of satisfactory oil and
natural gas transportation or the remote location of our
drilling operations may hinder our access to oil and natural gas
markets or delay our production. The availability of a ready
market for our oil and natural gas production depends on a
number of factors, including the demand for and supply of oil
and natural gas and the proximity of reserves to pipelines or
trucking and terminal facilities. In deepwater operations, the
availability of a ready market depends on the proximity of and
our ability to tie into existing production platforms owned or
operated by others and the ability to negotiate commercially
satisfactory arrangements with the owners or operators. We may
be required to shut in wells or delay initial production for
lack of a market or because of inadequacy or unavailability of
pipeline or gathering system capacity. When that occurs, we are
unable to realize revenue from those wells until the production
can be tied to a gathering system. This can result in
considerable delays from the initial discovery of a reservoir to
the actual production of the oil and natural gas and realization
of revenues.
|
|
|
The unavailability or high cost of drilling rigs,
equipment, supplies or personnel could affect adversely our
ability to execute on a timely basis our exploration and
development plans within budget, which could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations. |
Shortages or the high cost of drilling rigs, equipment, supplies
or personnel could delay or affect adversely our exploration and
development operations, which could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations. An
increase in drilling activity in the U.S. or the Gulf of
Mexico could increase the cost and decrease the availability of
necessary drilling rigs, equipment, supplies and personnel.
|
|
|
Competition in the oil and natural gas industry is
intense, and many of our competitors have resources that are
greater than ours giving them an advantage in evaluating and
obtaining properties and prospects. |
We operate in a highly competitive environment for acquiring
prospects and productive properties, marketing oil and natural
gas and securing equipment and trained personnel. Many of our
competitors are major and large independent oil and natural gas
companies, and possess and employ financial, technical and
personnel resources substantially greater than ours. Those
companies may be able to develop and acquire more prospects and
productive properties than our financial or personnel resources
permit. Our ability to acquire additional prospects and discover
reserves in the future will depend on our ability to evaluate
and select suitable properties and consummate transactions in a
highly competitive environment. Also, there is substantial
competition for capital available for investment in the oil and
natural gas industry. Larger competitors may be better able to
withstand sustained periods of unsuccessful drilling and absorb
the burden of changes in laws and regulations more easily than
we can, which would adversely affect our competitive position.
We may not be able to compete successfully in the future in
acquiring prospective reserves, developing reserves, marketing
hydrocarbons, attracting and retaining quality personnel and
raising additional capital.
29
|
|
|
Financial difficulties encountered by our farm-out
partners or third-party operators could affect the exploration
and development of our prospects adversely. |
From time to time, we enter into farm-out agreements to fund a
portion of the exploration and development costs of our
prospects. Moreover, other companies operate some of the other
properties in which we have an ownership interest. Liquidity and
cash flow problems encountered by our partners and co-owners of
our properties may lead to a delay in the pace of drilling or
project development that may be detrimental to a project.
In addition, our farm-out partners and working interest owners
may be unwilling or unable to pay their share of the costs of
projects as they become due. In the case of a farm-out partner,
we may have to obtain alternative funding in order to complete
the exploration and development of the prospects subject to the
farm-out agreement. In the case of a working interest owner, we
may be required to pay the working interest owners share
of the project costs. We cannot assure you that we would be able
to obtain the capital necessary in order to fund either of these
contingencies.
|
|
|
We cannot control the drilling and development activities
on properties we do not operate, and therefore we may not be in
a position to control the timing of development efforts, the
associated costs or the rate of production of the
reserves. |
Other companies operate some of the properties in which we have
an interest. As a result, we have a limited ability to exercise
influence over operations for these properties or their
associated costs. Our dependence on the operator and other
working interest owners for these projects and our limited
ability to influence operations and associated costs could
materially adversely affect the realization of our targeted
returns on capital in drilling or acquisition activities. The
success and timing of drilling and development activities on
properties operated by others therefore depend upon a number of
factors that are outside of our control, including timing and
amount of capital expenditures, the operators expertise
and financial resources, approval of other participants in
drilling wells and selection of technology.
|
|
|
Compliance with environmental and other government
regulations could be costly and could affect production
negatively. |
Exploration for and development, production and sale of oil and
natural gas in the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico are subject to
extensive federal, state and local laws and regulations,
including environmental and health and safety laws and
regulations. We may be required to make large expenditures to
comply with these environmental and other requirements. Matters
subject to regulation include, among others, environmental
assessment prior to development, discharge and emission permits
for drilling and production operations, drilling bonds, and
reports concerning operations and taxation.
Under these laws and regulations, and also common law causes of
action, we could be liable for personal injuries, property
damage, oil spills, discharge of pollutants and hazardous
materials, remediation and
clean-up costs and
other environmental damages. Failure to comply with these laws
and regulations or to obtain or comply with required permits may
result in the suspension or termination of our operations and
subject us to remedial obligations as well as administrative,
civil and criminal penalties. Moreover, these laws and
regulations could change in ways that substantially increase our
costs. We cannot predict how agencies or courts will interpret
existing laws and regulations, whether additional or more
stringent laws and regulations will be adopted or the effect
these interpretations and adoptions may have on our business or
financial condition. For example, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(the OPA) imposes a variety of regulations on
responsible parties related to the prevention of oil
spills. The implementation of new, or the modification of
existing, environmental laws or regulations promulgated pursuant
to the OPA could have a material adverse impact on us. Further,
Congress or the MMS could decide to limit exploratory drilling
or natural gas production in additional areas of the Gulf of
Mexico. Accordingly, any of these liabilities, penalties,
suspensions, terminations or regulatory changes could have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition and results
of operations. See BusinessRegulation for more
information on our regulatory and environmental matters.
30
|
|
|
Our insurance may not protect us against our business and
operating risks. |
We maintain insurance for some, but not all, of the potential
risks and liabilities associated with our business. For some
risks, we may not obtain insurance if we believe the cost of
available insurance is excessive relative to the risks
presented. As a result of market conditions, premiums and
deductibles for certain insurance policies can increase
substantially, and in some instances, certain insurance may
become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of
coverage. As a result, we may not be able to renew our existing
insurance policies or procure other desirable insurance on
commercially reasonable terms, if at all.
Although we maintain insurance at levels we believe are
appropriate and consistent with industry practice, we are not
fully insured against all risks, including drilling and
completion risks that are generally not recoverable from third
parties or insurance. In addition, pollution and environmental
risks generally are not fully insurable. Losses and liabilities
from uninsured and underinsured events and delay in the payment
of insurance proceeds could have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition and results of operations. The impact of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have resulted in escalating
insurance costs and less favorable coverage terms. See
Business Insurance Matters and The
Forest Gulf of Mexico Operations Insurance
Matters for more information.
Risks Related to our Business if the Merger is not
Consummated
|
|
|
If the merger is not ultimately consummated, the market
value of our common stock could decline, and our ability to
consummate alternate acquisition transactions could be
reduced. |
If the proposed merger with Forest Energy Resources is not
ultimately consummated, whether because our stockholders do not
adopt the merger agreement at the annual meeting or because some
other condition to closing is not satisfied, the market value of
our common stock could be reduced. Our stock price could be
adversely affected for other reasons related to the failure to
close, including due to our reduced opportunities to consummate
alternate transactions, or simply because the market had
perceived the failed transaction as accretive to our
stockholders. In addition, we may not meet the listing
requirements for listing on the New York Stock Exchange if the
proposed merger is not consummated, which would disqualify us
from listing our common stock on that exchange.
In addition, if the merger is not consummated our ability to
enter into other merger or acquisition transactions could be
hindered. Under the terms of the merger agreement, if the
agreement is terminated in certain circumstances where an
alternate proposal to acquire us is outstanding, we could be
required to pay Forest a termination fee and expense
reimbursement upon the consummation of an alternate transaction.
The termination fee and expense reimbursement provisions would
therefore have the effect of making it more costly to acquire
us, reducing the likelihood that such an acquisition would
occur. Moreover, potential acquisition partners could be
deterred from pursuing transactions with us, because they may
speculate that the failure was caused by due diligence problems
or other issues that motivated Forest not to close the
transaction.
|
|
|
If the merger is not consummated, a significant part of
the value of our production and reserves will be concentrated in
a small number of offshore properties. As a result, any
production problems or inaccuracies in reserve estimates related
to those properties could reduce our revenue, profitability and
cash flow materially. |
During December 2005, approximately 69% of our daily production
came from 19 offshore fields. If mechanical problems, storms or
other events curtail a substantial portion of this production in
the future, our cash flow would be affected adversely. At
December 31, 2004, approximately 37% of our proved reserves
were located on seven offshore properties. If the actual
reserves associated with any one of these properties are less
than our estimated reserves, our results of operations and
financial condition could be adversely affected. During the
three years ended December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004, weather
and
31
mechanical problems affecting our offshore producing properties
resulted in aggregate downtime for our offshore producing
properties of 7.3%, 7.1% and 7.3%, respectively.
|
|
|
If the merger is not consummated, the smaller size of our
operations relative to those of the combined operations could
reduce our ability to participate in projects or pursue
acquisition opportunities that would increase our
profitability. |
The proposed merger with Forest Energy Resources would
approximately triple the pro forma daily net production of
Mariner on a stand-alone basis. If the merger is not
consummated, the scale of our operations would be significantly
smaller than that of the combined operations. The smaller
operational scale could adversely impact our ability, relative
to our ability if the merger were consummated, to participate in
larger scale exploratory and development drilling projects or to
pursue acquisition opportunities. The inability to participate
in such transactions could reduce our profitability and
adversely affect our results of operations.
Risks Related to the Spin-Off and the Merger
|
|
|
The consummation of the merger is subject to numerous
conditions, many of which are beyond our control. |
The merger will be completed only if certain conditions,
including the following, are satisfied (or waived in certain
cases):
|
|
|
|
|
the adoption of the merger agreement by Mariner stockholders
holding a majority of the Mariner common stock and the approval
of the proposed amendment to Mariners certificate of
incorporation; |
|
|
|
the absence of legal restrictions that would prevent the
completion of the transactions; |
|
|
|
the receipt by Forest, Mariner and Forest Energy Resources of an
opinion from their respective counsel to the effect that the
merger will be treated as a reorganization for federal income
tax purposes; |
|
|
|
the completion of the spin-off in accordance with the
distribution agreement; |
|
|
|
the receipt of material consents, approvals and authorizations
of governmental authorities; |
|
|
|
the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; |
|
|
|
the SEC declaring effective the registration statements of
Mariner relating to the shares of Mariner common stock to be
issued in the merger and those shares held by its existing
stockholders; |
|
|
|
the representations and warranties contained in the merger
agreement being materially true and correct, the performance in
all material respects by the parties of their covenants and
other agreements in the merger agreement; |
|
|
|
the approval for listing on the New York Stock Exchange or
Nasdaq of Mariners common stock; and |
|
|
|
Mariner and Forest receiving the consents required pursuant to
their credit facilities (with Mariner or Forest Energy Resources
having entered into a new or amended credit facility sufficient
to operate the combined businesses), and Forest receiving any
consents required from its bondholders. |
We cannot assure you that the conditions to the consummation of
the merger will be satisfied or waived, or that the closing will
occur. Some of the conditions, such as the adoption of the merger
32
agreement by our stockholders, the absence of legal restrictions
and the receipt of required consents are partially or completely
beyond our control.
|
|
|
The market value of our common stock could decline if
large amounts of our common stock are sold following the
spin-off and merger. |
The market price of our common stock could decline as a result
of sales of a large number of shares in the market after the
completion of the spin-off and merger or the perception that
these sales could occur. Immediately after the merger, Forest
shareholders will hold, in the aggregate, approximately 58% of
our common stock on a pro forma basis. Currently, Forest
shareholders include index funds tied to various stock indices,
and institutional investors subject to various investing
guidelines. Because we may not be included in these indices at
the time of the merger or may not meet the investing guidelines
of some of these institutional investors, these index funds and
institutional investors may decide to sell the Mariner common
stock they receive in the merger. These sales may negatively
affect the price of our common stock and also may make it more
difficult for us to obtain additional capital by selling equity
securities in the future at a time and at a price that we deem
appropriate.
Historically, Forest has operated with properties in diverse
geographic locations, including the Gulf Coast, the Western
United States, Alaska, Canada and other international locations.
In contrast, following the spin-off and merger, Mariner will
operate as a stand-alone oil and gas exploration, development
and production company with operations primarily in the Gulf of
Mexico and in West Texas. Shareholders of Forest who chose to
invest in a geographically diverse company may not wish to
continue to invest in one that is less geographically diverse,
such as Mariner. As a result, such shareholders may seek to sell
the shares of our common stock received in the merger.
|
|
|
The integration of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
following the merger will be difficult, and will divert our
managements attention away from our normal
operations. |
There is a significant degree of difficulty and management
involvement inherent in the process of integrating the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations. These difficulties include:
|
|
|
|
|
the challenge of integrating the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations while carrying on the ongoing operations of our
business; |
|
|
|
the challenge of managing a significantly larger company, with
more than twice the PV10 of Mariner on a stand-alone basis; |
|
|
|
faulty assumptions underlying our expectations; |
|
|
|
the difficulty associated with coordinating geographically
separate organizations; |
|
|
|
the challenge of integrating the business cultures of the two
companies; |
|
|
|
attracting and retaining personnel associated with the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations following the merger; and |
|
|
|
the challenge and cost of integrating the information technology
systems of the two companies. |
The process of integrating operations could cause an
interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the activities of our
business. Members of our senior management may be required to
devote considerable amounts of time to this integration process,
which will decrease the time they will have to manage our
business. If our senior management is not able to effectively
manage the integration process, or if any significant business
activities are interrupted as a result of the integration
process, our business could suffer.
33
|
|
|
If we fail to realize the anticipated benefits of the
merger, stockholders may receive lower returns than they
expect. |
The success of the merger will depend, in part, on our ability
to realize the anticipated growth opportunities from combining
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations with Mariner. Even if we
are able to successfully combine the two businesses, it may not
be possible to realize the full benefits of the proved reserves,
enhanced growth of production volume, cost savings from
operating synergies and other benefits that we currently expect
to result from the merger, or realize these benefits within the
time frame that is currently expected. The benefits of the
merger may be offset by operating losses relating to changes in
commodity prices, or in oil and gas industry conditions, or by
risks and uncertainties relating to the combined companys
exploratory prospects, or an increase in operating or other
costs or other difficulties. If we fail to realize the benefits
we anticipate from the merger, stockholders may receive lower
returns on our stock than they expect.
|
|
|
We expect to incur significant charges relating to the
integration plan that could materially and adversely affect our
period-to-period results of operations following the
merger. |
We are developing a plan to integrate the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations with our operations after the merger. Following the
merger, we anticipate that from time to time we will incur
charges to our earnings in connection with the integration.
These charges will include expenses incurred in connection with
relocating and retaining employees and increased professional
and consulting costs. We also expect to incur significant
expenses related to being a public company. We will not be able
to quantify the exact amount of these charges or the period(s)
in which they will be incurred until after the merger is
completed. Some factors affecting the cost of the integration
include the timing of the closing of the merger, the training of
new employees, the amount of severance and other
employee-related payments resulting from the merger, and the
limited length of time during which transitional services are
provided by Forest.
|
|
|
The number of shares Forest shareholders will receive in
the merger is not subject to adjustment based on the value of
the Mariner or the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Accordingly, because this value may fluctuate, the market value
of the Mariner common stock that Forest shareholders receive in
the merger may not reflect the value of the individual companies
at the time of the merger. |
Following the spin-off and the merger, the holders of Forest
common stock will ultimately become entitled to receive
approximately 0.8 shares of Mariner common stock for each
Forest share they own. This ratio will not be adjusted for
changes in the value of our company or the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. If our value relative to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations increases (or the value of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations decreases relative to our value) prior to the
completion of the merger, the market value of the Mariner common
stock that Forest shareholders receive in the merger may not
reflect the then-current relative values of the individual
companies.
|
|
|
Regulatory agencies may delay or impose conditions on
approval of the spin-off and the merger, which may diminish the
anticipated benefits of the merger. |
Completion of the spin-off and merger is conditioned upon the
receipt of required governmental consents, approvals, orders and
authorizations. While we intend to pursue vigorously all
required governmental approvals and do not know of any reason
why we would not be able to obtain the necessary approvals in a
timely manner, the requirement to receive these approvals before
the spin-off and merger could delay the completion of the
spin-off and merger, possibly for a significant period of time
after Mariner stockholders have approved the merger proposal at
the annual meeting. In addition, these governmental agencies may
attempt to condition their approval of the merger on the
imposition of conditions that could have a material adverse
effect on our operating results or the value of our common stock
after the spin-off and merger are completed.
34
Any delay in the completion of the spin-off and merger could
diminish anticipated benefits of the spin-off and merger or
result in additional transaction costs, loss of revenue or other
effects associated with uncertainty about the transaction. Any
uncertainty over the ability of the companies to complete the
spin-off and merger could make it more difficult for us to
retain key employees or to pursue business strategies. In
addition, until the spin-off and merger are completed, the
attention of our management may be diverted from ongoing
business concerns and regular business responsibilities to the
extent management is focused on matters relating to the
transaction, such as obtaining regulatory approvals.
|
|
|
In order to preserve the tax-free treatment of the
spin-off, we will be required to abide by potentially
significant restrictions which could limit our ability to
undertake certain corporate actions (such as the issuance of our
common shares or the undertaking of a change in control) that
otherwise could be advantageous. |
The tax sharing agreement imposes ongoing restrictions on Forest
and on us to ensure that applicable statutory requirements under
the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury regulations
continue to be met so that the spin-off remains tax-free to
Forest and its shareholders. As a result of these restrictions,
our ability to engage in certain transactions, such as the
redemption of our common stock, the issuance of equity
securities and the utilization of our stock as currency in an
acquisition, will be limited for a period of two years following
the spin-off.
If Forest or Mariner takes or permits an action to be taken (or
omits to take an action) that causes the spin-off to become
taxable, the relevant entity generally will be required to bear
the cost of the resulting tax liability to the extent that the
liability results from the actions or omissions of that entity.
If the spin-off became taxable, Forest would be expected to
recognize a substantial amount of income, which would result in
a material amount of taxes. Any such taxes allocated to us would
be expected to be material to us, and could cause our business,
financial condition and operating results to suffer. These
restrictions may reduce our ability to engage in certain
business transactions that otherwise might be advantageous to us
and our stockholders and could have a negative impact on our
business and stockholder value.
|
|
|
Some of our directors and executive officers have
interests that are different from, or in addition to, the
interests of our stockholders. |
When considering the recommendations of our board of directors,
you should be aware that some of our directors and executive
officers have interests and arrangements that may be different
from your interests as stockholders, including:
|
|
|
|
|
arrangements regarding the appointment of directors and officers
of Mariner following the merger; and |
|
|
|
arrangements whereby our executive officers will receive a cash
payment of $1,000 each in exchange for the waiver of certain
rights under their employment agreements, including the
automatic vesting or acceleration of restricted stock and
options upon the completion of the merger and the right to
receive a lump sum cash payment if the officer voluntarily
terminates employment without good reason within nine months
following the completion of the merger. |
Risks Related to our Common Stock
|
|
|
An active market for our common stock may not develop and
the market price for shares of our common stock may be highly
volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations after this
offering. |
We are a private company, and there is no public market for our
common stock. An active market for our common stock may not
develop or may not be sustained after this offering. In
addition, we cannot assure you as to the liquidity of any such
market that may develop or the price that our stockholders may
obtain for their shares of our common stock.
35
Even if an active trading market develops, the market price for
shares of our common stock may be highly volatile and could be
subject to wide fluctuations. Some of the factors that could
negatively affect our share price include:
|
|
|
|
|
actual or anticipated downward revisions in our reserve
estimates; |
|
|
|
our operating results being less than anticipated; |
|
|
|
reductions in oil and gas prices; |
|
|
|
publication of unfavorable research reports about us or the
exploration and production industry; |
|
|
|
increases in market interest rates which may increase our cost
of capital; |
|
|
|
the enactment of more stringent laws or regulations applicable
to our business, or unfavorable court rulings or enforcement or
legal actions; |
|
|
|
increases in royalties or taxes payable in the operation of our
business; |
|
|
|
a general decline in market valuations of similar companies; |
|
|
|
adverse market reaction to any increased indebtedness we incur
in the future; |
|
|
|
departures of key management personnel; |
|
|
|
increases to our asset retirement obligations; |
|
|
|
adverse actions taken by our stockholders; |
|
|
|
negative speculation in the press or investment
community; and |
|
|
|
adverse general market and economic conditions. |
|
|
|
We do not anticipate paying any dividends on our common
stock in the foreseeable future. |
We do not expect to declare or pay any cash or other dividends
in the foreseeable future on our common stock. Our existing
revolving credit facility restricts our ability to pay cash
dividends on our common stock, and we may also enter into other
credit agreements or other borrowing arrangements in the future
that restrict our ability to declare or pay cash dividends on
our common stock.
|
|
|
Mariner stockholders will experience substantial and
immediate dilution as a result of the merger, and may experience
dilution of their ownership interests due to the future issuance
of additional shares of our common stock, which could have an
adverse effect on our stock price. |
If the merger is completed, the current owners of Mariners
common stock will experience substantial and immediate dilution
from the issuance of shares of Mariner common stock to Forest
shareholders, such that the Mariner stockholders will own
approximately 42% of the Mariner common stock following the
merger. Additionally, we may in the future issue our previously
authorized and unissued securities, resulting in the dilution of
the ownership interests of our present stockholders. We are
currently authorized to issue 70 million shares of common
stock and 20 million shares of preferred stock with such
designations, preferences and rights as determined by our board
of directors. As a result of the proposed amendment to our
certificate of incorporation, our authorized shares would be
increased to 180 million shares of common stock and
20 million shares of preferred stock. Pursuant to the
proposed addition of shares to our stock incentive plan, the
maximum number of shares issuable under the plan would, if the
proposal is approved, be increased to 6.5 million shares.
The potential issuance of such additional shares of common stock
may create downward pressure on the trading price of our common
stock. We may also issue additional shares of our common stock
or other securities that are convertible into or exercisable for
common stock (subject to certain federal tax limitations during
the two-year period following the spin-off) in connection with
the hiring of personnel, future acquisitions, future public
offerings or private placements of our securities for capital
raising purposes, or for other business purposes. Future sales
of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the perception
that sales could occur, could have a material adverse effect on
the price of our common stock.
36
|
|
|
Provisions in our organizational documents and under
Delaware law could delay or prevent a change in control of our
company, which could adversely affect the price of our common
stock. |
The existence of some provisions in our organizational documents
and under Delaware law could delay or prevent a change in
control of our company, which could adversely affect the price
of our common stock. The provisions in our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws that could delay or prevent an
unsolicited change in control of our company include a staggered
board of directors, board authority to issue preferred stock,
and advance notice provisions for director nominations or
business to be considered at a stockholder meeting. In addition,
Delaware law imposes restrictions on mergers and other business
combinations between us and any holder of 15% or more of our
outstanding common stock. See Description of Capital
Stock.
37
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT CONCERNING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Various statements in this prospectus, including those that
express a belief, expectation, or intention, as well as those
that are not statements of historical fact, are forward-looking
statements. The forward-looking statements may include
projections and estimates concerning the timing and success of
specific projects and our future production, revenues, income
and capital spending. Our forward-looking statements are
generally accompanied by words such as estimate,
project, predict, believe,
expect, anticipate,
potential, plan, goal or
other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or
outcomes. The forward-looking statements in this prospectus
speak only as of the date of this prospectus; we disclaim any
obligation to update these statements unless required by
securities law, and we caution you not to rely on them unduly.
We have based these forward-looking statements on our current
expectations and assumptions about future events. While our
management considers these expectations and assumptions to be
reasonable, they are inherently subject to significant business,
economic, competitive, regulatory and other risks, contingencies
and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and
many of which are beyond our control. We disclose important
factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially
from our expectations under Risk Factors,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations, Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
and elsewhere in this prospectus. These risks, contingencies and
uncertainties relate to, among other matters, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the volatility of oil and natural gas prices; |
|
|
|
discovery, estimation, development and replacement of oil and
natural gas reserves; |
|
|
|
cash flow, liquidity and financial position; |
|
|
|
business strategy; |
|
|
|
amount, nature and timing of capital expenditures, including
future development costs; |
|
|
|
availability and terms of capital; |
|
|
|
timing and amount of future production of oil and natural gas; |
|
|
|
availability of drilling and production equipment; |
|
|
|
operating costs and other expenses; |
|
|
|
prospect development and property acquisitions; |
|
|
|
marketing of oil and natural gas; |
|
|
|
competition in the oil and natural gas industry; |
|
|
|
the impact of weather and the occurrence of natural disasters
such as fires, floods and other catastrophic events and natural
disasters; |
|
|
|
governmental regulation of the oil and natural gas industry; |
|
|
|
developments in oil-producing and natural gas-producing
countries; |
|
|
|
the proposed merger, including strategic plans, expectations and
objectives for future operations, the completion of those
transactions, and the realization of expected benefits from the
transactions; and |
|
|
|
disruption from the merger making it more difficult to manage
Mariners business. |
38
USE OF PROCEEDS
We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the
shares of common stock offered by this prospectus. Any proceeds
from the sale of the shares offered by this prospectus will be
received by the selling stockholders.
CAPITALIZATION
The following table shows our capitalization as of
September 30, 2005. You should refer to Selected
Historical Consolidated Financial Data,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations and the financial
statements included elsewhere in this prospectus in evaluating
the material presented below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Long-term debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit facility revolving note due March 2007
|
|
$ |
75.0 |
|
|
Promissory note to former indirect stockholder(1)
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
79.0 |
|
Stockholders equity(2)
|
|
|
178.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization
|
|
$ |
257.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
For a description of the promissory note to our former indirect
stockholder, see Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations JEDI Term
Promissory Note. |
|
(2) |
Reflects the receipt of net proceeds from the sale of
3.6 million shares reduced by approximately
$1.9 million of offering costs. |
39
DILUTION
Our net tangible book value as of September 30, 2005 was
$5.01 per share of common stock. Net tangible book value
per share is determined by dividing our tangible net worth
(tangible assets less total liabilities) by the
35,615,400 shares of our common stock that were outstanding
on September 30, 2005. Investors who purchase our common
stock in this offering may pay a price per share that exceeds
the net tangible book value per share of our common stock. If
you purchase our common stock from the selling stockholders
identified in this prospectus, you will experience immediate
dilution of $14.99 in the net tangible book value per share of
our common stock assuming a sale price of $20.00 per share,
representing the September 30, 2005 price at which the
shares traded in the PORTAL
Market®.
The following table illustrates the per share dilution to new
investors purchasing shares from the selling stockholders
identified in this prospectus:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed offering price per share |
|
$ |
20.00 |
|
|
Net tangible book value per share at September 30, 2005
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase per share attributable to new investors
|
|
|
-0- |
|
|
|
|
|
Net tangible book value per share after this offering |
|
|
5.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dilution per share to new investors |
|
$ |
14.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
The foregoing discussion and table are based upon the number of
shares actually issued and outstanding as of September 30,
2005. As of September 30, 2005, we had 809,000 stock
options outstanding at an average exercise price of
approximately $14.00 per share, none of which were vested
as of September 30, 2005. To the extent the market value of
our shares is greater than $14.00 per share and any of
these outstanding options are exercised, there may be further
dilution to new investors.
DIVIDEND POLICY
We do not expect to pay dividends in the near future. Our credit
facility contains restrictions on the payment of dividends to
stockholders. See Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
OperationsCredit Facility.
40
SELECTED HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table shows Mariners historical consolidated
financial data as of and for each of the four years ended
December 31, 2003, the period from January 1, 2004
through March 2, 2004, the period from March 3, 2004
through December 31, 2004, the period from March 3,
2004 through September 30, 2004 and the nine-month period
ended September 30, 2005. The historical consolidated
financial data as of and for the four years ended
December 31, 2003, the period from January 1, 2004
through March 2, 2004 and the period from March 3,
2004 through December 31, 2004 are derived from
Mariners audited financial statements included herein, and
the historical consolidated financial data for the period from
March 3, 2004 through September 30, 2004 and the
nine-month period ended September 30, 2005 are derived from
unaudited financial statements of Mariner. You should read the
following data in connection with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and the consolidated financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus, where there is additional
disclosure regarding the information in the following table,
including pro forma information regarding the merger.
Mariners historical results are not necessarily indicative
of results to be expected in future periods.
On March 2, 2004, Mariners former indirect parent,
Mariner Energy LLC, merged with MEI Acquisitions, LLC, an
affiliate of the private equity funds, Carlyle/ Riverstone
Global Energy and Power Fund II, L.P. and ACON Investments
LLC. The financial information contained herein is presented in
the style of Pre-2004 Merger activity (for all periods prior to
March 2, 2004) and Post-2004 Merger activity (for the
March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004 period and the
March 3, 2004 through September 30, 2004 period) to
reflect the impact of the restatement of assets and liabilities
to fair value as required by push-down purchase
accounting at the March 2, 2004 merger date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
March 3, | |
|
|
January 1, | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
2004 through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions, except per share data) | |
Statement of Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues(1)
|
|
$ |
151.2 |
|
|
$ |
122.5 |
|
|
$ |
174.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
39.8 |
|
|
$ |
142.5 |
|
|
$ |
158.2 |
|
|
$ |
155.0 |
|
|
$ |
121.1 |
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
20.2 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
21.4 |
|
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
24.7 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
20.1 |
|
|
|
17.2 |
|
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
10.5 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
43.4 |
|
|
|
37.4 |
|
|
|
54.3 |
|
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
48.3 |
|
|
|
70.8 |
|
|
|
63.5 |
|
|
|
56.8 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of Enron related receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
29.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
26.7 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
58.7 |
|
|
|
59.1 |
|
|
|
88.2 |
|
|
|
|
22.9 |
|
|
|
51.9 |
|
|
|
39.9 |
|
|
|
20.6 |
|
|
|
32.8 |
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(5.4 |
) |
|
|
(4.4 |
) |
|
|
(6.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
|
(10.3 |
) |
|
|
(8.9 |
) |
|
|
(11.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
54.0 |
|
|
|
54.9 |
|
|
|
82.4 |
|
|
|
|
23.0 |
|
|
|
45.7 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(18.4 |
) |
|
|
(19.2 |
) |
|
|
(28.8 |
) |
|
|
|
(8.1 |
) |
|
|
(9.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method
net of tax effects
|
|
|
35.6 |
|
|
|
35.7 |
|
|
|
53.6 |
|
|
|
|
14.9 |
|
|
|
36.3 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
|
Income before cumulative effect per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.22 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.22 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
35.6 |
|
|
$ |
35.7 |
|
|
$ |
53.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
14.9 |
|
|
$ |
38.2 |
|
|
$ |
30.0 |
|
|
$ |
12.4 |
|
|
$ |
21.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.29 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
|
.50 |
|
|
|
1.29 |
|
|
|
1.01 |
|
|
|
.42 |
|
|
|
.74 |
|
Capital Expenditure and Disposal Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration, including leasehold/seismic
|
|
$ |
23.6 |
|
|
$ |
35.7 |
|
|
$ |
40.4 |
|
|
|
$ |
7.5 |
|
|
$ |
31.6 |
|
|
$ |
40.4 |
|
|
$ |
66.3 |
|
|
$ |
46.7 |
|
|
Development and other
|
|
|
106.8 |
|
|
|
50.2 |
|
|
|
93.2 |
|
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
|
65.7 |
|
|
|
98.2 |
|
|
|
61.4 |
|
|
Proceeds from property conveyances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121.6 |
) |
|
|
(52.3 |
) |
|
|
(90.5 |
) |
|
|
(29.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures net of proceeds from property
conveyances
|
|
$ |
130.4 |
|
|
$ |
85.9 |
|
|
$ |
133.6 |
|
|
|
$ |
15.3 |
|
|
$ |
(38.3 |
) |
|
$ |
53.8 |
|
|
$ |
74.0 |
|
|
$ |
79.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes effects of hedging. |
41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Balance Sheet Data:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net, full cost method
|
|
$ |
393.3 |
|
|
$ |
303.8 |
|
|
|
$ |
207.9 |
|
|
$ |
287.6 |
|
|
$ |
290.6 |
|
|
$ |
287.8 |
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
502.2 |
|
|
|
376.0 |
|
|
|
|
312.1 |
|
|
|
360.2 |
|
|
|
363.9 |
|
|
|
335.4 |
|
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
|
79.0 |
|
|
|
115.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99.8 |
|
|
|
99.8 |
|
|
|
129.7 |
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
178.6 |
|
|
|
133.9 |
|
|
|
|
218.2 |
|
|
|
170.1 |
|
|
|
180.1 |
|
|
|
141.9 |
|
|
Working capital (deficit)(2)
|
|
|
(30.2 |
) |
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
|
|
|
38.3 |
|
|
|
(24.4 |
) |
|
|
(19.6 |
) |
|
|
(15.4 |
) |
|
|
(1) |
Balance sheet data as of December 31, 2004 reflects
purchase accounting adjustments to oil and gas properties, total
assets and stockholders equity resulting from the
acquisition of our former indirect parent on March 2, 2004. |
|
(2) |
Working capital (deficit) excludes current derivative assets and
liabilities, deferred tax assets and restricted cash. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-2004 Merger | |
|
|
Pre-2004 Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
March 3, | |
|
|
January 1, | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
2004 through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Other Financial Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA(1)
|
|
$ |
102.7 |
|
|
$ |
97.5 |
|
|
$ |
143.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
$ |
100.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.9 |
|
|
$ |
113.6 |
|
|
$ |
89.6 |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
135.4 |
|
|
|
96.8 |
|
|
|
135.9 |
|
|
|
|
20.3 |
|
|
|
103.5 |
|
|
|
60.3 |
|
|
|
113.5 |
|
|
|
63.9 |
|
Net cash (used) provided by investing activities
|
|
|
(142.1 |
) |
|
|
(85.9 |
) |
|
|
(133.6 |
) |
|
|
|
(15.3 |
) |
|
|
38.3 |
|
|
|
(53.8 |
) |
|
|
(74.0 |
) |
|
|
(79.1 |
) |
Net cash (used) provided by financing activities
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
(74.9 |
) |
|
|
64.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30.0 |
) |
|
|
17.4 |
|
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Measures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA(1)
|
|
$ |
102.7 |
|
|
$ |
97.5 |
|
|
$ |
143.5 |
|
|
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
$ |
100.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.9 |
|
|
$ |
113.6 |
|
|
$ |
89.6 |
|
Changes in working capital
|
|
|
25.1 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
|
|
6.9 |
|
|
|
|
(13.2 |
) |
|
|
21.8 |
|
|
|
(20.4 |
) |
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
|
(15.5 |
) |
Non-cash hedge gain(2)
|
|
|
(3.6 |
) |
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
|
|
(7.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
(23.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization/other
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest expense
|
|
|
(4.7 |
) |
|
|
(4.2 |
) |
|
|
(5.8 |
) |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
|
(9.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
(10.9 |
) |
Income tax expense
|
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
135.4 |
|
|
$ |
96.8 |
|
|
$ |
135.9 |
|
|
|
$ |
20.3 |
|
|
$ |
103.5 |
|
|
$ |
60.3 |
|
|
$ |
113.5 |
|
|
$ |
63.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
EBITDA means earnings before interest, income taxes,
depreciation, depletion and amortization. For the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, EBITDA includes
$17.6 million in non-cash stock compensation expense
related to restricted stock and stock options granted in 2005.
We believe that EBITDA is a widely accepted financial indicator
that provides additional information about our ability to meet
our future requirements for debt service, capital expenditures
and working capital, but EBITDA should not be considered in
isolation or as a substitute for net income, operating income,
net cash provided by operating activities or any other measure
of financial performance presented in |
42
|
|
|
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or as a
measure of a companys profitability or liquidity. |
|
(2) |
In accordance with SFAS No. 133 Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended
by SFAS No. 137 and No. 138, we de-designated our
contracts effective December 2, 2001 after the counterparty
(an affiliate of Enron Corp.) filed for bankruptcy and
recognized all market value changes subsequent to such
de-designation in our earnings. The value recorded up to the
time of de-designation and included in Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Income (AOCI), has reversed out of
AOCI and into earnings as the original corresponding production,
as hedged by the contracts, is produced. We have designated
subsequent hedge contracts as cash flow hedges with gains and
losses resulting from the transactions recorded at market value
in AOCI, as appropriate, until recognized as operating income in
our Statement of Operations as the physical production hedged by
the contracts is delivered. |
43
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA COMBINED CONDENSED FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
The following unaudited pro forma combined financial information
and explanatory notes present how the combined financial
statements of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
may have appeared had the businesses actually been combined as
of September 30, 2005 (with respect to the balance sheet
information using currently available fair value information) or
as of January 1, 2004 (with respect to statements of
operations information). The unaudited pro forma combined
financial information shows the impact of the merger on the
historical financial position and results of operations under
the purchase method of accounting with Mariner treated as the
acquirer. Under this method of accounting, the assets and
liabilities of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations are recorded
by Mariner at their estimated fair values as of the date the
merger is completed.
The unaudited pro forma combined balance sheet as of
September 30, 2005 assumes the merger was completed on that
date. The unaudited pro forma combined statements of operations
gives effect to the merger as if it had been completed on
January 1, 2004. The merger agreement was executed on
September 9, 2005 and provides for Mariner to issue
approximately 50.6 million shares of common stock as
consideration to Forest Energy Resources common stockholders.
The unaudited pro forma combined financial information has been
derived from and should be read together with the historical
consolidated financial statements of Mariner and the statements
of revenues and direct operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations, which are included herein. The statements of
revenues and direct operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations do not include all of the costs of doing
business.
The unaudited pro forma combined condensed financial information
is for illustrative purposes only. The financial results may
have been different had the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
been an independent company and had the companies always been
combined. You should not rely on the unaudited pro forma
combined condensed financial information as being indicative of
the historical results that would have been achieved had the
merger occurred in the past or the future financial results that
Mariner will achieve after the merger.
In addition, the purchase price allocation is preliminary and
will be finalized following the closing of the merger. The final
purchase price allocation will be determined after closing based
on the actual fair value of current assets, current liabilities,
indebtedness, long-term liabilities, proven and unproven oil and
gas properties, identifiable intangible assets and the final
number of shares of Mariner common stock issued in the merger
and for unvested stock options that are outstanding at closing.
We are continuing to evaluate all of these items; accordingly,
the final purchase price may differ in material respects from
that presented in the unaudited pro forma combined condensed
balance sheet.
The combination of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations with
Mariners is expected to cause the average reserve life of
Mariners oil and gas properties to decrease from current
levels and to result in a higher rate of depreciation,
depletion, and amortization for the combined operations. For
example, the estimated proved reserves of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico properties as of June 30, 2005 were 328 Bcfe and
production for the six months ended June 30, 2005 (prior to
hurricane related disruptions) was approximately 40.8 Bcfe, a
reserve life on an annualized basis of 4.0. This ratio is
indicative of the relatively higher productive rates of offshore
oil and gas properties when compared to most onshore fields.
While the higher productive rates generally result in a faster
return on investment than onshore fields, they also result in a
faster depletion of the underlying proved reserves and a
resulting higher rate of depreciation, depletion, and
amortization. As of June 30, 2005, Mariners proved
reserves totaled 328 Bcfe and production for the six months
ended June 30, 2005 (prior to hurricane disruptions) was
approximately 16.5 Bcfe, a reserve life on an annualized basis
of 9.9. For the combined operations, as of June 30, 2005,
proved reserves would have totaled approximately 599 Bcfe and
production for the six months ended June 30, 2005 would
have totaled 57.3 Bcfe, a reserve life on an annualized basis of
5.7. Mariner will also write-up the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations to estimated fair value as of the merger date, which
is also expected to cause the underlying DD&A rate to
increase for the combined operations.
44
In connection with the merger, Mariner and Mariner Energy
Resources expect to enter into a $500 million senior
secured revolving credit facility, and Mariner also expects to
obtain a $40 million senior secured letter of credit
facility. The initial borrowing base of the revolving credit
facility will be $400 million. The revolving credit
facility will mature on the fourth anniversary of the closing
and may be used for general corporate purposes. The letter of
credit facility will mature on the third anniversary of the
closing.
In connection with the spin-off and the payment of the cash
amount by Forest Energy Resources to Forest pursuant to the
distribution agreement, Forest Energy Resources intends to enter
into a new senior term loan facility with Union Bank of
California, or UBOC, as lender, in an amount equal to the lesser
of the cash amount, plus the amount of the arrangement and
upfront fees and expenses associated with the facility, and
$200 million, plus the amount of the arrangement and
upfront fees and expenses associated with the facility. At
Forest Energy Resources election, interest will be
determined by reference to (1) the UBOC Reference Rate or
(2) the London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, plus 1.50%
per annum. In the event that any portion of the facility is
outstanding after 30 days, the interest rate will increase,
at Forest Energy Resources election, to (1) the UBOC
Reference Rate, plus 5% per annum or (2) LIBOR plus 6.50%
per annum. Interest will be payable at the applicable maturity
date for LIBOR-loans and quarterly for UBOC Reference Rate loans.
The Forest Energy Resources facility is expected to be repaid
with borrowings under Mariners and Mariner Energy
Resources $500 million revolving credit facility. The
facility will mature 90 days from closing of the spin-off
and merger and the principal will be due at maturity.
Prepayments will be permitted at any time without premium or
penalty (except for breakage and related costs associated with
prepayments of Eurodollar loans), subject to minimum amount
requirements. The facility will be unsecured with a negative
pledge on Forest Energy Resources existing oil and gas
properties and all other assets of Forest Energy Resources.
The facility will contain various covenants that limit Forest
Energy Resources ability to do the following, among other
things, except as contemplated by the distribution agreement and
the merger agreement:
|
|
|
|
|
incur indebtedness; |
|
|
|
grant certain liens; |
|
|
|
merge or consolidate with another entity; |
|
|
|
sell assets except in the ordinary course of business; |
|
|
|
make certain loans and investments; and |
|
|
|
permit trade payables to exceed 90 days. |
If an event of default exists under the facility, the lender
will be able to accelerate the maturity of the facility and
exercise other rights and remedies. Events of default include
defaults in payment or performance under the facility,
misrepresentations, cross-defaults to other debt or material
obligations of Forest Energy Resources, and insolvency, material
judgments, certain changes of ownership and any material adverse
change affecting Forest Energy Resources.
45
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA COMBINED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET
As of September 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Merger | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
Adjustments(1) | |
|
Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
ASSETS |
Current Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
4,564 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4,564 |
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
50,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,259 |
|
|
Deferred tax asset
|
|
|
30,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,480 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
18,732 |
|
|
|
2,874 |
(2) |
|
|
21,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
104,035 |
|
|
|
2,874 |
|
|
|
106,909 |
|
Property and Equipment, net
|
|
|
393,258 |
|
|
|
1,463,846 |
(3) |
|
|
1,857,104 |
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,000 |
(3) |
|
|
142,000 |
|
Other Assets, net of amortization
|
|
|
4,916 |
|
|
|
7,597 |
(2) |
|
|
12,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
|
$ |
502,209 |
|
|
$ |
1,616,317 |
|
|
$ |
2,118,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
14,573 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
14,573 |
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
88,993 |
|
|
|
32,491 |
(2) |
|
|
121,484 |
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
Derivative liability
|
|
|
76,902 |
|
|
|
108,031 |
(2) |
|
|
184,933 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
180,609 |
|
|
|
140,522 |
|
|
|
321,131 |
|
Long-Term Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment liability
|
|
|
26,314 |
|
|
|
116,203 |
(2) |
|
|
142,517 |
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
6,468 |
|
|
|
168,852 |
(4) |
|
|
175,320 |
|
|
Derivative liability
|
|
|
28,221 |
|
|
|
17,203 |
(2) |
|
|
45,424 |
|
|
Bank debt
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
(5) |
|
|
275,000 |
|
|
Note payable
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
New debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
143,003 |
|
|
|
502,258 |
|
|
|
645,261 |
|
Stockholders Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
(6) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
171,667 |
|
|
|
973,532 |
(3) |
|
|
1,145,199 |
|
|
Unearned compensation
|
|
|
(14,548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,548 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss)
|
|
|
(67,708 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(67,708 |
) |
|
Accumulated retained earnings
|
|
|
89,182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
89,182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
178,597 |
|
|
|
973,537 |
|
|
|
1,152,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
$ |
502,209 |
|
|
$ |
1,616,317 |
|
|
$ |
2,118,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA COMBINED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forest Energy | |
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Resources, Inc. | |
|
Merger | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
Historical(7) | |
|
Adjustments(1) | |
|
Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except per share data) | |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil & gas sales
|
|
$ |
148,492 |
|
|
$ |
326,722 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
475,214 |
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
2,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
151,245 |
|
|
|
326,722 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
477,967 |
|
Costs and Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
20,170 |
|
|
|
59,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,549 |
|
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
1,697 |
|
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,181 |
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
26,726 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,726 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
43,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
201,255 |
(8) |
|
|
244,712 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
92,548 |
|
|
|
61,863 |
|
|
|
201,255 |
|
|
|
355,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME
|
|
|
58,697 |
|
|
|
264,859 |
|
|
|
(201,255 |
) |
|
|
122,301 |
|
Interest:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
696 |
|
|
Expense, net of amounts capitalized
|
|
|
(5,416 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,010 |
)(9) |
|
|
(13,426 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes
|
|
|
53,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(209,265 |
) |
|
|
109,571 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(18,414 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,936 |
)(10) |
|
|
(38,350 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
|
35,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(229,201 |
) |
|
|
71,221 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per sharebasic
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per sharediluted
|
|
|
1.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstandingbasic
|
|
|
32,438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,637 |
|
|
|
83,075 |
|
Weighted average shares outstandingdiluted
|
|
|
33,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,637 |
|
|
|
83,950 |
|
47
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA COMBINED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS
For the Year Ended December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forest Energy | |
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Resources, Inc. | |
|
Merger | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
Historical(7) | |
|
Adjustments(1) | |
|
Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except per share data) | |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil & gas sales
|
|
$ |
214,187 |
|
|
$ |
453,139 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
667,326 |
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
214,187 |
|
|
|
453,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
667,326 |
|
Costs and Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
25,484 |
|
|
|
81,627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,111 |
|
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
2,175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,204 |
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
8,772 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,772 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
64,911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
303,261 |
(8) |
|
|
368,172 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
103,153 |
|
|
|
83,802 |
|
|
|
303,261 |
|
|
|
490,216 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME
|
|
|
111,034 |
|
|
|
369,337 |
|
|
|
(303,261 |
) |
|
|
177,110 |
|
Interest:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
Expense, net of amounts capitalized
|
|
|
(6,050 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,840 |
)(9) |
|
|
(13,890 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes
|
|
|
105,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(311,101 |
) |
|
|
163,536 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(36,855 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,383 |
)(10) |
|
|
(57,238 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
|
68,445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(331,484 |
) |
|
|
106,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per sharebasic
|
|
|
2.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income per sharediluted
|
|
|
2.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstandingbasic
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,637 |
|
|
|
80,385 |
|
Weighted average shares outstandingdiluted
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,637 |
|
|
|
80,385 |
|
48
Notes to Unaudited Pro Forma Combined Condensed Financial
Data
The unaudited Mariner Pro Forma Combined financial
data have been prepared to give effect to Mariners
acquisition of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, which will
be spun off to Forest shareholders. Information under the
heading Merger Adjustments gives effect to the
adjustments related to the acquisition of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations. The unaudited pro forma combined condensed
statements are not necessarily indicative of the results of
Mariners future operations.
The unaudited pro forma combined financial information has been
derived from and should be read together with the historical
consolidated financial statements of Mariner and the statements
of revenues and direct operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations. The statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations do
not include all of the costs of doing business.
|
|
(1) |
Transaction costs consisting of accounting, consulting and legal
fees are anticipated to be approximately $12 million. These
costs are directly attributable to the transaction and have been
excluded from the pro forma financial statements as they
represent material nonrecurring charges. |
|
(2) |
To record other current and long-term assets that we will
receive in the spin-off and liabilities that we will assume as a
result of the spin-off
reflected at their estimated fair market values, including
inventory of $2.1 million, abandonment escrows of
$0.7 million, gas imbalances of $7.6 million, asset
retirement obligations of $146.6 million and derivative
liabilities of $125.2 million. |
|
(3) |
To record the preliminary purchase price allocation to the fair
value of assets acquired, including oil and gas properties and
goodwill. These adjustments also adjust depreciation, depletion
and amortization expense to give effect to the acquisition of
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations and their
step-up in value using
the unit of production method under the full cost method of
accounting. |
|
(4) |
To record the deferred tax position of the combined company,
inclusive of the deferred tax
gross-up in connection
with the acquisition. |
|
(5) |
To record $200.0 million of debt that Forest Energy
Resources, Inc. will incur under the terms of the distribution
agreement. The actual amount of debt to be incurred will be
adjusted to reflect the net cash proceeds generated by the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations since June 30, 2005
pursuant to the terms of the distribution agreement. Mariner
plans to refinance the debt, which will mature 90 days
after the closing, with a revolving credit facility that matures
on the fourth anniversary of the closing. Forest Energy
Resources, Inc. will be primarily liable for all indebtedness
incurred in connection with the spin-off or any refinancing
thereof. |
|
(6) |
To record issuance of 50,637,010 shares of common stock at
par value of $.0001 per share. |
|
(7) |
The Forest Gulf of Mexico operations historically have been
operated as part of Forests total oil and gas operations.
No historical GAAP-basis financial statements exist for the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations on a stand-alone basis;
however, statements of revenues and direct operating expenses
are presented for the year ended December 31, 2004
(audited) and for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 (unaudited). |
|
(8) |
To adjust depreciation, depletion and amortization expense to
give effect to the acquisition of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and their
step-up in value using
the unit of production method under the full cost method of
accounting. |
|
(9) |
To adjust interest expense to give effect to the financing
activities in connection with the organization of Forest Energy
Resources, Inc. assuming an interest rate of 5.34% for the nine
months ended September 30, 2005 and 3.92% for the year
ended December 31, 2004 based on the terms of the senior
term loan facility to be obtained by Forest Energy Resources.
The interest rates used reflect
30-day LIBOR plus
1.50%, or 5.34% as of September 30, 2005 and 3.92% as of
December 31, 2004. A change in interest rates of
1/8
percent would result in a change in interest expense of
approximately $0.1 million and $0.2 million for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005, and the year ended
December 31, 2004, respectively. |
|
|
(10) |
To record income tax expense on the combined company results of
operations based on a statutory combined federal and state tax
rate of 35%. |
49
Supplemental Pro Forma Combined Oil and Gas Reserve and
Standardized Measure Information (Unaudited)
The following unaudited supplemental pro forma oil and natural
gas reserve tables present how the combined oil and gas reserve
and standardized measure information of Mariner and the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations may have appeared had the businesses
actually been combined as of December 31, 2004. The
Supplemental Pro Forma Combined Oil and Gas Reserve and
Standardized Measure Information is for illustrative purposes
only. You should refer to footnote 10 in Mariners
Notes to the Financial Statements beginning on page
F-32 and
footnote 3 in Forests Gulf of Mexico Operations Notes
to Statements of Revenues and Direct Operating Expenses
beginning on page F-39
for additional information presented in accordance with the
requirements of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 69, Disclosures About Oil and Gas Producing Activities.
ESTIMATED PRO FORMA COMBINED QUANTITIES OF PROVED RESERVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forest Energy Resources, Inc. | |
|
|
|
|
Mariner Historical | |
|
Historical | |
|
Mariner Pro Forma Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
Oil | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Liquids | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Liquids | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
13,079 |
|
|
|
127,584 |
|
|
|
206,060 |
|
|
|
11,357 |
|
|
|
295,347 |
|
|
|
363,489 |
|
|
|
24,436 |
|
|
|
422,931 |
|
|
|
569,549 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
1,249 |
|
|
|
19,797 |
|
|
|
27,291 |
|
|
|
1,693 |
|
|
|
(2,860 |
) |
|
|
7,298 |
|
|
|
2,942 |
|
|
|
16,937 |
|
|
|
34,589 |
|
Extensions, discoveries and other additions
|
|
|
2,225 |
|
|
|
28,334 |
|
|
|
41,684 |
|
|
|
630 |
|
|
|
14,449 |
|
|
|
18,229 |
|
|
|
2,855 |
|
|
|
42,783 |
|
|
|
59,913 |
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(2,298 |
) |
|
|
(23,782 |
) |
|
|
(37,570 |
) |
|
|
(3,230 |
) |
|
|
(61,684 |
) |
|
|
(81,064 |
) |
|
|
(5,528 |
) |
|
|
(85,466 |
) |
|
|
(118,634 |
) |
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
24,556 |
|
|
|
31,756 |
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
24,556 |
|
|
|
31,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
14,255 |
|
|
|
151,933 |
|
|
|
237,465 |
|
|
|
11,650 |
(1) |
|
|
269,808 |
|
|
|
339,708 |
|
|
|
25,905 |
(1) |
|
|
421,741 |
|
|
|
577,173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes 598 Mbbls of natural gas liquids. |
ESTIMATED PRO FORMA COMBINED QUANTITIES OF PROVED DEVELOPED
RESERVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forest Energy Resources, Inc. | |
|
|
|
|
Mariner Historical | |
|
Historical | |
|
Mariner Pro Forma Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
Oil | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Liquids | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
Liquids | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(Mmcfe) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
6,339 |
|
|
|
71,361 |
|
|
|
109,395 |
|
|
|
9,471 |
|
|
|
201,759 |
|
|
|
258,585 |
|
|
|
15,810 |
|
|
|
273,120 |
|
|
|
367,980 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
PRO FORMA COMBINED STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF DISCOUNTED
FUTURE NET CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ending December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Forest Energy | |
|
Mariner Pro | |
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Resources, Inc. | |
|
Forma | |
|
|
Historical | |
|
Historical | |
|
Combined | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Future cash inflows
|
|
$ |
1,601,240 |
|
|
$ |
2,155,217 |
|
|
$ |
3,756,457 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(308,190 |
) |
|
|
(272,020 |
) |
|
|
(580,210 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(193,689 |
) |
|
|
(357,592 |
) |
|
|
(551,281 |
) |
Future income taxes
|
|
|
(285,701 |
) |
|
|
(412,477 |
) |
|
|
(698,178 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
813,660 |
|
|
|
1,113,128 |
|
|
|
1,926,788 |
|
Discount of future net cash flows at 10% per annum
|
|
|
(319,278 |
) |
|
|
(187,291 |
) |
|
|
(506,569 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
494,382 |
|
|
$ |
925,837 |
|
|
$ |
1,420,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of period
|
|
$ |
418,159 |
|
|
$ |
949,421 |
|
|
$ |
1,367,580 |
|
Increase (decrease) in discounted future net cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales and transfers of oil and gas produced, net of production
costs
|
|
|
(185,673 |
) |
|
|
(426,405 |
) |
|
|
(612,078 |
) |
|
Net changes in prices and production costs
|
|
|
27,767 |
|
|
|
11,628 |
|
|
|
39,395 |
|
|
Extensions and discoveries, net of future development and
production costs
|
|
|
102,905 |
|
|
|
88,999 |
|
|
|
191,904 |
|
|
Development costs during period and net change in development
costs
|
|
|
44,417 |
|
|
|
79,642 |
|
|
|
124,059 |
|
|
Revision of previous quantity estimates
|
|
|
89,814 |
|
|
|
28,701 |
|
|
|
118,515 |
|
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in income taxes
|
|
|
(27,634 |
) |
|
|
(28,550 |
) |
|
|
(56,184 |
) |
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100,681 |
|
|
|
100,681 |
|
|
Accretion of discount before income taxes
|
|
|
41,816 |
|
|
|
121,720 |
|
|
|
163,536 |
|
|
Changes in production rates (timing) and other
|
|
|
(17,189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,189 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period
|
|
$ |
494,382 |
|
|
$ |
925,837 |
|
|
$ |
1,420,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
STRENGTHS AND STRATEGIES OF MARINER FOLLOWING THE MERGER
Following the merger we expect Mariner to be an independent oil
and gas exploration, development and production company focused
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and onshore in the Permian Basin
of West Texas. On a pro forma basis as of December 31,
2004, the combined company had 577 Bcfe of estimated proved
reserves. Approximately 64% of these reserves were developed;
36% were undeveloped. Approximately 73% of our estimated proved
reserves were natural gas and natural gas liquids, and 27% were
oil and condensate. The reserves are geographically distributed
approximately 62% on the Gulf of Mexico shelf, 18% in the Gulf
of Mexico deepwater and 20% in the Permian Basin in West Texas.
As of December 31, 2004, the pro forma PV10 of the combined
company was approximately $1.9 billion, and the pro forma
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
attributable to its estimated proved reserves was approximately
$1.4 billion. Please see BusinessEstimated
Proved Reserves and The Forest Gulf of Mexico
OperationsEstimated Proved Reserves for a definition
of PV10 and reconciliations of PV10 to the standardized measure
of discounted future net cash flows.
Mariner is focused on the generation and development of new Gulf
of Mexico deepwater, deep shelf and shelf projects and the
development of its existing asset base in West Texas.
Historically, Mariner has achieved growth through the drill bit;
however, as part of our growth strategy, we also seek to acquire
assets that provide acceptable risk-adjusted rates of return and
have significant potential for further reserve additions through
development and exploitation activities.
We believe Mariners core resources and strengths include:
|
|
|
|
|
our high-quality assets with geographic and geological diversity; |
|
|
|
our successful track record of finding and developing oil and
gas reserves; and |
|
|
|
our depth of operating experience. |
The integration and further development and exploitation of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations into our business will further
diversify and, in our view, complement our existing business,
provide additional resources for future growth beyond the
producing assets acquired, and afford a larger scale to increase
our ability to compete effectively. We expect the effectiveness
of our growth strategy to be enhanced by the addition of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico assets.
High-Quality Assets. We believe our asset base has
significant potential:
|
|
|
|
|
Our deepwater projects have the potential to provide large
reserves, high production volumes and substantial cash flow.
Approximately 65 Bcfe of our undeveloped estimated proved
reserves as of December 31, 2004, are located in our
high-impact deepwater projectsSwordfish, Pluto, Rigel,
Baccarat, and Daniel Boone. The Baccarat project commenced
production in July 2005 (although production was shut-in due to
Hurricane Rita and recommenced in January 2006), and the
Swordfish project commenced production in October 2005.
Notwithstanding delays caused primarily by 2005 hurricane
activity, we believe Pluto and Rigel will commence production in
the second quarter of 2006. Proved undeveloped reserves
attributable to those projects have been recategorized as proved
developed reserves. Daniel Boone is currently scheduled for
production in 2008. |
|
|
|
The Gulf of Mexico is an area that offers substantial growth
opportunities, and we expect to continue to generate shelf, deep
shelf and deepwater Gulf of Mexico prospects. The Forest Gulf of
Mexico assets will more than double our existing undeveloped
acreage position to approximately 465,000 net acres and
increase our total net leasehold acreage offshore to nearly
1 million acres, providing numerous exploration,
exploitation and development opportunities. We believe the
additional acreage also will provide increased exposure to
farm-out opportunities from other oil and gas operators. Our
team of geoscientists currently has access to seismic data from
multiple, recent vintage 3-D seismic databases covering
more than 6,600 blocks in the Gulf of Mexico that we intend
to continue to use to develop prospects on acreage being
evaluated for leasing and to develop and further refine
prospects on our expanded acreage position. The combination of
our |
52
|
|
|
|
|
undeveloped acreage position, inventory of development
prospects, seismic data and technical knowledge should enhance
our ability to select projects with the greatest return
potential for future development. We will also gain access to a
significant infrastructure in the shelf that we believe will
provide substantial cost efficiencies to the combined operations. |
|
|
|
Our West Texas assets provide stable cash flow and long-lived
reserves, with significant development opportunities. In West
Texas, during the three years ended December 31, 2004, we
drilled 105 wells, all commercially successful, added
approximately 76 Bcfe of estimated proved reserves, and
increased our average daily production by more than 400%. Our
52 Bcfe of undeveloped estimated proved reserves in West
Texas includes 162 locations. Our recent West Texas
acquisition adds to our asset base an approximate 35% working
interest in over 200 existing producing wells and, we
believe, will provide future infill development opportunities,
much like our Aldwell unit. This recent acquisition, in
conjunction with our existing West Texas acreage, gives Mariner
an inventory of multi-year development drilling opportunities. |
Successful Track Record of Finding and Developing Oil and Gas
Reserves. In the three-year period ended December 31,
2004, Mariner deployed approximately $337 million of
capital on acquisitions, exploration and development, while
adding approximately 191 Bcfe of proved reserves and
producing approximately 111 Bcfe. In addition to our
successful West Texas drilling program, in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004, we have participated in the
drilling of 33 exploration wells in the Gulf of Mexico,
with 15 of these wells resulting in the discovery of commercial
oil and gas reserves.
Our technical professionals average more than 20 years of
experience in the exploration and production business, much of
it with major oil companies, including extensive experience in
the Gulf of Mexico. The addition of experienced Forest personnel
to Mariners team of geoscientists and technical and
operational professionals should further enhance our ability to
generate and maintain an inventory of high-quality drillable
prospects and to further develop and exploit our assets.
We seek to mitigate our risk in drilling projects by entering
into arrangements with industry partners in which they agree to
pay a disproportionate share of dry hole costs and compensate us
for expenses incurred in prospect generation. We intend to
continue our practice of sharing costs of offshore exploration
and development activities by selling interests in projects to
industry partners. From time to time, we may sell entire
interests in offshore prospects in order to better diversify our
portfolio. We also enter into trades or farm-in transactions
whereby we acquire interests in third-party generated prospects.
We expect more opportunities to participate in these prospects
as a result of the scale and increased cash flow the merger will
bring.
Depth of Operating Experience. Our engineers have
extensive experience in offshore Gulf of Mexico completion and
production techniques, both in the deepwater and on the shelf.
We have extensive experience and a successful track record in
the use of subsea tieback technology to connect offshore wells
to existing production facilities. This technology facilitates
production from offshore properties without the necessity of
fabrication and installation of more costly platforms and top
side facilities that typically require longer lead times. We
believe the use of subsea tiebacks in appropriate projects
enables us to bring production online more quickly, makes target
prospects more profitable, and allows us to exploit reserves
that may otherwise be considered non-commercial because of the
high cost of infrastructure. In the Gulf of Mexico, in the three
years ended December 31, 2004, we were directly involved in
thirteen projects (five of which we operated) utilizing subsea
tieback systems in water depths ranging from 475 feet to
more than 7,000 feet, and in five projects (three of which
we operated) developed through the use of platforms.
Mariner has proven to be an effective and efficient operator in
West Texas, as evidenced by our results there in recent years.
In addition to conducting a successful drilling program,
increasing our production and expanding our asset base, we have
improved our net operating margin by reducing our operating
costs and increasing our realized share of production.
53
We expect that our acquisition of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
assets and the scale it brings to our business will:
|
|
|
|
|
reduce our concentration risk; |
|
|
|
provide many exploration, exploitation and development
opportunities; |
|
|
|
enable us to increase the number of our internally-generated
prospects; |
|
|
|
expand our sphere of influence and enhance our ability to
participate in prospects generated by other operators; and |
|
|
|
add a significant cash flow generating resource that will
improve our ability to compete effectively in the Gulf of Mexico
and provide funding for acquisition projects. |
We believe we are well positioned to optimize the Forest Gulf of
Mexico assets through aggressive and timely exploitation. Our
diverse, high-quality assets, our ability to find and develop
oil and gas reserves, and our operating experience should
provide a strong platform from which to grow and create value
for our shareholders.
54
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Overview
On March 2, 2004, Mariners former indirect parent,
Mariner Energy LLC, merged with MEI Acquisitions, LLC, an
affiliate of the private equity funds, Carlyle/ Riverstone
Global Energy and Power Fund II, L.P. and ACON Investments
LLC. Prior to the merger, we were owned indirectly by JEDI,
which was an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron Corp. The
gross merger consideration was $271.1 million (which
excludes $7.0 million of acquisition costs and other
expenses paid directly by Mariner), $100 million of which
was provided as equity by our new owners. As a result of the
merger, we are no longer affiliated with Enron Corp. See
BusinessEnron Related Matters. The merger did
not result in a change in our strategic direction or operations.
The financial information contained herein is presented in the
style of Pre-2004 Merger activity (for all periods prior to
March 2, 2004) and Post-2004 Merger activity (for the
March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004 period) to
reflect the impact of the restatement of assets and liabilities
to fair value as required by push-down purchase
accounting at the March 2, 2004 merger date. The
application of push-down accounting had no effect on our 2004
results of operations other than immaterial increases in
depreciation, depletion and amortization expense and interest
expense and a related decrease in our provision for income
taxes. To facilitate managements discussion and analysis
of financial condition and results of operations, we have
presented 2004 financial information as Pre-2004 Merger (for the
January 1 through March 2, 2004 period), Post-2004 Merger
(for the March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004
period), Combined (for the full period from January 1 through
December 31, 2004), Post-2004 Merger (for the March 3,
2004 through September 30, 2004 period) and Combined (for
the full period from January 1, 2004 through
September 30, 2004). The combined presentation does not
reflect the adjustments to our statement of operations that
would be reflected in a pro forma presentation. However, because
such adjustments are not material, we believe that our combined
presentation presents a fair presentation and facilitates an
understanding of our results of operations.
In March 2005, we completed a private placement of
16,350,000 shares of our common stock to qualified
institutional buyers,
non-U.S. persons
and accredited investors, which generated approximately
$229 million of gross proceeds, or approximately
$211 million net of initial purchasers discount,
placement fee and offering expenses. Our former sole
stockholder, MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, also sold
15,102,500 shares of our common stock in the private
placement. We used $166 million of the net proceeds from
the sale of 12,750,000 shares of common stock to purchase
and retire an equal number of shares of our common stock from
our former sole stockholder. We used $39 million of the
remaining net proceeds of approximately $45 million to
repay borrowings drawn on our credit facility, and the balance
to pay down $6 million of a $10 million promissory
note payable to JEDI. See BusinessEnron Related
Matters. As a result, after the private placement, an
affiliate of MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC beneficially owned
approximately 5.3% of our outstanding common stock. See
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management.
We are an independent oil and natural gas exploration,
development and production company with principal operations in
the Gulf of Mexico and the Permian Basin in West Texas. In the
Gulf of Mexico, our areas of operation include the deepwater and
the shelf area. We have been active in the Gulf of Mexico and
West Texas since the mid-1980s. During the last three years, as
a result of increased drilling of shelf prospects and
development drilling in our Aldwell Unit, we have evolved from a
company with primarily a deepwater focus to one with a balance
of exploitation and exploration of the Gulf of Mexico deepwater
and shelf, and longer-lived Permian Basin properties.
Our revenues, profitability and future growth depend
substantially on prevailing prices for oil and gas and our
ability to find, develop and acquire oil and gas reserves that
are economically recoverable while controlling and reducing
costs. The energy markets have historically been very volatile.
Commodity prices are currently at or near historical highs and
may fluctuate and decline significantly in the future. Although
we attempt to mitigate the impact of price declines through our
hedging strategy, a substantial or extended
55
decline in oil and natural gas prices or poor drilling results
could have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations, cash flows, quantities of natural gas and
oil reserves that we can economically produce and our access to
capital.
Approximately 29 Mmcfe per day of natural gas and
approximately 3,000 bbls per day of oil and condensate net
to our interest were initially shut-in as a result of the
effects of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. The majority of
this production was returned within two weeks of the hurricane,
and substantially all within three weeks of the hurricane.
Additionally, we are experiencing delays in startup of three of
our projects primarily as a result of Hurricane Katrina which is
anticipated to defer commencement of production to as late as
the second quarter of 2006. Approximately 60 MMcfe per day
of production net to our interest was shut-in initially as a
result of the effects of Hurricane Rita in late September 2005.
Approximately 53 MMcfe per day of production, or
approximately 90% of our pre-hurricane production, was restored
within two weeks of the hurricane. Our operated platforms appear
to have sustained minimal damage attributable to the storm.
First reports from operators of other facilities handling our
production indicated varying degrees of damage to their
facilities, the full extent of which may not be known for some
time. Although a submersible rig engaged in drilling operations
on our East Cameron Block 79 property was moved off
location by Hurricane Rita, a substitute rig was subsequently
provided, the damage to the well was repaired and drilling
recommenced in the last quarter of 2005. Other planned
operations also are delayed as a result of the effects of both
hurricanes. We cannot estimate a range of loss arising from the
hurricanes until we are able to more completely assess the
impacts on our properties and the properties of our operational
partners. Until we are able to complete all the repair work and
submit costs to our insurance underwriters for review, the full
extent of our insurance recovery and the resulting net cost to
us for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be unknown. For the
insurance period ending September 30, 2005, we carry a
$3.0 million annual deductible and a $.375 million
single occurrence deductible.
We entered into an agreement effective in October 2005 covering
approximately 33,000 acres in West Texas, pursuant to
which, upon closing, we acquired an approximate 35% working
interest in approximately 200 existing producing wells effective
November 1, 2005, and committed to drill an additional 150
wells within a four year period, funding $36.5 million of
our partners share of drilling costs for such 150-well
drilling program. We will obtain an assignment of an approximate
35% working interest in the entire committed acreage upon
completion of the 150-well program.
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005
Highlights |
During the first nine months of 2005, we recognized net income
of $35.6 million on total revenues of $151.2 million
compared to net income of $50.5 million on total revenues of
$162.3 million in the first nine months of 2004. Net income
decreased 30% compared to the first nine months of 2004,
primarily due to recognizing $17.6 million of stock
compensation expense in the first nine months of 2005, and a 21%
decrease in production, partially offset by higher realized net
oil and gas prices. We produced approximately 22.5 Bcfe during
the first nine months of 2005 and our average daily production
rate was 82 Mmcfe compared to 28.4 Bcfe, or
104 Mmcfe per day, for the same period in 2004. Production
during the third quarter of 2005 was negatively impacted by the
effects of the 2005 hurricane season. We invested approximately
$130.3 million in oil and natural gas properties in the
first nine months of 2005, compared to $101.0 million in
the same period in 2004.
Our first nine months 2005 results reflect the private placement
of an additional 3.6 million shares of stock in March. The
net proceeds of approximately $45 million generated by the
private placement were used to repay existing debt. We also
granted 2,267,270 shares of restricted stock and options to
purchase 809,000 shares of stock in the first nine months of
2005 and recorded compensation expense of $17.6 million in
the first nine months of 2005 related to the restricted stock
and options.
56
We recognized net income of $68.4 million in 2004 compared
to net income of $38.2 million in 2003. The increase in net
income was primarily the result of improvements in operating
results, including a 13% increase in production volumes, a 21%
improvement in the net commodity prices realized by us (before
the effects of hedging) and an 8% decrease in lease operating
expenses and transportation expenses on a per unit basis. These
improvements were partially offset by an 8% increase in general
and administrative expenses and a 34% increase in
depreciation, depletion, and amortization expenses. Our hedging
results also improved by $9.7 million to a
$19.8 million loss, from a $29.5 million loss in the
prior year. In addition, we recorded income tax expenses of
$36.9 million in 2004 compared to $9.4 million in 2003.
We have incurred and expect to continue to incur substantial
capital expenditures. However, for the three years ended
December 31, 2004, our capital expenditures of
$337.3 million have been below our combined cash flow from
operations and proceeds from property sales.
During 2004, we increased our proved reserves by approximately
69 Bcfe, bringing estimated proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004 to approximately 237.5 Bcfe after
2004 production of 37.6 Bcfe.
We had $2.5 million and $60.2 million in cash and cash
equivalents as of December 31, 2004 and December 31,
2003, respectively.
Three of our shelf properties, Ewing Bank 977 (Dice), West
Cameron 333 (Royal Flush) and High Island 46 (Green Pepper)
began producing in the first quarter of 2005. Our production for
the first nine months of 2005 averaged approximately
53 MMcf of natural gas per day and approximately
4,900 barrels of oil per day or a total of approximately
82 MMcfe per day.
In the third quarter of 2005 our production was negatively
impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Production shut-in and
deferred because of the hurricanes impact totaled
approximately 1.3 Bcfe during the third quarter of 2005.
Currently approximately 7 MMcfe per day of production remains
shut-in awaiting repairs, primarily associated with our Baccarat
property. While we believe physical damage to our existing
platforms and facilities was relatively minor from both
hurricanes, the effects of the storms caused damage to onshore
pipeline and processing facilities that resulted in a portion of
our production being temporarily shut-in, or in the case of our
Viosca Knoll 917 (Swordfish) project, postponed. In addition,
Hurricane Katrina caused damage to platforms that host three of
our development projects: Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto),
Mississippi Canyon 296 (Rigel), and Mississippi Canyon 66
(Ochre). Repairs to these facilities may take up to six months,
pushing commencement of production on these projects into 2006.
Our December 2004 total production averaged approximately
58 MMcf of natural gas per day and approximately
5,700 barrels of oil per day or total equivalents of
approximately 92 MMcfe per day. Natural gas production
comprised approximately 63% of total production. In September
2004, Mariner incurred damage from Hurricane Ivan that affected
our Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre) and Mississippi
Canyon 357 fields. Production from Mississippi Canyon
357 was shut-in until March 2005, when necessary repairs were
completed and production recommenced. Production from
Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre) remains shut-in and is
expected to recommence in the first quarter of 2006. This field
was producing at a net rate of approximately 6.5 MMcfe per
day immediately prior to the hurricane.
Historically, a majority of our total production has been
comprised of natural gas. We anticipate that our concentration
in natural gas production will continue. As a result,
Mariners revenues, profitability and cash flows will be
more sensitive to natural gas prices than to oil and condensate
prices.
Generally, our producing properties in the Gulf of Mexico will
have high initial production rates followed by steep declines.
As a result, we must continually drill for and develop new oil
and gas reserves to replace those being depleted by production.
Substantial capital expenditures are required to find and
57
develop these reserves. Our challenge is to find and develop
reserves at economic rates and commence production of these
reserves as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Deepwater discoveries typically require a longer lead time to
bring to productive status. Since 2001, we have made several
deepwater discoveries that are in various stages of development.
We commenced production at our Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat)
project in the third quarter of 2005. However, damage sustained
by the host facility during Hurricane Rita caused production to
be shut-in. Production is expected to recommence in the first
quarter of 2006. We commenced production at our Swordfish
project in the fourth quarter of 2005. We currently anticipate
commencing production in the second quarter of 2006 at our
Pluto, Rigel and Ewing Banks 921 (North Black Widow) projects.
However, as described above, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have
delayed start up of these projects from their original
anticipated commencement dates. Other uncertainties, including
scheduling, weather, and construction lead times, could cause
further delays in the start up of any one or all of the projects.
|
|
|
Oil and Gas Property Costs |
In the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we incurred
approximately $130.4 million in capital expenditures with
70% related to development activities primarily at our Aldwell
Unit and for our Viosca Knoll 917 (Swordfish), Mississippi
Canyon 718 (Pluto) and Mississippi Canyon 296 (Rigel) offshore
projects. We also expended $10.0 million for the
acquisition of oil and gas property interests in the first nine
months of 2005, comprised of $3.5 million for properties
located in the West Texas Permian Basin area, $5.0 million
for Atwater Valley 426 (Bass Lite) and $1.5 million for
East Breaks 513/514/558 (LaSalle). We incurred approximately
$23.6 million of exploration capital expenditures in the
first nine months of 2005.
During 2004, we incurred approximately $148.9 million in
capital expenditures with 60% related to development activities,
32% related to exploration activities, including the acquisition
of leasehold and seismic, and the remainder related to
acquisitions and other items (primarily capitalized overhead and
interest).
We spent approximately $88.6 million in development capital
expenditures in 2004 primarily on Aldwell Unit development and
for Viosca Knoll 917 (Swordfish), Mississippi Canyon 718
(Pluto), and West Cameron 333 (Royal Flush) offshore projects.
All capital expenditures for exploration activities relate to
offshore projects, and approximately 30% of exploration capital
expended during 2004 was for leasehold, seismic, and geological
and geophysical costs. During 2004 we participated in fourteen
exploration wells, with seven being successful. We incurred
approximately $47.9 million of exploration capital
expenditures in 2004.
We anticipate that, based on our current budget, capital
expenditures in 2005 will approximate $250 million with
approximately 48% allocated to development projects, 27% to
exploration activities, 21% to acquisitions and the remainder to
other items (primarily capitalized overhead and interest).
However, the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita may delay
some planned operations into 2006.
We have maintained our reserve base through exploration and
exploitation activities despite selling 79.7 Bcfe of our
reserves since the fourth quarter of 2001. Historically, we have
not acquired significant reserves through acquisition
activities. As of December 31, 2004, Ryder Scott estimated
our net proved reserves at approximately 237.5 Bcfe, with a
PV10 of approximately $668 million and a standardized
measure of discounted future net cash flows attributable to our
estimated proved reserves of approximately $494.4 million.
Please see BusinessEstimated Proved Reserves
for a definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. To
generate our net proved reserves as of June 30, 2005, our
management reviewed and updated our historical lease operating
expenses, updated our transportation and basis differentials,
updated NYMEX prices, adjusted for roll-off and production
performance since December 31, 2004, added any new proved
undeveloped reserves (including those resulting from our Bass
Lite project), updated the categorization of our projects
58
as either proved undeveloped, proved developed producing or
proved behind pipe, and adjusted capital expenditures and timing
of cash outlays. See BusinessEstimated Proved
Reserves for more information concerning our reserve
estimates.
The development drilling at our West Texas Aldwell Unit and Gulf
of Mexico deepwater divestitures have significantly changed our
reserve profile since 2001. Proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004 were comprised of 48% West Texas Permian
Basin, 15% Gulf of Mexico shelf and 37% Gulf of Mexico deepwater
compared to 20% West Texas Permian Basin, 15% Gulf of Mexico
shelf and 65% Gulf of Mexico deepwater as of December 31,
2001. Proved undeveloped reserves were approximately 54% of
total proved reserves as of December 31, 2004.
Approximately 39% of proved undeveloped reserves were related to
our West Texas Aldwell Unit, where we had 100% development
drilling success on 105 wells from 2002 through 2004.
Since December 31, 1997, we have added proved undeveloped
reserves attributable to 12 deepwater projects. Of those
projects, ten have either been converted to proved developed
reserves or sold as indicated in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Proved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undeveloped |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserves |
|
Year |
|
|
Property |
|
(Bcfe)(1) |
|
Added |
|
Year Converted to Proved Developed or Sold |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto)(2)
|
|
|
25.1 |
|
|
|
1998 |
|
|
2000 (100% converted to proved developed) |
Ewing Bank 966 (Black Widow)
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
2000 (100% converted to proved developed) |
Mississippi Canyon 773 (Devils Tower)
|
|
|
28.0 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
2001 (100% of Mariners interest sold) |
Mississippi Canyon 305 (Aconcagua)
|
|
|
19.2 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
2001 (100% of Mariners interest sold) |
Green Canyon 472/473 (King Kong)
|
|
|
25.5 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
2002 (100% converted to proved developed) |
Green Canyon 516 (Yosemite)
|
|
|
14.9 |
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
2002 (100% converted to proved developed) |
East Breaks 579 (Falcon)
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
2002 (50% of Mariners interest sold)
2003 (all of Mariners remaining interest sold) |
Viosca Knoll 917 (Swordfish)
|
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
2005 (100% converted to proved developed) |
Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat)
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 (100% converted to proved developed) |
Mississippi Canyon 296/252 (Rigel)
|
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
2005 (75% converted to proved developed/ 25% remains
undeveloped) |
|
|
(1) |
Net proved undeveloped reserves attributable to the project in
the year it was first added to our proved reserves. |
|
(2) |
This field was shut-in in April 2004 pending the drilling of a
new well and installation of an extension to the existing
infield flowline and umbilical. As a result, as of
December 31, 2004, 9.0 Bcfe of our net proved reserves
attributable to this project were classified as proved
undeveloped reserves. We expect production from Pluto to
recommence in the second quarter of 2006. |
The proved undeveloped reserves attributable to the remaining
two deepwater projects were added as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Proved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undeveloped |
|
|
|
Year Expected to |
|
|
Reserves |
|
Year |
|
Convert to Proved |
Property |
|
(Bcfe)(1) |
|
Added |
|
Developed Status |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 646 (Daniel Boone)
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
Atwater Valley 380/381/382/425/426 (Bass Lite)
|
|
|
30.7 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved undeveloped reserves attributable to the project as
of June 30, 2005. |
59
|
|
|
Oil and Natural Gas Prices and Hedging Activities |
Prices for oil and natural gas can fluctuate widely, thereby
affecting the amount of cash flow available for capital
expenditures, our ability to borrow and raise additional capital
and the amount of oil and natural gas that we can economically
produce. Recently, oil and natural gas prices have been at or
near historical highs and very volatile as a result of various
factors, including weather, industrial demand, war and political
instability and uncertainty related to the ability of the energy
industry to provide supply to meet future demand.
Our revenues, profitability and future growth depend
substantially on prevailing prices for oil and gas and our
ability to find, develop and acquire oil and gas reserves that
are economically recoverable while controlling and reducing
costs. A substantial or extended decline in oil and natural gas
prices or poor drilling results could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash
flows, quantities of oil and natural gas reserves that we can
economically produce and access to capital.
We enter into hedging arrangements from time to time to reduce
our exposure to fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices.
Typically, our hedging strategy involves entering into commodity
price swap arrangements and costless collars with third parties.
Price swap arrangements establish a fixed price and an
index-related price for the covered commodity. When the
index-related price exceeds the fixed price, we pay the third
party the difference, and when the fixed price exceeds the
index-related prices, the third party pays us the difference.
Costless collars establish fixed cap (maximum) and floor
(minimum) prices as well as an index-related price for the
covered commodity. When the index-related price exceeds the
fixed cap price, we pay the third party the difference, and when
the index-related price is less than the fixed floor price, the
third party pays us the difference. While our hedging
arrangements enable us to achieve a more predictable cash flow,
these arrangements also limit the benefits of increased prices.
As a result of increased oil and natural gas prices, we incurred
cash hedging losses of $27.7 million in 2004, of which
$7.9 million relates to the hedge liability recorded at the
March 2, 2004 merger date. Major challenges related to our
hedging activities include a determination of the proper
production volumes to hedge and acceptable commodity price
levels for each hedge transaction. Our hedging activities may
also require that we post cash collateral with our
counterparties from time to time to cover credit risk. We had no
collateral requirements as of December 31, 2004 or
September 30, 2005.
In accordance with purchase price accounting implemented at the
time of the merger of our former indirect parent company on
March 2, 2004, we recorded the
mark-to-market
liability of our hedge contracts at such date totaling
$12.4 million as a liability on our balance sheet. As of
December 31, 2004, the amount of our
mark-to-market hedge
liabilities totaled $22.4 million. See
Liquidity and Capital ResourcesCommodity
Prices and Related Hedging Activities.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, assuming a totally
unhedged position, our price sensitivity for 2004 historical net
revenues for a 10% change in average oil prices and average gas
prices received is approximately $8.9 million and
$14.5 million, respectively. For the nine months ended
September 30, 2005, assuming a totally unhedged position,
our price sensitivity for net revenues in the first nine months
of 2005 for a 10% change in average oil prices and average gas
prices received is approximately $6.7 million and
$10.5 million, respectively.
We classify our operating costs as lease operating expense,
transportation expense, and general and administrative expenses.
Lease operating expenses are comprised of those costs and
expenses necessary to produce oil and gas after an individual
well or field has been completed and prepared for production.
These costs include direct costs such as field operations,
general maintenance expenses, work-overs, and the costs
associated with production handling agreements for most of our
deep water fields. Lease operating expenses also include
indirect costs such as oil and gas property insurance and
overhead allocations in accordance with joint operating
agreements. We also include severance, production, and ad
valorem taxes as lease operating expenses.
60
Transportation costs are generally variable costs associated
with transportation of product to sales meters from the wellhead
or field gathering point. General and administrative include
employee compensation costs (including stock compensation
expense), the costs of third party consultants and
professionals, rent and other costs of leasing and maintaining
office space, the costs of maintaining computer hardware and
software, and insurance and other items.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our discussion and analysis of Mariners financial
condition and results of operations are based upon financial
statements that have been prepared in accordance with GAAP in
the U.S. The preparation of these financial statements
requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the
reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses.
Our significant accounting policies are described in Note 1
to our financial statements. We analyze our estimates, including
those related to oil and gas revenues, oil and gas properties,
fair value of derivative instruments, income taxes and
contingencies and litigation, and base our estimates on
historical experience and various other assumptions that we
believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results
may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or
conditions. We believe the following critical accounting
policies affect our more significant judgments and estimates
used in the preparation of our financial statements:
Oil and gas properties are accounted for using the full-cost
method of accounting. All direct costs and certain indirect
costs associated with the acquisition, exploration and
development of oil and gas properties are capitalized.
Amortization of oil and gas properties is provided using the
unit-of-production
method based on estimated proved oil and gas reserves. No gains
or losses are recognized upon the sale or disposition of oil and
gas properties unless the sale or disposition represents a
significant quantity of oil and gas reserves, which would have a
significant impact on depreciation, depletion and amortization.
The net carrying value of proved oil and gas properties is
limited to an estimate of the future net revenues (discounted at
10%) from proved oil and gas reserves based on period-end prices
and costs.
The costs of unproved properties are excluded from amortization
using the full-cost method of accounting. These costs are
assessed quarterly for possible inclusion in the full-cost
property pool based on geological and geophysical data. If a
reduction in value has occurred, costs being amortized are
increased. The majority of the costs relating to our unproved
properties will be evaluated over the next three years.
Our most significant financial estimates are based on estimates
of proved natural gas and oil reserves. Estimates of proved
reserves are key components of our unevaluated properties, our
rate for recording depreciation, depletion and amortization and
our full cost ceiling limitation. There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved
reserves and in projecting future revenues, rates of production
and timing of development expenditures, including many factors
beyond our control. The estimation process relies on assumptions
and interpretations of available geologic, geophysical,
engineering and production data, and the accuracy of reserve
estimates is a function of the quality and quantity of available
data. Our reserves are fully engineered on an annual basis by
Ryder Scott, our independent petroleum engineers.
As a result of the adoption of SFAS Statement
No. 123(R), we will record compensation expense for the
fair value of restricted stock and stock options that were
granted on March 11, 2005 pursuant to our Equity
Participation Plan and Stock Incentive Plan and for the fair
value of subsequent grants of stock options or restricted stock
made pursuant to our Stock Incentive Plan. In general,
compensation expense will be determined at the date of grant
based on the fair value of the stock or options granted.
61
The fair value of restricted stock that we granted following the
closing of the private equity placement pursuant to our Equity
Participation Plan was estimated to be $31.7 million. The
fair value will be amortized to compensation expense over the
applicable vesting periods. Stock options and restricted stock
granted under our Stock Incentive Plan will also result in
recognition of compensation expense in accordance with FASB
No. 123(R). For more information concerning our Equity
Participation Plan, see Management of MarinerEquity
Participation Plan.
We recognize oil and gas revenue from our interests in producing
wells as oil and gas from those wells is produced and sold under
the entitlements method. Oil and gas volumes sold are not
significantly different from our share of production.
Our taxable income through 2004 has been included in a
consolidated U.S. income tax return with our former
indirect parent company, Mariner Energy LLC. The intercompany
tax allocation policy provides that each member of the
consolidated group compute a provision for income taxes on a
separate return basis. We record income taxes using an asset and
liability approach which results in the recognition of deferred
tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax
consequences of temporary differences between the book carrying
amounts and the tax bases of assets and liabilities. Valuation
allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax
assets to the amount more likely than not to be recovered. In
February 2005, Mariner Energy LLC was merged into us, and we
will file our own income tax return following the effective date
of that merger.
|
|
|
Capitalized Interest Costs |
We capitalize interest based on the cost of major development
projects which are excluded from current depreciation,
depletion, and amortization calculations.
|
|
|
Accrual for Future Abandonment Costs |
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations, addresses accounting and reporting for
obligations associated with the retirement of tangible
long-lived assets and the associated asset retirement costs.
SFAS No. 143 requires that the fair value of a
liability for an assets retirement obligation be recorded
in the period in which it is incurred and the corresponding cost
capitalized by increasing the carrying amount of the related
long-lived asset. The liability is accreted to its then present
value each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over
the useful life of the related asset. If the liability is
settled for an amount other than the recorded amount, a gain or
loss is recognized.
In June 1998 the FASB issued SFAS No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Certain Hedging
Activities. In June 2000 the FASB issued
SFAS No. 138, Accounting for Certain Derivative
Instruments and Certain Hedging Activity, an Amendment of
SFAS No. 133. SFAS No. 133 and
SFAS No. 138 require that all derivative instruments
be recorded on the balance sheet at their respective fair values.
Mariner utilizes derivative instruments, typically in the form
of natural gas and crude oil price swap agreements and costless
collar arrangements, in order to manage price risk associated
with future crude oil and natural gas production. These
agreements are accounted for as cash flow hedges. Gains and
losses resulting from these transactions are recorded at fair
market value and deferred to the extent such amounts are
effective. Such gains or losses are recorded in AOCI as
appropriate, until recognized as operating income as the
physical production hedged by the contracts is delivered.
62
The net cash flows related to any recognized gains or losses
associated with these hedges are reported as oil and gas
revenues and presented in cash flows from operations. If the
hedge is terminated prior to expected maturity, gains or losses
are deferred and included in income in the same period as the
physical production hedged by the contracts is delivered.
The conditions to be met for a derivative instrument to qualify
as a cash flow hedge are the following: (i) the item to be
hedged exposes Mariner to price risk; (ii) the derivative
reduces the risk exposure and is designated as a hedge at the
time the derivative contract is entered into; and (iii) at
the inception of the hedge and throughout the hedge period there
is a high correlation of changes in the market value of the
derivative instrument and the fair value of the underlying item
being hedged.
When the designated item associated with a derivative instrument
matures, is sold, extinguished or terminated, derivative gains
or losses are recognized as part of the gain or loss on sale or
settlement of the underlying item. When a derivative instrument
is associated with an anticipated transaction that is no longer
expected to occur or if correlation no longer exists, the gain
or loss on the derivative is recognized in income to the extent
the future results have not been offset by the effects of price
or interest rate changes on the hedged item since the inception
of the hedge.
|
|
|
Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial
Statements |
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP
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 amount of revenues and
expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could
differ from these estimates.
Results of Operations
For certain information with respect to our oil and natural gas
production, average sales price received and expenses per unit
of production for the three years ended December 31, 2004,
see BusinessProduction.
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 compared to Nine
Months Ended September 30, 2004 |
Operating and Financial Results for the Nine Months Ended
September 30, 2005 Compared
to the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
through September 30, | |
|
through March 2, | |
Summary Operating Information: |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except average sales price) | |
Net production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,336 |
|
|
|
1,748 |
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
|
|
413 |
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
14,508 |
|
|
|
17,959 |
|
|
|
13,726 |
|
|
|
4,233 |
|
Total (Mmcfe)
|
|
|
22,521 |
|
|
|
28,444 |
|
|
|
21,731 |
|
|
|
6,713 |
|
Average daily production (Mmcfe/d)
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
Hedging activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil revenues (loss)
|
|
$ |
(13,421 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,874 |
) |
|
$ |
(6,188 |
) |
|
$ |
(686 |
) |
Gas revenues (loss)
|
|
|
(9,979 |
) |
|
|
(1,010 |
) |
|
|
(2,441 |
) |
|
|
1,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total hedging revenues (loss)
|
|
$ |
(23,400 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,884 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,629 |
) |
|
$ |
745 |
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
through September 30, | |
|
through March 2, | |
Summary Operating Information: |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except average sales price) | |
Average Sales Prices:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (per Bbl) realized(1)
|
|
$ |
40.12 |
|
|
$ |
32.78 |
|
|
$ |
33.41 |
|
|
$ |
30.75 |
|
Oil (per Bbl) unhedged
|
|
|
50.17 |
|
|
|
36.71 |
|
|
|
38.05 |
|
|
|
32.41 |
|
Natural gas (per Mcf) realized(1)
|
|
|
6.54 |
|
|
|
5.85 |
|
|
|
5.68 |
|
|
|
6.39 |
|
Natural gas (per Mcf) unhedged
|
|
|
7.23 |
|
|
|
5.90 |
|
|
|
5.86 |
|
|
|
6.05 |
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe) realized(1)
|
|
|
6.59 |
|
|
|
5.71 |
|
|
|
5.64 |
|
|
|
5.92 |
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe) unhedged
|
|
|
7.63 |
|
|
|
5.98 |
|
|
|
6.04 |
|
|
|
5.81 |
|
Oil and gas revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil sales
|
|
$ |
53,579 |
|
|
$ |
57,285 |
|
|
$ |
44,576 |
|
|
$ |
12,709 |
|
Gas sales
|
|
|
94,913 |
|
|
|
105,005 |
|
|
|
77,950 |
|
|
|
27,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total oil and gas revenues
|
|
$ |
148,492 |
|
|
$ |
162,290 |
|
|
$ |
122,526 |
|
|
$ |
39,764 |
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
2,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
20,170 |
|
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
15,073 |
|
|
|
4,121 |
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
1,697 |
|
|
|
4,814 |
|
|
|
3,744 |
|
|
|
1,070 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
43,457 |
|
|
|
48,094 |
|
|
|
37,464 |
|
|
|
10,630 |
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
26,726 |
|
|
|
7,305 |
|
|
|
6,174 |
|
|
|
1,131 |
|
Net interest expense (income)
|
|
|
4,720 |
|
|
|
4,127 |
|
|
|
4,213 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
Income before taxes
|
|
|
53,977 |
|
|
|
77,799 |
|
|
|
54,901 |
|
|
|
22,898 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
18,414 |
|
|
|
27,293 |
|
|
|
19,221 |
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Average realized prices include the effects of hedges. |
Net production during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 decreased approximately 21% to
22.5 Bcfe from 28.4 Bcfe in the same period of 2004
primarily due to decreased Gulf of Mexico production, partially
offset by increased onshore production. Mariners
production was negatively impacted during the third quarter of
2005 due to hurricane activity, primarily Katrina and Rita.
Production shut-in and deferred because of the hurricanes
impact totaled approximately 1.3 Bcfe during the third
quarter of 2005. As of September 30, 2005, approximately
7 MMcfe per day of production remained shut-in awaiting
repairs, primarily associated with our Baccarat property
(although, production therefrom recommenced in January 2006).
Additionally, production that was anticipated to commence in the
third quarter of 2005 at our Swordfish, Pluto, and Rigel
development projects has been delayed until the fourth quarter
of 2005 for Swordfish, and into 2006 at Pluto and Rigel,
awaiting repairs to host facilities.
Increased development drilling at our Aldwell unit in West Texas
contributed to a 61% increase in onshore production to an
average of approximately 17.1 Mmcfe per day in the first
nine months of 2005 from an average of approximately
10.5 Mmcfe per day in the first nine months of 2004.
In the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, production decreased
approximately 30% to an average of approximately 33 Mmcfe
per day in the first nine months of 2005 compared to an average
of approximately 47 Mmcfe per day in the first nine months
of 2004. The decrease was largely due to reduced production at
our Black Widow, Yosemite and Pluto fields. Pluto was shut-in in
April 2004 pending drilling of the new Mississippi Canyon
674 #3 well and installation of an extension to the
existing subsea facilities. Production at Black Widow and
Yosemite are undergoing expected declines.
64
In the Gulf of Mexico shelf, production decreased by
approximately 30% to an average of approximately 32 Mmcfe
per day in the first nine months of 2005 from an average of
approximately 46 Mmcfe per day in the first nine months of
2004. About 6.2 Mmcfe per day of the decrease is
attributable to our Ochre field which remains shut-in due to the
effects of Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. Production from
three new shelf discoveries (Green Pepper, Royal Flush, and
Dice) and production from the 2004 acquisition of interests in
five offshore fields offset normal declines at our other Gulf of
Mexico shelf fields.
Hedging activities in the first nine months of 2005
decreased our average realized natural gas price received by
$0.69 per Mcf and revenues by $10.0 million, compared
with a decrease of $0.05 per Mcf and revenues of
$1.0 million for the same period in 2004. Our hedging
activities with respect to crude oil during the first nine
months of 2005 decreased the average sales price received by
$10.05 per barrel and revenues by $13.4 million
compared with a decrease of $3.93 per barrel and revenues
of $6.9 million for the same period in 2004.
Oil and gas revenues decreased 6% to $148.5 million
in the first nine months of 2005 when compared to first nine
months 2004 oil and gas revenues of $162.3 million, due to
the aforementioned 21% decrease in production, partially offset
by a 16% increase in realized prices (including the effects of
hedging) to $6.59 per Mcfe in the first nine months of 2005
from $5.71 per Mcfe in the same period in 2004.
Other revenues of $2.7 million in the first nine
months of 2005 represent an indemnity payment received from our
former stockholder related to the merger of $1.9 million
and $0.8 million generated by our West Texas Aldwell unit
gathering system.
Lease operating expenses increased 5% to
$20.2 million in the first nine months of 2005 from
$19.2 million in the first nine months of 2004. The
increased costs were primarily attributable to the addition of
new producing wells at our Aldwell Unit offset by reduced costs
on our Black Widow, King Kong/Yosemite, and Pluto deep water
fields. On a per unit basis, lease operating expenses were $0.90
per Mcfe in the first nine months of 2005 compared to $0.67 per
Mcfe in the first nine months of 2004. The increased per unit
costs also reflect lower production rates in the 2005 period,
including hurricane-related disruptions.
Transportation expenses were $1.7 million or
$0.08 per Mcfe in the first nine months of 2005, compared
to $4.8 million or $0.17 per Mcfe in the first nine
months of 2004. The reduction is primarily attributable to our
deepwater fields and includes reductions caused by the filing of
new and higher transportation allowances with the MMS on two of
our deepwater fields for purpose of royalty calculation.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense
decreased 10% to $43.5 million during the first nine
months of 2005 from $48.1 million for the first nine months
of 2004 as a result of decreased production of 5.9 Bcfe in
the first nine months of 2005 compared to the first nine months
of 2004, partially offset by an increase in the
unit-of-production
depreciation, depletion and amortization rate to $1.93 per
Mcfe for the first nine months of 2005 from $1.69 per Mcfe
for the same period in 2004. The per unit increase was primarily
the result of an increase in future development costs on our
deepwater development fields.
General and administrative expenses
(G&A), which are net of $3.1 million
and $2.2 million of overhead reimbursements billed or
received from other working interest owners in the first nine
months of 2005 and 2004, respectively, increased 266% to
$26.7 million during the first nine months of 2005 compared
to $7.3 million in the first nine months of 2004. The
increase was primarily due to recognizing $17.6 million in
stock compensation expense related to restricted stock and
options granted in the first nine months of 2005. We also paid
$2.3 million to our former stockholders to terminate a
services agreement in the first nine months of 2005, compared to
$1.0 million under the same agreement in the first nine
months of 2004. In addition, G&A expenses increased by
$1.8 million due to a reduction in the amount of G&A
capitalized in the first nine months of 2005 compared to the
first nine months of 2004.
Net interest expense for the first nine months of 2005
increased 14% to $4.7 million from $4.1 million in the
first nine months of 2004, primarily due to lower average debt
levels in the first nine months of 2004 compared to the first
nine months of 2005. In connection with the Merger on
March 2, 2004, Mariner
65
incurred $135 million in new bank debt and issued a
$10 million promissory note to JEDI. For comparison
purposes, approximately seven months of interest related to such
borrowings is reflected in the first nine months of 2004
compared to nine months of interest in 2005.
Income before income taxes decreased to
$54.0 million for the first nine months of 2005 compared to
$77.8 million for the same period in 2004, attributable
primarily to the decrease in oil and gas revenues resulting from
the decreased production and increased G&A expenses, both as
noted above. Offsetting these factors were the receipt of other
income related to the indemnity payment and lower DD&A and
transportation expenses.
Provision for income taxes decreased to
$18.4 million for the first nine months of 2005 from
$27.3 million for the first nine months of 2004 as a result
of decreased operating income for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 compared to the prior period.
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2003 |
Operating and Financial Results for the Year Ended
December 31, 2004 Compared to
the Year Ended December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
through December 31, | |
|
through March 2, | |
Summary Operating Information: |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except average sales price) | |
Net production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
2,298 |
|
|
|
1,885 |
|
|
|
413 |
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
23,772 |
|
|
|
23,782 |
|
|
|
19,549 |
|
|
|
4,233 |
|
Total (Mmcfe)
|
|
|
33,374 |
|
|
|
37,569 |
|
|
|
30,856 |
|
|
|
6,713 |
|
Average daily production (Mmcfe/d)
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
Hedging activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil revenues (loss)
|
|
$ |
(4,969 |
) |
|
$ |
(12,299 |
) |
|
$ |
(11,613 |
) |
|
$ |
(686 |
) |
Gas revenues (loss)
|
|
|
(24,494 |
) |
|
|
(7,498 |
) |
|
|
(8,929 |
) |
|
|
1,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total hedging revenues (loss)
|
|
$ |
(29,463 |
) |
|
$ |
(19,797 |
) |
|
$ |
(20,542 |
) |
|
$ |
745 |
|
Average Sales Prices:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil (per Bbl) realized(1)
|
|
$ |
23.74 |
|
|
$ |
33.17 |
|
|
$ |
33.69 |
|
|
$ |
30.75 |
|
Oil (per Bbl) unhedged
|
|
|
26.85 |
|
|
|
38.52 |
|
|
|
39.85 |
|
|
|
32.41 |
|
Natural gas (per Mcf) realized(1)
|
|
|
4.40 |
|
|
|
5.80 |
|
|
|
5.67 |
|
|
|
6.39 |
|
Natural gas (per Mcf) unhedged
|
|
|
5.43 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
|
|
6.13 |
|
|
|
6.05 |
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe) realized(1)
|
|
|
4.27 |
|
|
|
5.70 |
|
|
|
5.65 |
|
|
|
5.92 |
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe) unhedged
|
|
|
5.15 |
|
|
|
6.23 |
|
|
|
6.32 |
|
|
|
5.81 |
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-GAAP | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
through December 31, | |
|
through March 2, | |
Summary Operating Information: |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except average sales price) | |
Oil and gas revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil sales
|
|
$ |
37,992 |
|
|
$ |
76,207 |
|
|
$ |
63,498 |
|
|
$ |
12,709 |
|
Gas sales
|
|
|
104,551 |
|
|
|
137,980 |
|
|
|
110,925 |
|
|
|
27,055 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total oil and gas revenues
|
|
$ |
142,543 |
|
|
$ |
214,187 |
|
|
$ |
174,423 |
|
|
$ |
39,764 |
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
24,719 |
|
|
|
25,484 |
|
|
|
21,363 |
|
|
|
4,121 |
|
Transportation expenses
|
|
|
6,252 |
|
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
1,070 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
48,339 |
|
|
|
64,911 |
|
|
|
54,281 |
|
|
|
10,630 |
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
8,098 |
|
|
|
8,772 |
|
|
|
7,641 |
|
|
|
1,131 |
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest expense (income)
|
|
|
6,225 |
|
|
|
5,734 |
|
|
|
5,820 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
Income before taxes and change in accounting method
|
|
|
45,688 |
|
|
|
105,300 |
|
|
|
82,402 |
|
|
|
22,898 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
9,387 |
|
|
|
36,855 |
|
|
|
28,783 |
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Average realized prices include the effects of hedges. |
Net production during 2004 increased to 37.6 Bcfe
from 33.4 Bcfe during 2003 primarily due to the
commencement of production on our Roaring Fork and Ochre
projects, offset by normal production declines on existing
fields.
Hedging activities in 2004 decreased our average realized
natural gas price received by $0.32 per Mcf and revenues by
$7.5 million, compared with a decrease of $1.03 per
Mcf and revenues of $24.5 million for 2003. Our hedging
activities with respect to crude oil during 2004 decreased the
average sales price received by $5.35 per bbl and revenues
by $12.3 million compared with a decrease of $3.11 per
bbl and revenues of $5.0 million for 2003.
Oil and gas revenues increased 50% to $214.2 million
during 2004 when compared to 2003 oil and gas revenues of
$142.5 million, due to a 13% increase in production and a
33% increase in realized prices (including the effects of
hedging) to $5.70 per Mcfe in 2004 from $4.27 per Mcfe
in 2003.
Lease operating expenses increased 3% to
$25.5 million in 2004 from $24.7 million in 2003 due
to increased activity in our West Texas Aldwell project,
partially offset by lower compression costs on our
King Kong and Yosemite projects and the shut-in of our
Pluto project for a large portion of 2004 pending the drilling
and completion of the Mississippi Canyon 674 No. 3 well,
which has been drilled and awaits installation of flowlines and
related facilities.
Transportation expenses were $3.0 million for 2004,
compared to $6.3 million for 2003. In the fourth quarter of
2004, we filed new transportation allowances with the MMS for
purpose of royalty calculation. This resulted in a
$3.2 million decrease in transportation expense in 2004
compared to 2003. In addition, transportation expense from our
new Roaring Fork field was offset by declines from our existing
fields.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense
increased 34% to $64.9 million during 2004 from
$48.3 million for 2003 as a result of an increase in the
unit-of-production
depreciation, depletion and amortization rate to $1.73 per
Mcfe from $1.45 per Mcfe for the comparable period and a
production increase of 4.2 Bcfe in 2004 compared to 2003.
The per unit increase is primarily attributable to non-cash
purchase accounting adjustments resulting from the merger.
67
G&A, which is net of $4.4 million of overhead
reimbursements received from other working interest owners,
increased 8% to $8.8 million during 2004 compared to
$8.1 million in 2003 primarily due to increased
compensation costs paid in connection with the merger and
payments made pursuant to services contracts with affiliates of
our sole stockholder, offset by increased overhead recoveries
from our partners and amounts capitalized.
Impairment of production equipment held for use reflects
the reduction of the carrying cost of our inventory as of
December 31, 2004 by $1.0 million to account for a
reduction in estimated value primarily related to subsea trees
held in inventory.
Net interest expense for 2004 decreased 8% to
$5.7 million from $6.2 million for 2003, primarily due
to the repayment of our senior subordinated notes in August
2003, replaced by lower-cost bank debt in March 2004.
Income before income taxes and change in accounting method
increased to $105.3 million for 2004 compared to
$45.7 million in 2003, attributable primarily to the
increase in oil and gas revenues resulting from the increased
production and realized prices noted above.
Provision for income taxes increased to
$36.9 million for 2004 from $9.4 million for 2003 as a
result of increased current year operating income.
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2002 |
Net production decreased during 2003 to 33.4 Bcfe
from 39.8 Bcfe in 2002. Production from new drilling in our
onshore Aldwell project and offshore Roaring Fork and Vermilion
143 projects was offset by production declines in other fields
and loss of production from our offshore Pluto project during
the first seven months of 2003 as a result of a flowline
mechanical problem that required extended maintenance.
Hedging activities in 2003 decreased our average realized
natural gas price received by $1.03 per Mcf and revenues by
$24.5 million, compared with an increase of $0.68 per
Mcf and revenues of $20.3 million in 2002. Our hedging
activities with respect to crude oil during 2003 decreased the
average sales price received by $3.11 per bbl and revenues
by $5.0 million compared with an increase of $1.25 per
bbl and revenues of $2.1 million in 2002.
Oil and gas revenues decreased 10% to $142.5 million
in 2003 from $158.2 million in 2002 (including the effects
of hedge gains and losses), due to a 16% decrease in production
offset by an 8% increase in average realized prices to
$4.27 per Mcfe in 2003 from $3.97 per Mcfe in 2002
including the effects of hedging gains and losses.
Lease operating expenses decreased 5% to
$24.7 million in 2003 from $26.1 million in 2002 due
to the reduced chemical requirements at our King Kong and
Yosemite projects offset by higher chemical costs at our Pluto
field.
Transportation expenses decreased 40% to
$6.3 million for 2003 from $10.5 million for 2002. The
decrease was primarily attributable to lower minimum fees
required under the transportation agreement for our Pluto
project.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense
decreased 32% to $48.3 million for 2003 from
$70.8 million for 2002 as a result of the decrease in the
unit-of-production
depreciation, depletion and amortization rate to $1.45 per
Mcfe from $1.78 per Mcfe and 6.4 Bcfe of less
production in 2003 compared to 2002. The primary driver behind
the reduced DD&A rate per Mcfe was the reduction of our full
cost pool and concurrent reduction of proved reserves by the
proceeds from the sale of an interest in the Falcon and Harrier
properties in 2003.
Early derivative settlements of non hedge designated
instruments resulted in a loss of $3.2 million in 2003.
There were no similar transactions in 2002.
G&A, which is net of $1.8 million of overhead
reimbursements received from other working interest owners,
increased 5% to $8.1 million for 2003 from
$7.7 million for 2002. The increase was comprised of
68
an 11% reduction in gross G&A (before capitalized items and
overhead recoveries) driven primarily by reduced professional
service costs and office rent, offset by higher employee
compensation costs, which included retention payments. The
reduction in gross G&A was offset by reduced overhead
recoveries and capitalized items compared to 2002.
Net interest expense for 2003 decreased 37% to
$6.2 million from $9.9 million for 2002, primarily due
to mid-year retirement of our senior subordinated notes.
Income before income taxes and change in accounting method
increased to a net income of $45.7 million for 2003
from $30.0 million in 2002, primarily as a result of 30%
higher operating income (primarily driven by lower DD&A
partially offset by lower oil and gas revenues) all as described
more fully above.
Provision for income taxes increased to $9.4 million
in 2003 as a result of Mariner utilizing all of its net
operating losses. The provision for income taxes in 2002 was $0.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Working capital at September 30, 2005 was negative
$30.2 million, excluding current derivative liabilities and
related tax effects. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities at
September 30, 2005 increased by approximately 23% over
levels at December 31, 2004 primarily due to increased
current obligations for our Swordfish and Pluto development
projects at quarter end. As of December 31, 2004, we had
negative working capital of approximately $18.7 million
compared to positive working capital of $38.3 million at
December 31, 2003, in each case excluding current
derivative liabilities and restricted cash. The reduction in
working capital from the prior year is primarily the result of a
change in the manner Mariner utilizes excess cash. At year-end
2003, Mariner operated with no debt and consequently accumulated
cash (approximately $60 million at year-end 2003) generated
by operations and asset sales in order to fund future
obligations and business activities. In March 2004, Mariner
entered into a revolving credit facility, and since then has
utilized excess cash to pay down outstanding advances to
maintain debt levels as low as possible. In addition, our
accounts payable and accrued liabilities at December 31,
2004 increased by about 32% over levels at December 31,
2003 primarily as a result of funding for development of our
deepwater projects in progress at year end.
Our 2004 capital expenditures were $148.9 million.
Approximately 60% of our capital expenditures were incurred for
development projects, 32% for exploration activities and the
remainder for acquisitions and other items (primarily
capitalized overhead and interest).
We anticipate that our capital expenditures for 2005 will
approximate $250 million with approximately 48%
allocated to development projects, 27% to exploration
activities, 21% to acquisitions and the remainder to other items
(primarily capitalized overhead and interest). This is an
increase of approximately $98 million over our original
2005 budget. The increase is primarily driven by acquisitions of
interests in properties, by new drilling projects at LaSalle/ NW
Nansen, and by the cost of remediating a flow line obstruction
at our Pluto project.
With the anticipated increase in capital expenditures and
reduced production, partially from the impact of hurricanes,
cash flows generated by operations for 2005 will not be
sufficient to fund our 2005 capital expenditures. Any
requirements for funding that exceed our cash flows will be
funded through additional borrowings under our existing
revolving credit facility. We currently have a borrowing base of
$185 million with approximately $75 million drawn as
of September 30, 2005. Because of increased capital
expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2005 (including about $40
million for acquisitions) and reduced cash flows, borrowings
under the revolving credit facility increased to approximately
$152.0 million by year-end 2005.
However, the timing of expenditures (especially regarding
deepwater projects) is unpredictable. Also, our cash flows are
heavily dependent on the oil and natural gas commodity markets
and our ability to
69
hedge oil and natural gas prices is limited by our revolving
credit facility to no more than 80% of our expected production
from proved developed producing reserves. If either oil or
natural gas commodity prices decrease from their current levels,
our ability to finance our planned capital expenditures could be
affected negatively. Furthermore, amounts available for
borrowing under our revolving credit facility are largely
dependent on our level of proved reserves and current oil and
natural gas prices. If either our proved reserves or commodity
prices decrease, amounts available to us to borrow under our
revolving credit facility could be negatively affected. If our
cash flows are less than anticipated or amounts available for
borrowing under our revolving credit facility are reduced, we
may be forced to defer planned capital expenditures.
In addition, our future oil and natural gas production depends
on our success in finding or acquiring additional reserves. If
we fail to replace reserves through drilling or acquisitions,
our cash flows will be affected adversely. In general,
production from oil and natural gas properties declines as
reserves are depleted, with the rate of decline depending on
reservoir characteristics. Our total proved reserves decline as
reserves are produced unless we conduct other successful
exploration and development activities or acquire properties
containing proved reserves, or both. Our ability to make the
necessary capital investment to maintain or expand our asset
base of oil and natural gas reserves would be impaired to the
extent cash flow from operations is reduced and external sources
of capital become limited or unavailable. We may not be
successful in exploring for, developing or acquiring additional
reserves.
Our existing proved reserves are comprised of West Texas and
Gulf of Mexico properties. The West Texas properties are
relatively long-life in nature characterized by relatively low
decline rates (lower productive rates) while the Gulf of Mexico
properties are shorter-life in nature characterized by
relatively high decline rates (higher productive rates). For the
nine months ended September 30, 2005, our Gulf of Mexico
properties comprised about 79% of our total production. We plan
to maintain an active drilling program on our onshore properties
with the intention of maintaining or increasing production in
those areas. Although production from our existing offshore
wells will decline more rapidly over time than our onshore
wells, the percentage of production attributable to our offshore
wells is expected to increase in the coming years as more of our
undeveloped deep water projects commence production. While we
expect this trend to continue for the near future, oil and gas
production (especially for our offshore properties) can be
heavily affected by reservoir characteristics and unforeseen
events (such as hurricanes and other casualties), so we can not
predict with any certainty the timing of declines in production
or the commencement of production from new projects.
In conjunction with the March 2004 merger, we established a new
credit facility maturing on March 2, 2007. The new credit
facility was fully drawn at inception for $135 million. See
Credit Facility. In addition, we issued a
$10 million promissory note to JEDI as part of the merger
consideration. See BusinessEnron Related
Matters and JEDI Term Promissory Note.
This note matures in March 2006. Net proceeds from a private
equity placement were approximately $45 million, of which
$6 million was used to pay down the JEDI promissory note
with the remainder used to pay down the credit facility.
For the year ended December 31, 2004 and the nine months
ended September 30, 2005, our interest rate sensitivity for
a change in interest rates of
1/8
percent on average outstanding debt under our credit facility is
approximately $0.2 million and $0.1 million,
respectively. The LIBOR rate on which our bank borrowings are
primarily based was 4.19% as of November 23, 2005.
70
We had a net cash outflow of $57.6 million in 2004,
compared to a net cash inflow of $41.8 million in 2003 and
a net cash inflow of $6.5 million in 2002. A discussion of
the major components of cash flows for these periods follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
March 3, 2004 to | |
|
January 1, 2004 to | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
March 2, 2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Cash flows provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
156.2 |
|
|
$ |
135.9 |
|
|
$ |
20.3 |
|
|
$ |
103.5 |
|
|
$ |
60.3 |
|
Cash flows provided by operating activities in 2004 increased by
$52.7 million compared to 2003 primarily due to improved
operating results and net income driven by increased production
volumes and higher net oil and natural gas prices realized by
Mariner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
March 3, 2004 to | |
|
January 1, 2004 to | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
March 2, 2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Cash flows used in (provided by) investing activities
|
|
$ |
148.9 |
|
|
$ |
133.6 |
|
|
$ |
15.3 |
|
|
$ |
(38.3 |
) |
|
$ |
53.8 |
|
Cash flows used in investing activities in 2004 increased by
$187.2 million compared to 2003 due to increased capital
expenditures in 2004 and the sale of assets in prior years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
March 3, 2004 to | |
|
January 1, 2004 to | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
March 2, 2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Cash flows used in financing activities
|
|
$ |
(64.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(64.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Cash flows used in financing activities in 2004 decreased by
$35.1 million compared to 2003 as a result of a
$166 million dividend to our former indirect parent used to
help repay a term loan to an affiliate of Enron Corp. and
the placement of our revolving credit facility.
|
|
|
Commodity Prices and Related Hedging Activities |
The energy markets have historically been very volatile, and
there can be no assurance that oil and gas prices will not be
subject to wide fluctuations in the future. In an effort to
reduce the effects of the volatility of the price of oil and
natural gas on our operations, management has adopted a policy
of hedging oil and natural gas prices from time to time
primarily through the use of commodity price swap agreements and
costless collar arrangements. While the use of these hedging
arrangements limits the downside risk of adverse price
movements, it also limits future gains from favorable movements.
71
As of September 30, 2005, Mariner had the following hedge
contracts outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
Fixed | |
|
Fair Value | |
Fixed Price Swaps |
|
Quantity | |
|
Price | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
138,000 |
|
|
$ |
25.22 |
|
|
$ |
(5.7 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
140,160 |
|
|
|
29.56 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMBtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
1,352,400 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
|
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
1,827,547 |
|
|
|
5.53 |
|
|
|
(13.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(36.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
Costless Collars |
|
Quantity | |
|
Floor | |
|
Cap | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
57,960 |
|
|
$ |
35.60 |
|
|
$ |
44.77 |
|
|
$ |
(1.2 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
251,850 |
|
|
|
32.65 |
|
|
|
41.52 |
|
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
202,575 |
|
|
|
31.27 |
|
|
|
39.83 |
|
|
|
(4.8 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMBtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,189,600 |
|
|
|
6.01 |
|
|
|
8.02 |
|
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
7,347,450 |
|
|
|
5.78 |
|
|
|
7.85 |
|
|
|
(29.1 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
5,310,750 |
|
|
|
5.49 |
|
|
|
7.22 |
|
|
|
(14.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(68.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004, Mariner had the following hedge
contracts outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Fixed | |
|
Fair Value | |
Fixed Price Swaps |
|
Quantity | |
|
Price | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
606,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.15 |
|
|
$ |
(10.0 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
140,160 |
|
|
|
29.56 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMBtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
8,670,159 |
|
|
|
5.41 |
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
1,827,547 |
|
|
|
5.53 |
|
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(20.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
Costless Collars |
|
Quantity | |
|
Floor | |
|
Cap | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
229,950 |
|
|
$ |
35.60 |
|
|
$ |
44.77 |
|
|
$ |
(0.4 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
251,850 |
|
|
|
32.65 |
|
|
|
41.52 |
|
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
202,575 |
|
|
|
31.27 |
|
|
|
39.83 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMBtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,847,000 |
|
|
|
5.73 |
|
|
|
7.80 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
3,514,950 |
|
|
|
5.37 |
|
|
|
7.35 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,806,750 |
|
|
|
5.08 |
|
|
|
6.26 |
|
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have reviewed the financial strength of our hedge
counterparties and believe our credit risk to be minimal. Under
the terms of some of these transactions, from time to time we
may be required to provide security in the form of cash or
letters of credit to our counterparties. As of December 31,
2004 and September 30, 2005, we had no deposits for
collateral.
The following table sets forth the results of third party
hedging transactions during the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(dollars in millions) | |
Natural Gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity settled (MMBtus)
|
|
|
18,823,063 |
|
|
|
25,520,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Natural Gas Sales
|
|
$ |
(10.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(27.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity settled (Mbbls)
|
|
|
1,554 |
|
|
|
730 |
|
|
|
353 |
|
Increase (Decrease) in Crude Oil Sales
|
|
$ |
(16.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(5.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.8 |
) |
In accordance with purchase price accounting implemented at the
time of the merger of our former indirect parent on
March 2, 2004, we recorded the
mark-to-market
liability of our hedge contracts at such date totaling
$12.4 million as a liability on our balance sheet. See
Critical Accounting Policies and
EstimatesHedging Program. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, $7.9 million of the
$27.7 million of cash hedge losses relate to the liability
recorded at the time of the merger.
Borrowings under our revolving credit the facility, discussed
below, mature on March 2, 2007, and bear interest at either
a LIBOR-based rate or a prime-based rate, at our option, plus a
specified margin. Both options expose us to risk of earnings
loss due to changes in market rates. We have not entered into
interest rate hedges that would mitigate such risk.
We have a revolving credit facility which provides up to
$200 million of revolving borrowing capacity, subject to a
borrowing base limitation. We currently expect to replace this
credit facility when the merger is completed. See
Financing Arrangements Relating to the Spin-Off and the
Merger beginning on page 138. The borrowing capacity
is currently subject to a borrowing base of $185 million.
The borrowing base is subject to redetermination by the lenders
quarterly; provided however, if at least $10 million of
unused availability exists, the borrowing base will be
redetermined semi-annually. The borrowing base is
73
based upon the evaluation by the lenders of our oil and gas
reserves and other factors. Any increase in the borrowing base
requires the consent of all lenders.
Borrowings under the facility bear interest, at our option, at a
rate of (i) LIBOR plus 2.00% to 2.75% depending upon
utilization, or (ii) the greater of (a) the Federal
Funds Rate plus 0.50% or (b) the Reference Rate, plus 0.00%
to 0.50% depending upon utilization.
Substantially all of our assets, other than the assets securing
the term promissory note issued to JEDI, are pledged to secure
the credit facility and obligations under hedging arrangements
with members of our bank group. In addition, both of our
subsidiaries, Mariner Energy Texas LP and Mariner LP LLC, have
guaranteed our obligations under the credit facility. We must
pay a commitment fee of 0.25% to 0.50% per year on the
unused availability under the credit facility, depending upon
utilization.
The credit facility contains various restrictive covenants and
other usual and customary terms and conditions of a revolving
credit facility, including limitations on the payment of cash
dividends and other restricted payments, limitations on the
incurrence of additional debt, prohibitions on the sale of
assets, and requirements for hedging a portion of our oil and
natural gas production. Financial covenants require us to, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) current assets (excluding cash posted as collateral to
secure hedging obligations) plus unused availability under the
credit facility to (b) current liabilities (excluding the
current portion of debt and current portion of hedge
liabilities) of not less than 1.00 to 1.00; |
|
|
|
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation,
amortization and depletion) to (b) the sum of interest
expense and maintenance capital expenditures for such period and
20% (on an annualized basis) of outstanding advances, of not
less than 1.20 to 1.00; and |
|
|
|
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) total debt to (b) EBITDA of not greater than 1.75
to 1.00 prior to the issuance of bonds as described in the
credit agreement and 3.00 to 1.00 thereafter. |
The credit facility also contains customary events of default,
including the occurrence of a change of control or default by us
in the payment or performance of any other indebtedness equal to
or exceeding $2.0 million.
As of September 30, 2005, $75.0 million was
outstanding under the credit facility, and the weighted average
interest rate was 5.84%. This debt matures on March 2,
2007. Because of increased capital expenditures in the fourth
quarter of 2005 (including about $40 million for
acquisitions) and reduced cash flows, borrowings under the
revolving credit facility increased to approximately
$152.0 million by year-end 2005.
Our management is considering a possible sale in a private
placement of between $150 and $250 million in aggregate
principal amount of notes. The notes would not be registered
under the Securities Act or any state securities laws and may
not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration
or an applicable exemption from registration. We expect that the
notes would be offered only to qualified institutional buyers
under Rule 144A and non-U.S. persons under
Regulation S. We anticipate that the net proceeds from the
offering would be used to repay borrowings under our credit
facility, and that the terms of the notes would be no more
restrictive than the terms of our credit facility.
|
|
|
JEDI Term Promissory Note |
As part of the merger consideration payable to JEDI, we issued a
term promissory note to JEDI in the amount of $10 million.
The note matures on March 2, 2006, and bears interest,
payable in kind at our option, at a rate of 10% per annum
until March 2, 2005, and 12% per annum thereafter
unless paid in cash in which event the rate remains 10% per
annum. We have chosen to pay the interest in cash rather than in
kind. The JEDI note is secured by a lien on three of our
properties with no proved reserves located
74
in the Gulf of Mexico. We can offset against the note the amount
of certain claims for indemnification that can be asserted
against JEDI under the terms of the merger agreement. The JEDI
term promissory note contains customary events of default,
including an event of default triggered by the occurrence of an
event of default under our credit facility. We used
$6 million of the proceeds from the recent private equity
placement to repay a portion of the JEDI note. As of
September 30, 2005, $4 million was still outstanding
under the JEDI note.
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures and Capital Resources |
The following table presents major components of our capital
expenditures for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Combined | |
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
March 3, 2004 to | |
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
to March 2, 2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Capital expenditures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leasehold acquisition
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
$ |
4.4 |
|
|
$ |
0.4 |
|
|
$ |
4.8 |
|
|
$ |
14.9 |
|
|
Oil and natural gas exploration
|
|
|
43.0 |
|
|
|
35.9 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
26.8 |
|
|
|
25.5 |
|
Oil and natural gas development
|
|
|
88.6 |
|
|
|
82.0 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
44.3 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
Proceeds from property conveyances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(121.6 |
) |
|
|
(52.3 |
) |
Acquisitions
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other items (primarily capitalized overhead and interest)
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
7.4 |
|
|
|
10.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures, net of proceeds from property
conveyances
|
|
$ |
148.9 |
|
|
$ |
133.6 |
|
|
$ |
15.3 |
|
|
$ |
(38.3 |
) |
|
$ |
53.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our net capital expenditures for 2004 increased by
$187.2 million, as compared to 2003, as a result of
increased exploration and development expenditures with no
offsetting proceeds from property conveyances in 2004.
Our net capital expenditures for 2003 decreased
$92.1 million as compared to 2002 as a result of higher
proceeds from property conveyances and overall lower capital
expenditures as result of our shift to a more balanced portfolio
among Gulf of Mexico deepwater and shelf and onshore properties.
We had no long-term debt outstanding as of December 31,
2003. As of December 31, 2004, long-term debt was
$115 million. See Credit Facility.
75
Contractual Commitments
We have numerous contractual commitments in the ordinary course
of business, debt service requirements and operating lease
commitments. The following table summarizes these commitments at
December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Than One | |
|
|
|
|
|
More Than | |
|
|
Total | |
|
Year | |
|
1-3 Years | |
|
3-5 Years | |
|
5 Years | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Long-term debt obligations(1)
|
|
$ |
115.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
115.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Interest obligations(2)
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating leases
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment liabilities
|
|
|
24.0 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
7.2 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
Derivative liability(3)
|
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual cash commitments
|
|
$ |
166.1 |
|
|
$ |
24.8 |
|
|
$ |
129.2 |
|
|
$ |
7.7 |
|
|
$ |
4.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As of December 31, 2004, we had incurred debt obligations
under our credit facility and the JEDI promissory note that are
due as follows: $10 million in 2006; and $105 million
in 2007. However, we used a portion of the net proceeds of the
private equity placement to repay a portion of amounts
outstanding under our credit facility and $6 million under
the JEDI promissory note. As of November 30, 2005, we had
incurred debt obligations under our credit facility of
$75 million and under the JEDI promissory note of
$4 million. |
|
(2) |
Interest obligations represent approximately 14 months of
interest due on the JEDI promissory note at 10%. Future interest
obligations under our credit facility are uncertain, due to the
variable interest rate on fluctuating balances. Based on a 5.2%
weighted average interest rate on amounts outstanding under our
credit facility as of December 31, 2004, $5.5 million,
$5.5 million and $0.9 million would be due under the
credit facility in 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. |
|
(3) |
As of September 30, 2005, the fair value of the derivative
liabilities was $105.1 million, including
$76.9 million due in less than one year. |
MMS AppealMariner operates numerous properties in
the Gulf of Mexico. Two of such properties were leased from the
MMS subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty
Relief Act (the RRA). The RRA relieved the
obligation to pay royalties on certain predetermined leases
until a designated volume is produced. These two leases
contained language that limited royalty relief if commodity
prices exceeded predetermined levels. For the years 2000, 2001,
2003 and 2004, commodity prices exceeded the predetermined
levels. Management believes the MMS did not have the authority
to set pricing limits, and Mariner filed an administrative
appeal with the MMS and has withheld royalties regarding this
matter. The MMS filed a motion to dismiss our appeal with the
Department of the Interiors Board of Land Appeals. On
April 6, 2005, the Board of Land Appeals granted the
MMS motion and dismissed our appeal. On October 3,
2005, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas seeking judicial review of the
dismissal of our appeal by the Board of Land Appeals. Mariner
has recorded a liability for 100% of the exposure on this matter
which on September 30, 2005 was $14.6 million. For
additional information concerning the contested royalty payments
and the MMSs demands, see BusinessLegal
Proceedings below.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Transportation ContractIn 1999, Mariner constructed
a 29-mile flowline from
a third party platform to the Mississippi Canyon 674 subsea
well. After commissioning, MEGS LLC, an Enron affiliate,
purchased the flowline from Mariner and its joint interest
partner. In addition, Mariner entered into a firm transportation
contract with MEGS LLC at a rate of $0.26 per MMBtu to
transport Mariners share of approximately
130,000,000 MMbtus of natural gas from the commencement of
production through March 2009. Mariners working interest
in the well is 51%. For the year ended December 31, 2003,
Mariner paid
76
$1.9 million on this contract. The remaining volume
commitment was 14,707,107 MMbtus or $3.8 million net
to Mariner. Pursuant to the contract, Mariner was required to
deliver minimum quantities through the flowline or be subject to
minimum monthly payment requirements.
On May 10, 2004, Mariner and the other 49% working interest
owner in the Mississippi Canyon 674 well purchased the
flowline from MEGS LLC for an adjusted purchase price of
approximately $3.8 million, of which approximately
$1.9 million was paid by Mariner, and terminated the
transportation contract and associated liability. Accordingly,
we currently have no off-balance sheet arrangements.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
On December 16, 2004, the FASB issued FASB Statement
No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment,
(FASB No. 123(R)) that addresses the accounting for
share-based payment transactions (for example, stock options and
awards of restricted stock) in which an employer receives
employee-services in exchange for equity securities of Mariner
or liabilities that are based on the fair value of
Mariners equity securities. The new standard replaces FASB
Statement No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation (FASB No. 123) and supersedes APB
Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees, and generally requires such transactions be
accounted for using a fair-value-based method that recognizes
compensation expense rather than the optional pro forma
disclosure allowed under FASB No. 123. Mariner adopted the
provisions of the new standard on January 1, 2005.
As a result of the adoption of the above described
SFAS No. 123(R), we recorded compensation expense for
the fair value of restricted stock that was granted pursuant to
our Equity Participation Plan (see Management of
MarinerEquity Participation Plan) and for subsequent
grants of stock options or restricted stock made pursuant to the
Mariner Energy, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (see Management
of MarinerStock Incentive Plan). We recorded
compensation expense for the restricted stock grants equal to
their fair value at the time of the grant, amortized pro rata
over the restricted period. General and administrative expense
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 includes
$17.2 million of compensation expense related to restricted
stock granted in 2005 and $0.4 million of compensation
expense related to stock options outstanding as of
September 30, 2005.
On September 2, 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FAS 142-2, Application of FASB Statement
No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to Oil and
Gas Producing Entities, addressing whether the scope
exception within SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets includes the balance sheet
classification and disclosures for drilling and mineral rights
of oil and gas producing properties. The FASB staff concluded
that the accounting framework for oil and gas entities is based
on the level of established reserves, not whether an asset is
tangible or intangible, and thus the scope exception extended to
the balance sheet classification and disclosure provisions for
such assets.
On September 28, 2004, the SEC released Staff Accounting
Bulletin (SAB) 106 regarding the application of
SFAS 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
(AROs), by oil and gas producing companies
following the full cost accounting method. Pursuant to
SAB 106, oil and gas producing companies that have adopted
SFAS 143 should exclude the future cash outflows associated
with settling AROs (ARO liabilities) from the computation of the
present value of estimated future net revenues for the purposes
of the full cost ceiling calculation. In addition, estimated
dismantlement and abandonment costs, net of estimated salvage
values, that have been capitalized (ARO assets) should be
included in the amortization base for computing depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense. Disclosures are required to
include discussion of how a companys ceiling test and
depreciation, depletion and amortization calculations are
impacted by the adoption of SFAS 143. SAB 106 is
effective prospectively as of the beginning of the first fiscal
quarter beginning after October 4, 2004. Since our adoption
of SFAS 143 on January 1, 2003, we have calculated the
ceiling test and our depreciation, depletion and amortization
expense in accordance with the interpretations set forth in
SAB 106; therefore, the adoption SAB 106 had no effect
on our financial statements.
77
On December 16, 2004, the FASB issued Statement 153,
Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, an amendment of APB
Opinion No. 29, to clarify the accounting for nonmonetary
exchanges of similar productive assets. SFAS 153 eliminates
the exception from the fair value measurement for nonmonetary
exchanges of similar productive assets and replaces it with a
general exception for exchanges of nonmonetary assets that do
not have commercial substance. The statement will be applied
prospectively and is effective for nonmonetary asset exchanges
occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005.
We do not have any nonmonetary transactions for any period
presented to which this statement would apply. We do not expect
the adoption of SFAS 153 to have a material impact on our
financial statements.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk.
For a discussion of our market risk, See Liquidity
and Capital ResourcesCommodity Prices and Related Hedging
Activities.
78
BUSINESS
We are an independent oil and gas exploration, development and
production company with principal operations in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Permian Basin in West Texas. As of
December 31, 2004, we had 237.5 Bcfe of estimated
proved reserves, of which approximately 64% were natural gas and
36% were oil and condensate. The estimated pre-tax PV10 value of
our estimated proved reserves as of December 31, 2004 was
approximately $668 million, and the standardized measure of
discounted future net cash flows attributable to our estimated
proved reserves was approximately $494.4 million. Please
see Estimated Proved Reserves for a definition
of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the standardized measure
of discounted future net cash flows. As of December 31,
2004, approximately 46% of our estimated proved reserves were
classified as proved developed. For the year ended
December 31, 2004, our total net production was
37.6 Bcfe. Our estimated proved reserve base is balanced,
with 48% of the reserves located in the Permian Basin of West
Texas, 37% in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater and 15% on the Gulf
of Mexico shelf as of December 31, 2004.
The distribution of our proved reserves reflects our efforts
over the last three years to diversify our asset base, which in
prior years had been focused primarily in the Gulf of Mexico
deepwater. We have shifted some of our focus on deepwater
activities to increased exploration and development on the Gulf
of Mexico shelf and exploitation of our West Texas Permian Basin
properties. By allocating our resources among these three areas,
we expect to balance the risks associated with the exploration
and development of our asset base. We intend to continue to
pursue moderate-risk exploratory and development drilling
projects in the Gulf of Mexico deepwater and on the Gulf of
Mexico shelf, including select deep shelf prospects, and also
target low-risk infill drilling projects in West Texas. It is
our practice to generate most of our prospects internally, but
from time to time we also acquire third-party generated
prospects. We then drill to find oil and natural gas reserves, a
process that we refer to as growth through the drill
bit.
The following discussion includes statements that may be deemed
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See
Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking
Statements for more details. Also, the discussion uses
terms that pertain to the oil and gas industry, and you should
see Glossary of Oil and Natural Gas Terms for the
definition of certain terms.
79
Significant Properties
We own oil and gas properties, producing and non-producing,
onshore in Texas and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, primarily
in federal waters. Our largest properties, based on the present
value of estimated future net proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004, are shown in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate | |
|
|
|
Date | |
|
Estimated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner | |
|
Water | |
|
Gross | |
|
Production | |
|
Proved | |
|
|
|
Standardized | |
|
|
|
|
Working | |
|
Depth | |
|
Producing | |
|
Commenced/ | |
|
Reserves | |
|
PV10 Value | |
|
Measure | |
|
|
Operator | |
|
Interest | |
|
(Feet) | |
|
Wells(1) | |
|
Expected | |
|
(Bcfe) | |
|
(In $ Millions)(2) | |
|
(In $ Millions) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Texas Permian Basin:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aldwell Unit
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
66.5 |
(3) |
|
|
Onshore |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
1949 |
|
|
|
112.7 |
|
|
$ |
203.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 296/252 (Rigel)
|
|
|
Dominion |
|
|
|
22.5 |
|
|
|
5,200 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
Second Quarter 2006 |
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
82.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Viosca Knoll 917/961/962 (Swordfish)
|
|
|
Mariner(4) |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
4,700 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Fourth Quarter 2005 |
|
|
13.4 |
|
|
|
59.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 516 (Yosemite)
|
|
|
ENI |
|
|
|
44.0 |
|
|
|
3,900 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
|
|
|
66.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto)(5)
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
51.0 |
|
|
|
2,830 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
31.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat)
|
|
|
W&T |
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
Third Quarter 2005 |
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon 472/473 (King Kong)
|
|
|
ENI |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
3,850 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre)(6)
|
|
|
Mariner |
|
|
|
75.0 |
|
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56.1 |
|
|
|
195.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
237.5 |
|
|
$ |
668.0 |
|
|
$ |
494.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Wells producing or capable of producing as of December 31,
2004. |
|
(2) |
Please see Estimated Proved Reserves for a
definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. |
|
(3) |
We operate the field and own working interests in individual
wells ranging from approximately 33% to 84%. |
|
(4) |
Mariner served as operator until December 2005, at which
time pursuant to certain contractual arrangements, Noble Energy,
Inc., a 60% partner in the project, began serving as operator. |
|
(5) |
This field was shut-in in April 2004 pending the drilling of a
new well and installation of an extension to the existing
infield flowline and umbilical. As a result, as of
December 31, 2004, 9.0 Bcfe of our net proved reserves
attributable to this project were classified as proved
undeveloped reserves. We expect production from Pluto to
recommence in the second quarter of 2006. |
|
(6) |
Field has been shut in since September 2004 due to destruction
of host platform by Hurricane Ivan. |
Aldwell Unit. We operate and own working interests in
individual wells ranging from 33% to 84% (with an average
working interest of approximately 66.5%), in the
18,500-acre Aldwell
Unit. The field is located in the heart of the Spraberry
geologic trend southeast of Midland, Texas, and has produced oil
and gas since 1949. We began our recent redevelopment of the
Aldwell Unit by drilling eight wells in the fourth quarter of
2002, 43 wells in 2003, and 54 wells in 2004. As of
December 31, 2004, there were a total of 185 wells
producing or capable of producing in the field. Our aggregate
net capital expenditures for
80
the 2004 drilling program in the field were approximately
$20.3 million, and we added 27 Bcfe of proved
reserves, while producing 4.0 Bcfe.
During 2005, we have accelerated our development program in West
Texas. Through September 30, 2005, we had drilled 65 new
wells at our Aldwell and North Stiles Units. All of our drilling
in the Aldwell and North Stiles Units has resulted in
commercially successful wells that are expected to produce in
quantities sufficient to exceed costs of drilling and completion.
We have completed construction of our own oil and gas gathering
system and compression facilities in the Aldwell Unit. We began
flowing gas production through the new facilities on
June 1, 2005. We have also entered into new contracts with
third parties to provide processing of our natural gas and
transportation of our oil produced in the unit. The new gas
arrangement also provides us with the option to sell our gas to
one of four firm or five interruptible sales pipelines versus a
single outlet under the former arrangement. We expect these
arrangements to improve the economics of production from the
Aldwell Unit.
In December 2004, we acquired an approximate 45% working
interest in two Permian Basin fields containing over
4,000 acres. We believe the fields contain more than twenty
80-acre infill drilling
locations and that either or both may also have
40-acre infill drilling
opportunities. We have commenced drilling operations in one of
the fields. In February 2005, we acquired five producing wells
located in Howard County, Texas, approximately 50 miles
north of our Aldwell Unit. The purchase price was
$3.5 million, subject to post-closing adjustments.
In August 2005, but effective in October 2005, we entered into
an agreement covering approximately 33,000 acres in West
Texas, pursuant to which, upon closing, we acquired an
approximate 35% working interest in approximately 200 existing
producing wells effective November 1, 2005, and committed
to drill an additional 150 wells within a four year period,
funding $36.5 million of our partners share of
drilling costs for such
150-well drilling
program. We will obtain an assignment of an approximate 35%
working interest in the entire committed acreage upon completion
of the 150-well program.
Mississippi Canyon 296 (Rigel). Mariner generated the
Rigel prospect and acquired its interest in Mississippi Canyon
block 296 at a federal offshore Gulf lease sale in March
1999. Pursuant to an agreement with third parties, in September
1999 we cross-assigned leasehold interests in Mississippi Canyon
blocks 208, 252 and 296 with the result that our working
interest in all three blocks is now 22.5%. The project is
located approximately 130 miles southeast of New Orleans,
Louisiana, in water depth of approximately 5,200 feet. A
successful exploration well was drilled on the prospect in 1999.
In September 2003, a successful appraisal well was drilled. This
project is currently under development with a single subsea well
and a planned 12-mile
subsea tie back to an existing subsea manifold that is connected
to an existing platform. We expect production to begin in the
second quarter of 2006.
Viosca Knoll 917/961/962 (Swordfish). Mariner generated
the Swordfish prospect and entered into a farm-out agreement
with BP in September 2001. We operated Swordfish until
December 2005 and own a 15% working interest in this
project, which is located in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico
105 miles southeast of New Orleans, Louisiana, in a water
depth of approximately 4,700 feet. In November and December
of 2001, we drilled two successful exploration wells on
blocks 917 and 962. In August 2004, a successful appraisal
well found additional reserves on block 961. All wells have
been completed. Due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the
host facility, initial production was delayed until the fourth
quarter of 2005.
Green Canyon 516 (Yosemite). Mariner generated the
Yosemite prospect and acquired the prospect at a Gulf of Mexico
federal lease sale in 1998. We have a 44% working interest in
this project, located in approximately 3,900 feet of water,
approximately 150 miles southeast of New Orleans. In 2001,
we drilled an exploratory well on the prospect, and in February
2002, we commenced production via a joint King Kong/ Yosemite
16 mile subsea tieback to an existing platform.
81
Mississippi Canyon 718 (Pluto). Mariner initially
acquired an interest in this project in 1997, two years after
gas was discovered on the project. We operate the property and
own a 51% working interest in the project and the
29-mile flowline that
connects to a third-party production platform. We developed the
field with a single subsea well which is located in the Gulf of
Mexico approximately 150 miles southeast of New Orleans,
Louisiana, at a water depth of approximately 2,830 feet.
The field was shut-in in April 2004 pending the drilling of a
new well and completion of the installation of an extension to
the existing infield flowline and umbilical. Installation of the
subsea facilities is now complete. During startup
operations, a paraffin plug was discovered in the flowline
between the Pluto field and the host facility. Remediation
efforts are in progress and nearing completion. Production is
expected to recommence in the second quarter of 2006, following
completion of repairs to the host facilities necessitated by
damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina.
Green Canyon 178 (Baccarat). Mariner generated the
Baccarat prospect and acquired a 100% working interest in Green
Canyon block 178 at a Gulf of Mexico federal offshore lease
sale in July 2003. The project is located in approximately
1,400 feet of water approximately 145 miles southwest
of New Orleans, Louisiana. Subsequent to the acquisition,
Mariner entered into a farmout agreement, retaining a 40%
working interest in the project. A successful exploration well
was drilled in May 2004. The project is under development as a
subsea tieback to an existing host platform and was brought
online in the third quarter of 2005. The host platform sustained
damage during Hurricane Rita, resulting in production being
shut-in. Production recommenced in January 2006.
Green Canyon 472/473 (King Kong). In July 2000, Mariner
acquired a 50% working interest in the King Kong Gulf of Mexico
project. The project is located in approximately 3,850 feet
of water, approximately 150 miles southeast of New Orleans.
Mariner completed the project as a joint King Kong/ Yosemite
16 mile subsea tieback to an existing platform. Production
began in February 2002.
|
|
|
Other Prospects and Activity |
In late 2004, we participated in a successful exploratory well
in our North Black Widow prospect in Ewing Banks 921, which is
located approximately 125 miles south of New Orleans in
approximately 1,700 feet of water. We have a 35% working
interest in this project. A development plan for the North Black
Widow prospect has been approved and the operator of this
project currently anticipates production from this project to
begin in the second quarter of 2006. At June 30, 2005
approximately 4.5 Bcfe of estimated proved reserves have
been assigned net to Mariners interest.
In May 2005, we acquired an additional 18.75% working interest
in the Bass Lite project for approximately $5.0 million,
bringing our total working interest to 38.75%. The Bass Lite
project is located in Atwater Valley blocks 380, 381, 382,
425 and 426, approximately 200 miles southeast of New
Orleans in approximately 6,500 feet of water. We were
elected operator of this project, subject to MMS approval, and
negotiations continue with third party host facilities and
partners to establish firm development plans. At June 30,
2005 approximately 30.7 Bcfe of estimated proved reserves
have been assigned net to Mariners interest.
In June 2005, we increased our working interest in the LaSalle
project (East Breaks 558, 513, and 514) to 100% by acquiring the
remaining working interest owned by a third party for
$1.5 million. The blocks contain an undeveloped discovery,
as well as exploration potential. As of December 31, 2004,
we have booked no proved reserves to this project. We have
recently executed a participation agreement with Kerr McGee to
jointly develop the LaSalle project and Kerr McGees nearby
NW Nansen exploitation project (East Breaks 602). Under the
proposed participation agreement, Mariner owns a 33% working
interest in the NW Nansen project and a 50% working
interest in the LaSalle project. The LaSalle and NW Nansen
projects are located approximately 150 miles south of
Galveston, Texas in water depths of approximately 3,100 and
3,300 feet, respectively. The development of these projects
may require the drilling of up to four wells in 2005 and 2006
and related completion and facility capital in 2006.
At the King Kong/ Yosemite field (Green Canyon blocks 516,
472, and 473) we have planned, in conjunction with the operator,
a two well drilling program to exploit potential new reserve
additions. We
82
anticipate drilling one development well and one exploration
wellthe first on block 473 and the second on
block 472, both in the first quarter of 2006. We own a 50%
working interest in blocks GC 472 and 473 and a 44% working
interest in block 516.
Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre). Mariner acquired its Ochre
prospect at a Gulf of Mexico federal lease sale in March 2002.
We operate and own a 75% working interest in this project, which
is located in the Gulf of Mexico approximately 100 miles
southeast of New Orleans, Louisiana, in a water depth of
approximately 1,150 feet. In late 2002, we drilled a
successful exploration well on the prospect and commenced
production in the first quarter of 2004 via subsea tieback of
approximately 7 miles to the Taylor Mississippi Canyon 20
platform. In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan destroyed the Taylor
platform. We recently entered into a production handling
agreement with the operator of a nearby replacement host
facility, and production is expected to recommence in the first
quarter of 2006, following completion of repairs to the host
facility necessitated by damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina
and the installation of the flowline and umbilical.
In connection with the March 2005 Central Gulf of Mexico federal
lease sale, we were awarded West Cameron block 386 located
in water depth of approximately 85 feet. In connection with
the August 2005 Western Gulf of Mexico lease sale, we were
awarded one shelf block (High Island A2) and four deepwater
blocks (East Breaks 344, East Breaks 843, East Breaks 844
and East Breaks 709).
In May 2005 we drilled the Capricorn discovery well, which
encountered over 100 net feet of pay in four zones. The
Capricorn project is located in High Island block A341
approximately 115 miles south southwest of Cameron,
Louisiana in approximately 240 feet of water. We anticipate
drilling an appraisal well and installing the necessary platform
and facilities in the first quarter of 2006, with first
production anticipated in 2006. We are the operator and own a
60% working interest in the project.
Estimated Proved Reserves
The following tables set forth certain information with respect
to our estimated proved reserves by geographic area as of
December 31, 2004. Reserve volumes and values were
determined under the method prescribed by the SEC which requires
the application of period-end prices and costs held constant
throughout the projected reserve life. The reserve information
as of December 31, 2004 is based on estimates made in a
reserve report prepared by Ryder Scott. A summary of Ryder
Scotts report on our proved reserves as of
December 31, 2004 is attached to this prospectus as
Annex A and is consistent with filings we make with federal
agencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Proved | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve Quantities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural | |
|
|
|
PV10 Value(3) | |
|
|
|
|
Oil | |
|
Gas | |
|
Total | |
|
| |
|
Standardized | |
Geographic Area |
|
(MMbbls) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
(Bcfe) | |
|
Developed | |
|
Undeveloped | |
|
Total | |
|
Measure | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(millions) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(millions) | |
|
|
West Texas Permian Basin
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
62.8 |
|
|
|
114.8 |
|
|
$ |
141.1 |
|
|
$ |
64.4 |
|
|
$ |
205.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater(1)
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
59.8 |
|
|
|
86.7 |
|
|
|
91.1 |
|
|
|
219.6 |
|
|
|
310.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf(2)
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
29.3 |
|
|
|
36.0 |
|
|
|
103.2 |
|
|
|
48.6 |
|
|
|
151.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
151.9 |
|
|
|
237.5 |
|
|
$ |
335.4 |
|
|
$ |
332.6 |
|
|
$ |
668.0 |
|
|
$ |
494.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved Developed Reserves
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
71.4 |
|
|
|
109.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Deepwater refers to water depths greater than 1,300 feet
(the approximate depth of deepwater designation for royalty
purposes by the U.S. Minerals Management Service). |
83
|
|
(2) |
Shelf refers to water depths less than 1,300 feet and
includes an insignificant amount of Gulf Coast onshore
properties. |
|
(3) |
Please see Estimated Proved Reserves for a
definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. |
Uncertainties are inherent in estimating quantities of proved
reserves, including many factors beyond the control of Mariner.
Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating
subsurface accumulations of oil and gas that cannot be measured
in an exact manner, and the accuracy of any reserve estimate is
a function of the quality of available data and the
interpretation thereof. As a result, estimates by different
engineers often vary, sometimes significantly. In addition,
physical factors such as the results of drilling, testing, and
production subsequent to the date of an estimate, as well as
economic factors such as change in product prices, may require
revision of such estimates. Accordingly, oil and gas quantities
ultimately recovered will vary from reserve estimates.
PV10 is our estimated present value of future net revenues from
proved reserves before income taxes. PV10 may be considered a
non-GAAP financial measure under SEC regulations because it does
not include the effects of future income taxes, as is required
in computing the standardized measure of discounted future net
cash flows. We believe PV10 to be an important measure for
evaluating the relative significance of our natural gas and oil
properties and that PV10 is widely used by professional analysts
and investors in evaluating oil and gas companies. Because many
factors that are unique to each individual company impact the
amount of future income taxes to be paid, the use of a pre-tax
measure provides greater comparability of assets when evaluating
companies. We believe that most other companies in the oil and
gas industry calculate PV10 on the same basis. Management also
uses PV10 in evaluating acquisition candidates. PV10 is computed
on the same basis as the standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows but without deducting income taxes. The
table below provides a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
PV10
|
|
$ |
667,975 |
|
|
$ |
533,544 |
|
|
$ |
514,995 |
|
Future income taxes, discounted at 10%
|
|
|
173,593 |
|
|
|
115,385 |
|
|
|
51,423 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
494,382 |
|
|
$ |
418,159 |
|
|
$ |
463,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing oil and natural gas reservoirs generally are
characterized by declining production rates that vary depending
upon reservoir characteristics and other factors. Therefore,
without reserve additions in excess of production through
successful exploration and development activities or
acquisitions, Mariners reserves and production will
decline. See Risk Factors and Note 10 to the
Mariner financial statements included elsewhere in this
prospectus for a discussion of the risks inherent in oil and
natural gas estimates and for certain additional information
concerning the proved reserves.
The weighted average prices of oil and natural gas at
December 31, 2004 used in the proved reserve and future net
revenues estimates above were calculated using NYMEX prices at
December 31, 2004, of $43.45 per bbl of oil and
$6.15 per MMBtu of gas, adjusted for our price
differentials but excluding the effects of hedging.
84
Production
The following table presents certain information with respect to
net oil and natural gas production attributable to our
properties, average sales price received and expenses per unit
of production during the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
| |
|
|
September 30, 2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (Bcf)
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
23.8 |
|
|
|
23.8 |
|
|
|
29.6 |
|
|
Oil (MMbbls)
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
Total natural gas equivalent (Bcfe)
|
|
|
22.5 |
|
|
|
37.6 |
|
|
|
33.4 |
|
|
|
39.8 |
|
Average realized sales price per unit (excluding effects of
hedging):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
7.23 |
|
|
$ |
6.12 |
|
|
$ |
5.43 |
|
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
|
Oil ($/bbl)
|
|
|
50.17 |
|
|
|
38.52 |
|
|
|
26.85 |
|
|
|
21.60 |
|
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe)
|
|
|
7.63 |
|
|
|
6.23 |
|
|
|
5.15 |
|
|
|
3.41 |
|
Average realized sales price per unit (including effects of
hedging):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
6.54 |
|
|
$ |
5.80 |
|
|
$ |
4.40 |
|
|
$ |
4.03 |
|
|
Oil ($/bbl)
|
|
|
40.12 |
|
|
|
33.17 |
|
|
|
23.74 |
|
|
|
22.85 |
|
|
Total natural gas equivalent ($/Mcfe)
|
|
|
6.59 |
|
|
|
5.70 |
|
|
|
4.27 |
|
|
|
3.97 |
|
Expenses ($/Mcfe):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating
|
|
$ |
0.90 |
|
|
$ |
0.68 |
|
|
$ |
0.74 |
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
0.19 |
|
|
|
0.26 |
|
|
General and administrative, net(1)
|
|
|
1.18 |
|
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
0.24 |
|
|
|
0.19 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization (excluding impairments)
|
|
|
1.93 |
|
|
|
1.73 |
|
|
|
1.45 |
|
|
|
1.78 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Net of overhead reimbursements received from other working
interest owners and amounts capitalized under the full cost
accounting method. General and administrative expenses for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 include compensation
expense of $17.6 million for restricted stock and options
granted in March 2005. |
Productive Wells
The following table sets forth the number of productive oil and
gas wells in which we owned a working interest at
December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Productive Wells at | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Oil
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
127.9 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
101.3 |
|
Gas
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
137.4 |
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
111.4 |
|
85
Acreage
The following table sets forth certain information with respect
to the developed and undeveloped acreage as of December 31,
2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed Acres(1) | |
|
Undeveloped Acres(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
West Texas
|
|
|
22,413 |
|
|
|
14,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater(3)
|
|
|
79,200 |
|
|
|
30,275 |
|
|
|
224,640 |
|
|
|
124,588 |
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf(4)
|
|
|
130,302 |
|
|
|
36,979 |
|
|
|
130,186 |
|
|
|
84,242 |
|
Other Onshore
|
|
|
3,232 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
|
|
856 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
235,147 |
|
|
|
82,434 |
|
|
|
355,682 |
|
|
|
209,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Developed acres are acres spaced or assigned to productive wells. |
|
(2) |
Undeveloped acres are acres on which wells have not been drilled
or completed to a point that would permit the production of
commercial quantities of oil and natural gas regardless of
whether such acreage contains proved reserves. |
|
(3) |
Deepwater refers to water depths greater than 1,300 feet
(the approximate depth of deepwater designated for royalty
purposes by the U.S. Minerals Management Service). |
|
(4) |
Shelf refers to water depths less than 1,300 feet. |
The following table sets forth our offshore undeveloped acreage
as of December 31, 2004 that is subject to expiration
during the three years ended December 31, 2007. The amount
of onshore undeveloped acreage subject to expiration is not
material.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undeveloped Acreage | |
|
|
Subject to Expiration in the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,080 |
|
|
|
12,988 |
|
|
|
28,800 |
|
|
|
9,360 |
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf
|
|
|
9,298 |
|
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
|
10,760 |
|
|
|
6,260 |
|
|
|
46,000 |
|
|
|
31,183 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
9,298 |
|
|
|
3,100 |
|
|
|
56,840 |
|
|
|
19,248 |
|
|
|
74,800 |
|
|
|
40,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drilling Activity
Certain information with regard to our drilling activity during
the years ended December 31, 2002, 2003, and 2004 is set
forth below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Exploratory wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3.34 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
2.03 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1.00 |
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
2.65 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
2.35 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
5.99 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
4.38 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
3.10 |
|
Development wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
34.84 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
30.07 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
6.65 |
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
0.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
35.52 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
30.07 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
6.65 |
|
Total wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
38.18 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
32.10 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
7.65 |
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
3.33 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
2.35 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
41.51 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
34.45 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
9.75 |
|
We were in the process of drilling 2 gross (1.16 net)
wells as of December 31, 2004.
86
Property Dispositions
When appropriate, we consider the sale of discoveries that are
not yet producing or have recently begun producing when we
believe we can obtain acceptable returns on our investment
without holding the investment through depletion. Such sales
enable us to maintain and redeploy the proceeds to activities
that we believe have a higher potential financial return. No
property dispositions of producing properties were made during
the three years ended December 31, 2004. However, we sold
an aggregate 50% working interest in our non-producing deepwater
Falcon and Harrier projects in two separate sales for
$48.8 million in 2002 and $121.6 million in 2003,
respectively.
Marketing and Customers
We market substantially all of the oil and natural gas
production from the properties we operate as well as the
properties operated by others where our interest is significant.
The majority of our natural gas, oil and condensate production
is sold to a variety of purchasers under short-term (less than
12 months) contracts at market-based prices. The following
table lists customers accounting for more than 10% of our total
revenues for the year indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Total Revenues | |
|
|
for Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Customer |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Sempra
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
34 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Bridgeline Gas Distributing Company
|
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
19 |
% |
|
|
42 |
% |
Trammo Petroleum Inc.
|
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Conoco Phillips
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
14 |
% |
Duke Energy
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
6 |
% |
|
|
9 |
% |
Genesis Crude Oil LP
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
4 |
% |
Chevron Texaco
|
|
|
18 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BP Energy
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title to Properties
Substantially all of our properties currently are subject to
liens securing either our credit facility and obligations under
hedging arrangements with members of our bank group or the
promissory note payable to JEDI. In addition, our properties are
subject to customary royalty interests, liens incident to
operating agreements, liens for current taxes and other typical
burdens and encumbrances. We do not believe that any of these
burdens or encumbrances materially interferes with the use of
such properties in the operation of our business. Our properties
may also be subject to obligations or duties under applicable
laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of governmental
authorities.
We believe that we have satisfactory title to or rights in all
of our producing properties. As is customary in the oil and
natural gas industry, minimal investigation of title is made at
the time of acquisition of undeveloped properties. Title
investigation is made usually only before commencement of
drilling operations. We believe that title issues generally are
not as likely to arise on offshore oil and gas properties as on
onshore properties.
Competition
We believe that our leasehold acreage, exploration, drilling and
production capabilities, large 3-D seismic database and
technical and operational experience generally enable us to
compete effectively. However, our competitors include major
integrated oil and natural gas companies and numerous
87
independent oil and natural gas companies, individuals and
drilling and income programs. Many of our larger competitors
possess and employ financial and personnel resources
substantially greater than those available to us. Such companies
may be able to pay more for productive oil and natural gas
properties and exploratory prospects and to define, evaluate,
bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and
prospects than our financial or personnel resources permit. Our
ability to acquire additional prospects and discover reserves in
the future is dependent upon our ability to evaluate and select
suitable properties and consummate transactions in a highly
competitive environment. In addition, there is substantial
competition for capital available for investment in the oil and
natural gas industry. Larger competitors may be better able to
withstand sustained periods of unsuccessful drilling and absorb
the burden of changes in laws and regulations more easily than
we can, which would adversely affect our competitive position.
Royalty Relief
The RRA, signed into law on November 28, 1995, provides
that all tracts in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30
minutes West longitude in water more than 200 meters deep
offered for bid within five years of the RRA will be relieved
from normal federal royalties as follows:
|
|
|
Water Depth |
|
Royalty Relief |
|
|
|
200-400 meters
|
|
no royalty payable on the first 105 Bcfe produced |
400-800 meters
|
|
no royalty payable on the first 315 Bcfe produced |
800 meters or deeper
|
|
no royalty payable on the first 525 Bcfe produced |
Leases offered for bid within five years of the RRA are referred
to as post-Act leases. The RRA also allows mineral
interest owners the opportunity to apply for discretionary
royalty relief for new production on leases acquired before the
RRA was enacted (pre-Act leases) and on leases
acquired after November 28, 2000 (post-2000
leases). If the MMS determines that new production under a
pre-Act lease or post-2000 lease would not be economical without
royalty relief, then the MMS may relieve a portion of the
royalty to make the project economical.
In addition to granting discretionary royalty relief, the MMS
has elected to include automatic royalty relief provisions in
many post-2000 leases, even though the RRA no longer applies.
For each post-2000 lease sale that has occurred to date, the MMS
has specified the water depth categories and royalty suspension
volumes applicable to production from leases issued in the sale.
In 2004, the MMS adopted additional royalty relief incentives
for production of natural gas from reservoirs located deep under
shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. These incentives apply to
gas produced in water depths of less than 200 meters and from
deep gas accumulations located at depths of greater than
15,000 feet below the shelf. Drilling of qualified wells
must have started on or after March 26, 2003, and
production must begin prior to January 26, 2009.
The impact of royalty relief can be significant. The normal
royalty due for leases in water depths of 400 meters or
less is 16.7% of production, and the normal royalty for leases
in water depths greater than 400 meters is 12.5% of
production. Royalty relief can substantially improve the
economics of projects located in deepwater or in shallow water
and involving deep gas.
Many of our leases from the MMS contain language suspending
royalty relief if commodity prices exceed predetermined
threshold levels for a given calendar year. As a result, royalty
relief for a lease in a particular calendar year may be
contingent upon average commodity prices staying below the
threshold price specified for that year. In 2000, 2001, 2003 and
2004 natural gas prices exceeded the applicable price thresholds
for a number of our projects, and we have been required to pay
royalties for natural gas produced in those years. However, we
contested the MMS authority to include price thresholds in two
of our post-Act leases, Black Widow and Garden Banks 367. We
believe that post-Act leases are entitled to automatic royalty
relief under the RRA regardless of commodity prices, and have
pursued administrative and judicial remedies in this dispute
with the MMS. For more information concerning the contested
royalty payments and the MMSs demands, see
Legal Proceedings below.
88
Regulation
Our operations are subject to extensive and continually changing
regulation affecting the oil and natural gas industry. Many
departments and agencies, both federal and state, are authorized
by statute to issue, and have issued, rules and regulations
binding on the oil and natural gas industry and its individual
participants. The failure to comply with such rules and
regulations can result in substantial penalties. The regulatory
burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of
doing business and, consequently, affects our profitability. We
do not believe that we are affected in a significantly different
manner by these regulations than are our competitors.
|
|
|
Transportation and Sale of Natural Gas |
Historically, the transportation and sale for resale of natural
gas in interstate commerce have been regulated pursuant to the
Natural Gas Act of 1938, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and
the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the past, the federal
government has regulated the prices at which natural gas could
be sold. Deregulation of natural gas sales by producers began
with the enactment of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. In
1989, Congress enacted the Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act,
which removed all remaining Natural Gas Act of 1938 and Natural
Gas Policy Act of 1978 price and non-price controls affecting
producer sales of natural gas effective January 1, 1993.
Congress could, however, re-enact price controls in the future.
The FERC regulates interstate natural gas pipeline
transportation rates and service conditions, which affect the
marketing of gas produced by us and the revenues received by us
for sales of such natural gas. The FERC requires interstate
pipelines to provide open-access transportation on a
non-discriminatory basis for all natural gas shippers. The FERC
frequently reviews and modifies its regulations regarding the
transportation of natural gas with the stated goal of fostering
competition within all phases of the natural gas industry. In
addition, with respect to production onshore or in state waters,
the intra-state transportation of natural gas would be subject
to state regulatory jurisdiction as well.
In August, 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EP Act 2005). Among other matters, EP Act 2005
amends the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to make it unlawful
for any entity, including otherwise
non-jurisdictional producers such as Mariner and Forest, to use
any deceptive or manipulative device or contrivance in
connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas or the
purchase or sale of transportation services subject to
regulation by the FERC, in contravention of rules prescribed by
the FERC. On January 19, 2006, the FERC issued regulations
implementing this provision. The regulations make it unlawful in
connection with the purchase or sale of natural gas subject to
the jurisdiction of the FERC, or the purchase or sale of
transportation services subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC,
for any entity, directly or indirectly, to use or employ any
device, scheme or artifice to defraud; to make any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to make any such statement
necessary to make the statements made not misleading; or to
engage in any act or practice that operates as a fraud or deceit
upon any person. EP Act 2005 also gives the FERC authority
to impose civil penalties for violations of the NGA up to
$1,000,000 per day per violation. The new anti-manipulation rule
does not apply to activities that relate only to intrastate or
other non-jurisdictional sales or gathering, but does apply to
activities of otherwise non-jurisdictional entities to the
extent the activities are conducted in connection
with gas sales, purchases or transportation subject to
FERC jurisdiction. It therefore reflects a significant expansion
of the FERCs enforcement authority. We do not anticipate
we will be affected any differently than other producers of
natural gas.
Additional proposals and proceedings that might affect the
natural gas industry are considered from time to time by
Congress, the FERC, state regulatory bodies and the courts. We
cannot predict when or if any such proposals might become
effective or their effect, if any, on our operations. The
natural gas industry historically has been closely regulated;
thus, there is no assurance that the less stringent regulatory
approach recently pursued by the FERC and Congress will continue
indefinitely into the future.
89
The production of oil and natural gas is subject to regulation
under a wide range of state and federal statutes, rules, orders
and regulations. State and federal statutes and regulations
require permits for drilling operations, drilling bonds, and
reports concerning operations. Texas and Louisiana, the states
in which we own and operate properties, have regulations
governing conservation matters, including provisions for the
unitization or pooling of oil and natural gas properties, the
establishment of maximum rates of production from oil and
natural gas wells, the spacing of wells, and the plugging and
abandonment of wells and removal of related production
equipment. Texas and Louisiana also restrict production to the
market demand for oil and natural gas and several states have
indicated interests in revising applicable regulations. These
regulations can limit the amount of oil and natural gas we can
produce from our wells, limit the number of wells, or limit the
locations at which we can conduct drilling operations. Moreover,
each state generally imposes a production or severance tax with
respect to production and sale of crude oil, natural gas and gas
liquids within its jurisdiction.
Most of our offshore operations are conducted on federal leases
that are administered by the MMS. Such leases require compliance
with detailed MMS regulations and orders pursuant to the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act that are subject to interpretation
and change by the MMS. Among other things, we are required to
obtain prior MMS approval for our exploration plans and
development and production plans at each lease. MMS regulations
also impose construction requirements for production facilities
located on federal offshore leases, as well as detailed
technical requirements for plugging and abandonment of wells,
and removal of platforms and other production facilities on such
leases. The MMS requires lessees to post surety bonds, or
provide other acceptable financial assurances, to ensure all
obligations are satisfied on federal offshore leases. The cost
of these surety bonds or other financial assurances can be
substantial, and there is no assurance that bonds or other
financial assurances can be obtained in all cases. We are
currently in compliance with all MMS financial assurance
requirements. Under certain circumstances, the MMS is authorized
to suspend or terminate operations on federal offshore leases.
Any suspension or termination of operations on our offshore
leases could have an adverse effect on our financial condition
and results of operations.
In 2000, the MMS issued a final rule that governs the
calculation of royalties and the valuation of crude oil produced
from federal leases. That rule amended the way that the MMS
values crude oil produced from federal leases for determining
royalties by eliminating posted prices as a measure of value and
relying instead on arms-length sales prices and spot
market prices as indicators of value. On May 5, 2004, the
MMS issued a final rule that changed certain components of its
valuation procedures for the calculation of royalties owed for
crude oil sales. The changes include changing the valuation
basis for transactions not at arms-length from spot to
NYMEX prices adjusted for locality and quality differentials,
and clarifying the treatment of transactions under a joint
operating agreement. We believe that the changes will not have a
material impact on our financial condition, liquidity or results
of operations.
|
|
|
Environmental Regulations |
Our operations are subject to numerous stringent and complex
laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels
governing the discharge of materials into the environment or
otherwise relating to human health and environmental protection.
These laws and regulations may, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
require acquisition of a permit before drilling commences; |
|
|
|
restrict the types, quantities and concentrations of various
materials that can be released into the environment in
connection with drilling and production activities; and |
|
|
|
limit or prohibit construction or drilling activities in certain
ecologically sensitive and other protected areas. |
Failure to comply with these laws and regulations or to obtain
or comply with permits may result in the assessment of
administrative, civil and criminal penalties, imposition of
remedial requirements and the imposition of injunctions to force
future compliance. Offshore drilling in some areas has been
opposed by
90
environmental groups and, in some areas, has been restricted.
Our business and prospects could be adversely affected to the
extent laws are enacted or other governmental action is taken
that prohibits or restricts our exploration and production
activities or imposes environmental protection requirements that
result in increased costs to us or the oil and natural gas
industry in general.
Spills and Releases. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
also known as Superfund, and analogous state laws,
impose joint and several liability, without regard to fault or
the legality of the original act, on certain classes of persons
that contributed to the release of a hazardous
substance into the environment. These persons include the
owner and operator of the site where the
release occurred, past owners and operators of the site, and
companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the
hazardous substances found at the site. Responsible parties
under CERCLA may be liable for the costs of cleaning up
hazardous substances that have been released into the
environment and for damages to natural resources. Additionally,
it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third
parties to file tort claims for personal injury and property
damage allegedly caused by the release of hazardous substances
into the environment. In the course of our ordinary operations,
we may generate waste that may fall within CERCLAs
definition of a hazardous substance.
We currently own, lease or operate, and have in the past owned,
leased or operated, numerous properties that for many years have
been used for the exploration and production of oil and gas.
Many of these properties have been operated by third parties
whose actions with respect to the treatment and disposal or
release of hydrocarbons or other wastes were not under our
control. It is possible that hydrocarbons or other wastes may
have been disposed of or released on or under such properties,
or on or under other locations where such wastes may have been
taken for disposal. These properties and wastes disposed thereon
may be subject to CERCLA and analogous state laws. Under such
laws, we could be required to remove or remediate previously
disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by
prior owners or operators), to clean up contaminated property
(including contaminated groundwater) or to perform remedial
plugging operations to prevent future contamination, or to pay
the costs of such remedial measures. Although we believe we have
utilized operating and disposal practices that are standard in
the industry, during the course of operations hydrocarbons and
other wastes have been released on some of the properties we
own, lease or operate. We are not presently aware of any pending
clean-up obligations
that could have a material impact on our operations or financial
condition.
The Oil Pollution Act. The OPA and regulations thereunder
impose strict, joint and several liability on responsible
parties for damages, including natural resource damages,
resulting from oil spills into or upon navigable waters,
adjoining shorelines or in the exclusive economic zone of the
U.S. A responsible party includes the owner or
operator of an onshore facility and the lessee or permittee of
the area in which an offshore facility is located. The OPA
establishes a liability limit for onshore facilities of
$350 million, while the liability limit for offshore
facilities is equal to all removal costs plus up to
$75 million in other damages. These liability limits may
not apply if a spill is caused by a partys gross
negligence or willful misconduct, the spill resulted from
violation of a federal safety, construction or operating
regulation, or if a party fails to report a spill or to
cooperate fully in a clean-up.
The OPA also requires the lessee or permittee of an offshore
area in which a covered offshore facility is located to provide
financial assurance in the amount of $35 million to cover
liabilities related to an oil spill. The amount of financial
assurance required under the OPA may be increased up to
$150 million depending on the risk represented by the
quantity or quality of oil that is handled by a facility. The
failure to comply with the OPAs requirements may subject a
responsible party to civil, criminal, or administrative
enforcement actions. We are not aware of any action or event
that would subject us to liability under the OPA, and we believe
that compliance with the OPAs financial assurance and
other operating requirements will not have a material impact on
our operations or financial condition.
Water Discharges. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972, (the Clean Water Act), imposes restrictions
and controls on the discharge of produced waters and other oil
and gas pollutants into navigable waters. These controls have
become more stringent over the years, and it is possible that
additional restrictions may be imposed in the future. Permits
must be obtained to discharge pollutants into state and federal
waters. Certain state regulations and the general permits issued
under the Federal
91
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program prohibit the discharge of produced
waters and sand, drilling fluids, drill cuttings and certain
other substances related to the oil and gas industry into
certain coastal and offshore water. The Clean Water Act provides
for civil, criminal and administrative penalties for
unauthorized discharges of oil and other pollutants, and imposes
liability on parties responsible for those discharges for the
costs of cleaning up any environmental damage caused by the
release and for natural resource damages resulting from the
release. Comparable state statutes impose liabilities and
authorize penalties in the case of an unauthorized discharge of
petroleum or its derivatives, or other pollutants, into state
waters.
In furtherance of the Clean Water Act, the EPA promulgated the
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, or SPCC,
regulations, which require facilities that possess certain
threshold quantities of oil that could impact navigable waters
or adjoining shorelines to prepare SPCC plans and meet specified
construction and operating standards. The SPCC regulations were
revised in 2002 and required the amendment of SPCC plans before
February 18, 2006, if necessary, and requires compliance
with the implementation of such amended plans by August 18,
2006. We may be required to prepare SPCC plans for some of our
facilities where a spill or release of oil could reach or impact
jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Air Emissions. The Federal Clean Air Act, and associated
state laws and regulations, restrict the emission of air
pollutants from many sources, including oil and natural gas
operations. New facilities may be required to obtain permits
before operations can commence, and existing facilities may be
required to obtain additional permits and incur capital costs in
order to remain in compliance. Federal and state regulatory
agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties
for non-compliance with air permits or other requirements of the
Clean Air Act and associated state laws and regulations. We
believe that compliance with the Clean Air Act and analogous
state laws and regulations will not have a material impact on
our operations or financial condition.
Waste Handling. The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and analogous state and local laws and
regulations govern the management of wastes, including the
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. RCRA
imposes stringent operating requirements, and liability for
failure to meet such requirements, on a person who is either a
generator or transporter of hazardous
waste or an owner or operator of a
hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility. RCRA
specifically excludes from the definition of hazardous waste
drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated
with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil
and natural gas. A similar exemption is contained in many of the
state counterparts to RCRA. As a result, we are not required to
comply with a substantial portion of RCRAs requirements
because our operations generate minimal quantities of hazardous
wastes. However, these wastes may be regulated by EPA or state
agencies as solid waste. In addition, ordinary industrial
wastes, such as paint wastes, waste solvents, laboratory wastes,
and waste compressor oils, may be regulated under RCRA as
hazardous waste. We do not believe the current costs of managing
our wastes, as they are presently classified, to be significant.
However, any repeal or modification of the oil and natural gas
exploration and production exemption, or modifications of
similar exemptions in analogous state statutes, would increase
the volume of hazardous waste we are required to manage and
dispose of and would cause us, as well as our competitors, to
incur increased operating expenses.
Employees
As of February 1, 2006, we had 80 full-time employees.
Our employees are not represented by any labor unions. We
consider relations with our employees to be satisfactory. We
have never experienced a work stoppage or strike.
Legal Proceedings
Mariner operates numerous properties in the Gulf of Mexico. Two
of these properties were leased from the MMS subject to the RRA.
The RRA relieved the obligation to pay royalties on certain
predetermined leases until a designated volume is produced.
These two leases contained language that limited royalty relief
if commodity prices exceeded predetermined levels. In 2000,
2001, 2003 and 2004 commodity prices exceeded the predetermined
levels. Management believes the MMS did not have the authority
to set pricing limits and we filed an administrative appeal
contesting the MMS order and have
92
withheld royalties regarding this matter. The MMS filed a motion
to dismiss our appeal with the Board of Land Appeals of the
Department of the Interior. On April 6, 2005, the Board of
Land Appeals granted MMS motion and dismissed our appeal.
On October 3, 2005, we filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking judicial review
of the dismissal of our appeal by the Board of Land Appeals.
Mariner has recorded a liability for 100% of the potential
exposure on this matter, which on September 30, 2005 was
$14.6 million.
In addition to the foregoing, by letter dated December 2,
2005, the MMS notified Mariner that 2004 commodity prices
exceeded the predetermined levels and, accordingly, that
royalties were due on natural gas and oil produced in calendar
year 2004 from federal offshore leases with confirmed royalty
suspension volumes as defined by the RRA. On December 29,
2005, Mariner filed a notice of intent to appeal this royalty
demand from the MMS. Mariner has paid royalties on calendar year
2004 production from federal offshore leases in which it owns an
interest except for 2004 production from Ewing Bank 966 and
Garden Banks 367, being the two leases at issue in the lawsuit
discussed above.
In the ordinary course of business, we are a claimant and/or a
defendant in various legal proceedings, including proceedings as
to which we have insurance coverage, in which the exposure,
individually and in the aggregate, is not considered material to
us.
Insurance Matters
In September 2004, we incurred damage from Hurricane Ivan that
affected our Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre) and
Mississippi Canyon 357 fields. Production from Mississippi
Canyon 357 was shut-in until March 2005, when necessary repairs
were completed and production recommenced. Production from Ochre
is currently shut-in awaiting rerouting of umbilical and flow
lines to another host platform. Prior to Hurricane Ivan, this
field was producing at a net rate of approximately
6.5 MMcfe per day. Production from Ochre is expected to
recommence by the end of the first quarter of 2006. In addition,
a semi-submersible rig on location at Mariners Viosca
Knoll 917 (Swordfish) field was blown off location by the
hurricane and incurred damage. Until we are able to complete all
the repair work and submit costs to the insurance underwriters
for review, the full extent of our insurance recovery and the
resulting net cost to Mariner is unknown. For the insurance
period ending September 30, 2004, we carried an annual
deductible of $1.25 million and a single occurrence
deductible of $.375 million.
In August 2005 and September 2005, Mariner incurred damage from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that affected several of its
offshore fields. Hurricane Katrina caused minor damage to our
owned platforms and facilities. Production that was shut-in by
the hurricane was recommenced within three weeks of the
hurricane, with the exception of two minor non-operated fields.
However, Hurricane Katrina inflicted damage to host facilities
for our Pluto, Rigel and Ochre projects that has delayed
start-up of these
projects until 2006. Hurricane Rita caused minor damage to our
owned platforms and some damage to certain host facilities of
our development projects. Production shut-in as a result of
Hurricane Rita fully recommenced within three weeks of the
hurricane, with the exception of our Baccarat field.
Until we are able to complete all the repair work and submit
costs to our insurance underwriters for review, the full extent
of our insurance recovery and the resulting net cost to us for
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be unknown. For the insurance
period ending September 30, 2005, we carried a
$3.0 million annual deductible and a $.375 million
single occurrence deductible.
Enron Related Matters
In 1996, JEDI, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Enron
Corp., acquired approximately 96% of Mariner Energy LLC, which
at the time of acquisition indirectly owned 100% of Mariner
Energy, Inc. After JEDI acquired us, we continued our prior
business as an independent oil and natural gas exploration,
development and production company. In 2001, Enron Corp. and
certain of its subsidiaries (excluding JEDI) became debtors in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Mariner Energy, Inc. was
not one of the debtors in those proceedings. While the
bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing, we continued to operate our
business as an indirect subsidiary of JEDI. We remained an
indirect subsidiary of JEDI until March of
93
2004 when our former indirect parent company, Mariner Energy
LLC, merged with an affiliate of the private equity funds
Carlyle/ Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund II, L.P.
and ACON Investments LLC. In the merger, all the shares of
common stock in Mariner Energy LLC were converted into the right
to receive cash and certain other consideration. As a result,
since March 2004, JEDI no longer owns any direct or indirect
interest in Mariner, and we are no longer affiliated with JEDI
or Enron Corp. Also in connection with the merger, warrants to
purchase common stock of Mariner Energy LLC that were held by
another Enron Corp. affiliate were exercised and the holders
received their pro rata portion of the merger consideration, and
a term loan owed by Mariner Energy LLC to the same Enron Corp.
affiliate was repaid in full.
Prior to the merger, we filed two proofs of claim in the Enron
Corp. bankruptcy proceedings. These claims, aggregating
$10.7 million, were for unpaid amounts owed to us by Enron
Corp. subsidiaries under the terms of various physical commodity
contracts and hedging contracts entered into prior to the Enron
Corp. bankruptcy filing. We assigned these claims to JEDI as
part of the merger consideration payable to JEDI under the terms
of the merger agreement. Thus, as of this date, we have no
claims pending in the Enron Corp. bankruptcy proceedings.
As part of the merger consideration payable to JEDI, we also
issued a term promissory note to JEDI in the amount of
$10 million. The note matures on March 2, 2006, and
bears interest, paid in kind, at a rate of 10% per annum
until March 2, 2005, and 12% per annum thereafter
unless paid in cash in which event the rate remains at
10% per annum. The JEDI promissory note is secured by a
lien on three of our properties located in the Outer Continental
Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico. We can offset against the note the
amount of certain claims for indemnification that can be
asserted against JEDI under the terms of the merger agreement.
We used a portion of proceeds from the common stock we sold in
our March 2005 private equity placement to repay $6 million
of the JEDI Note.
Under the merger agreement, JEDI and the other former
stockholders of our parent company were entitled to receive on
or before February 28, 2005, additional contingent merger
consideration based upon the results of a five-well drilling
program. In September 2004, we prepaid, with a 10% prepayment
discount, approximately $161,000 as the additional contingent
merger consideration due with respect to the program.
94
THE SPIN-OFF AND MERGER
Background of the Merger
At regular meetings of Forests board held on
November 10, 2004 and February 23, 2005, Forests
management made presentations regarding the estimated value of
Forests business units. Forests board and management
agreed to examine alternatives to increase the value of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. The alternatives were taxable
and non-taxable divestments of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, and included an outright cash sale of those
operations, an initial public offering, and some form of a
merger transaction. Forests board determined that an
initial public offering would require much more time than the
other alternatives and, due to the need to create and manage a
new corporation for potentially an extended period of time, with
associated job overlap and reassignments, would place a
significant burden on employee retention and staffing.
Forests board also determined that, due to the disparity
in the market value and tax basis of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, a non-taxable alternative would be most attractive
to Forest and its shareholders. One specific alternative
presented by management was merging the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations with another company that was more focused on
offshore activities and possessed a complementary asset base.
Forests directors instructed Forests management to
consider means to accomplish such a merger and to discuss such a
strategy with financial advisors and legal and tax counsel.
On April 18, 2005, Mr. David Keyte, the Chief
Financial Officer of Forest, spoke briefly with
Mr. Scott Josey, the Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman of Mariner, at a meeting of the
Independent Petroleum Association of America in New York City.
Mr. Keyte told Mr. Josey that Forest was interested in
examining the possibility of spinning off its Gulf of Mexico
operations utilizing a reverse Morris Trust
structure. In general terms, a reverse Morris Trust structure in
this context would entail a Forest distribution of the stock of
one of its subsidiaries (preexisting or newly formed) to Forest
shareholders, followed by a merger between such subsidiary and
Mariner. Mr. Josey expressed interest in a potential
transaction, and Messrs. Keyte and Josey agreed to discuss
the matter with greater specificity at a later date.
Forests initial contact with Mariner regarding a potential
transaction was not the result of affiliations between the
parties. Forest and Mariner do not have common directors, and no
member of senior management of either party is a former employee
of, or is otherwise affiliated with, the other party.
Mariners largest stockholder, FMR Corp. (which holds
approximately 12.2% of Mariners outstanding shares), is
also the second largest shareholder of Forest (holding
approximately 12.7% of Forests outstanding shares).
FMR Corp. has no board representation or other management
control over either party. Mr. Forrest E. Hoglund, the
Chairman of Forests board of directors, served as Chairman
of the Board of EOG Resources, Inc., an affiliate of Enron
Corp., from 1987 to 1999 and as President from 1990 to 1996.
During part of this period, Mariner was also an affiliate of
Enron Corp., though the companies respective management
teams were separate. Neither Mr. Hoglund nor Mariner is
currently affiliated with Enron Corp.
On May 10, 2005, at a regularly scheduled board meeting at
Forests offices in Denver, Colorado, Forest management
made a presentation to the Forest board of directors regarding a
potential spin-off and merger of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, utilizing a reverse Morris Trust structure.
Forests management identified five potential merger
parties that met certain criteria relating to size and
complementary Gulf of Mexico asset base. In order to use a
reverse Morris Trust structure, Forest required a merger party
of a size such that, when combined with the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations, the relative values of the party and the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations would result in Forests
shareholders owning more than 50% of the combined entity. Also,
Forest sought a merger party that already capably managed a
significant Gulf of Mexico asset base. It was desirable that the
merger partys asset base be in reasonable proximity, and
complementary in terms of acreage, to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, such that the combination of the two might produce a
significant scale of operations and operational efficiencies and
synergies.
The Forest board authorized Forest management to begin efforts
to evaluate and pursue the potential spin-off. As a result,
during the week of May 16, 2005, Mr. Keyte contacted
each of the five potential
95
merger parties. These potential merger parties, which included
Mariner, will be referred to herein as Mariner, Party A,
Party B, Party C and Party D.
On or about May 21, 2005, Forest sent to Mariner a
confidentiality agreement regarding the proposed transaction and
any subsequent due diligence reviews. From May 21, 2005
through May 23, 2005, Forest and Mariner negotiated the
terms of the confidentiality agreement and on May 23, 2005,
Forest and Mariner executed the confidentiality agreement. Over
the course of the following week, Forest executed
confidentiality agreements with Party A, Party B and
Party C, and Forest management made presentations regarding
a possible spin-off and merger to each such party. Party D
declined to execute a confidentiality agreement, stating that it
had concluded that it could not devote the necessary time and
focus required to proceed with Forest in a timely fashion.
Forest had no further substantive discussions with Party D.
After Forest made its presentation regarding the possible
spin-off and merger, Party C stated that it could not meet
Forests timing requirements and had decided not to
proceed. Forest had no further substantive discussions with
Party C.
On May 24, 2005, Mr. Keyte, Mr. Michael Kennedy,
the Investor Relations Manager of Forest, and Mr. Josey met
in Houston, Texas. At the meeting, Mr. Keyte made a
presentation detailing the transaction contemplated by Forest.
The presentation described the transaction structure and
provided information on the assets, reserves, acreage, personnel
and performance metrics (including production and EBITDA) of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. The presentation also covered
the pro forma operational and financial characteristics of the
combined company based on preliminary figures. Mr. Keyte
identified several potential advantages to Mariner of
undertaking the proposed transaction, including increased
liquidity, an attractive, balanced asset portfolio in the Gulf
of Mexico, and property prospects for future development.
Mr. Keyte did not propose economic terms for the
transaction, such as the ownership stake Forest shareholders
would hold in Mariner after the completion of the transaction.
After this, Mr. Josey made a presentation regarding Mariner
and the merits of consummating a transaction with Mariner. The
presentation provided an overview of Mariners operations,
properties, production and reserves; management structure;
exploration and development projects, including the Swordfish
project (please see Mariner Significant
Properties Gulf of Mexico Deepwater for more
information on this project); and financial data, including
capital expenditures. Prior to the conclusion of the meeting,
Mr. Keyte requested that Mariners management team
make a presentation to Forests board of directors at a
later date.
On June 2, 2005, Forest made available to Mariner, for
purposes of its due diligence review, electronic data regarding
the reserves, lease operating expenses, capital expenditures,
production, general and administrative expenses and financial
performance of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. Forest also
made the same information available to Party A and
Party B. Representatives of Mariner, Party A and
Party B conducted reviews of these materials on an ongoing
basis over the course of the following weeks.
On June 16, 2005, the executive committee of Forests
board of directors, consisting of Messrs. Forrest E.
Hoglund, James H. Lee and Craig Clark, met in Houston, Texas
with members of Forest management and representatives of
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (Citigroup) (one of
Forests financial advisors) to discuss the contemplated
spin-off and merger. Representatives of Party A and
Party B then sequentially joined the meeting and made
presentations to the executive committee.
On June 22, 2005, the executive committee of Forests
board of directors held a meeting in Forests offices in
Denver, Colorado. Members of Forest management and
representatives of Citigroup were also present at the meeting.
At this meeting, the executive committee was briefed on the
status of discussions with Mariner, Party A and
Party B. Mr. Josey, accompanied by Messrs. Dalton
Polasek, Chief Operating Officer, Rick Lester, Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, Mike van den Bold, Vice President
and Chief Exploration Officer, and Jesus Melendrez, Vice
President Corporate Development of Mariner, then
joined the meeting and made a presentation to the executive
committee and the other attendees. The presentation provided an
overview of Mariners operations, properties, production
and reserves; management structure; exploration and development
projects, including the King Kong/Yosemite, Pluto II, Bass
Lite, LaSalle, Swordfish, Green Pepper and Rigel projects;
prospect inventory; drilling programs; seismic
96
databases; and financial data, including a capital expenditure
budget for 2005. Mr. Josey presented Mariners views
on its own enterprise value and discussed a proposed method for
establishing an exchange ratio focused primarily upon the PV10
values of the parties estimated proved reserves. He did
not propose an exchange ratio for the transaction or other
specific economic terms. Mr. Josey advised Forest that
Mariner would require that the evaluation of Mariner for
purposes of establishing an exchange ratio give effect to its
anticipated West Texas acquisition.
On June 23, 2005, a special committee of Forests
board of directors was formed to consider proposals to spin-off
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. The directors named to be
members of the committee were Messrs. Hoglund, Dod A.
Fraser, Mr. Lee, James D. Lighter, and Patrick R. McDonald.
On June 28, 2005, Mariner, Party A and Party B
received a written request from Forest for a non-binding,
preliminary proposal to acquire the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. The proposal was requested to be submitted no later
than July 6 and to include certain information, including the
percentage of shares of the combined entity to be held by Forest
shareholders, key assumptions used in arriving at the level of
consideration to be offered, transaction structure, and a
statement of intent with respect to employees of the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations.
On June 29, 2005, Mr. Clark, Forests Chief
Executive Officer, and other members of Forests management
and technical teams made a presentation to Party A on the
attributes and upside potential of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. Representatives of Citigroup were also present at
the meeting. The size of Party A in comparison to the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations was identified as an issue that
might preclude Forest from structuring the spin-off as a
tax-free transaction. Therefore, Forest could be required to
include more assets in the transaction, either in the form of
additional oil and gas operations or cash.
On July 6, 2005, Mariner submitted to Forest a non-binding
preliminary written proposal to acquire the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations. In the proposal, Mariner indicated its
willingness to consummate a transaction in which Forest
shareholders would hold between 53% and 56% of Mariners
shares after the transaction, and Mariner would assume
$300 million of indebtedness as part of the merger, which
would be incurred by Forests subsidiary prior to being
spun off by Forest in order to fund a distribution to Forest
prior to the spin-off. Mariner stated that it had based its
valuation of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations at between 90%
and 100% of the value of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
estimated proved reserves and 100% of the value of
Mariners estimated proved reserves. The proposal was
subject to due diligence, and assumed an economic effective date
of June 30, 2005 (i.e., all revenues and expenditures of
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations would accrue to the account
of Mariner from that date). Mariner also included supporting
schedules providing details on Mariners calculations of
the respective values of the companies, based on the
parties respective PV10 values at June 30, 2005.
Mariners schedules estimated Mariners value, based
upon PV10 values for its estimated proved reserves, and adjusted
for debt, working capital and derivatives, at approximately
$883 million. Mariners schedules estimated the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations value, based upon PV10 values
for its estimated proved reserves, and adjusted for
$300 million of debt, in a range from $978 million to
$1.1 billion.
Also on July 6, 2005, Party A submitted a written
proposal to Forest to acquire the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and certain other substantial assets of Forest for a
maximum valuation of $1.335 billion in stock. In its
proposal, Party A used a different valuation method than Mariner
had employed. Party A determined an implicit dollar-per-unit
valuation of its own reserves, based on its stock price at the
time of the proposal, number of outstanding shares of stock,
total reserves and cash on hand. Party A then took that implicit
valuation and applied it to the reserves of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations. On that basis, which differed from
Mariners basis, Party A established a comparative
valuation for the reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations of approximately $1.2 billion based on the value
of its stock at that time. Party As proposal provided
for no cash payment to Forest, and for a repurchase by
Party A of Party As stock to accommodate
Party As assessment of relative value.
Party B declined to make a written proposal in the form and
timing requested to acquire the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. Forest had no further substantive discussions with
Party B.
97
On July 11, 2005, the special committee of Forests
board of directors met by teleconference with members of Forest
management and representatives of Citigroup and Credit Suisse
First Boston (CSFB) (another of Forests
financial advisors). At this meeting, the special committee was
briefed on the status of discussions with Mariner, Party A
and Party B and with Mariners and Party As
July 6 proposals. After discussion, the special committee
concluded that, with respect to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, the valuation contained in Party As
proposal was comparable to the valuation contained in
Mariners proposal but that, with respect to Forests
other assets, Party As valuation was insufficient.
Further, Party As transaction structure was very
complex, which Forest believed made the transaction less viable.
On July 14, 2005, Mr. Clark and other members of
Forests management and technical teams made a presentation
to Mr. Josey and other members of Mariners management
and technical teams in Houston, Texas, on the attributes and
upside potential of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Representatives of Citigroup and CSFB were also present at the
meeting. The presentation provided detail on several pending
exploration and development projects.
On July 15, 2005, members of Forest management, together
with representatives of Citigroup and CSFB, met in Houston,
Texas with Party A to discuss the potential benefits of a
transaction. Following the July 15 meeting, Party A
declined to revise its proposal.
Following further technical and reserve due diligence, on
July 21, 2005, Mariner submitted a revised non-binding
preliminary written proposal to Forest. In the proposal, Mariner
stated that it had revised the basis of its valuation to 100% of
the value of the proved reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, and was therefore confirming its willingness to
enter into a transaction in which Forest shareholders would hold
approximately 56% of Mariners shares, subject to due
diligence and adjustment based upon material changes occurring
prior to the execution of the merger agreement. As with the
July 6, 2005 proposal, Mariner would assume
$300 million of indebtedness, and the transaction would
have an economic effective date of June 30, 2005. Mariner
also requested that Forest enter into an exclusivity agreement,
whereby Forest would agree to negotiate exclusively with Mariner
for a period of 45 days.
On July 25, 2005, in accordance with Forests
instructions, representatives of Citigroup met with
Mr. Josey by teleconference. At the conclusion of the
discussion, Mr. Josey indicated that he would ask the
Mariner board to consider a transaction in which Forest
shareholders would hold approximately 57% of the equity
interests of the combined company after the merger, subject to
due diligence and adjustment based upon material changes
occurring prior to execution of the merger agreement.
On July 27, 2005, the special committee of Forests
board of directors met by teleconference. Members of Forest
management and representatives of Citigroup, CSFB and
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., outside counsel to Forest, were
also present at the meeting. At this meeting, the special
committee was updated on discussions with Mariner and
Party A since the committees
July 11th meeting and on the proposals of Mariner and
Party A. The special committee also discussed alternative
transactions involving the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations,
including an initial public offering, an outright sale of the
underlying assets, and the creation of a net-profits master
limited partnership. The special committee instructed Forest
management to pursue negotiations with Mariner. The special
committee based its decision on the following factors:
(i) Mariners deepwater property portfolio was
complementary to Forests Gulf of Mexico portfolio,
(ii) a spin-off followed by a merger transaction could be
done with Mariner without having to involve assets other than
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, and
(iii) Party As valuation of Forests other
producing operations did not appear to be sufficient.
In evaluating Mariners offer, Forest believed that the
combination of stock and assumed liabilities offered by Mariner
could be worth an amount in a range of approximately
$1.1 billion to $1.4 billion, depending upon the
trading value of Mariners common stock when the stock
begins to trade upon the closing of the merger.
On July 27, 2005, in accordance with Forests
instructions, a representative of Citigroup advised
Mr. Josey that Forests board had approved
managements pursuit of a transaction with Mariner.
98
Subsequently, Mr. Josey advised Mr. Clark by
teleconference that Mariner was not willing to proceed unless
Forest would agree to an exchange ratio adjustment for changes
in Mariners working capital and debt since June 30,
2005.
On July 28, 2005, Mr. Clark and Mr. Josey again
met by teleconference. They discussed the proposed exchange
ratio and adjustments and agreed to commence negotiating
definitive documentation. Mr. Clark advised Mr. Josey
that Forest would give Mariner access to additional due
diligence materials.
On July 29, 2005, Forest distributed a draft non-binding
term sheet for the transaction. The term sheet reflected the 57%
exchange ratio and other agreed-upon terms, and was subject to
mutual due diligence. Over the following three days,
representatives of Forest and Mariner discussed various
provisions in the term sheet, including whether interim
operating covenants would apply to Mariner as well as the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations, board representation and whether or
in what manner transaction expenses would be split between the
parties.
Subsequently, Forest and Mariner executed an exclusivity
agreement effective August 1, 2005, whereby the parties
agreed to negotiate exclusively with each other through
August 22, 2005. The agreement also contained a customary
standstill provision, which provided that neither company would
pursue an acquisition of the other party without that
partys consent.
On August 2, 2005, Forest and Mariner finalized the terms
of the non-binding term sheet for the transaction. The term
sheet reflected the 57% exchange ratio, provided that interim
operating covenants would be applicable to both Mariner and the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, provided for the addition of
two mutually agreeable members to Mariners board and
provided that transaction costs would be borne by both parties.
On August 4 and 5, 2005, representatives of Forest
conducted a due diligence review of certain legal and employee
benefits materials of Mariner at the offices of Baker Botts
L.L.P., Mariners outside counsel, in Houston, Texas.
Materials provided included general corporate materials,
litigation summaries, material contracts, employment agreements,
benefits arrangements and summaries, licenses and permits and
environmental and regulatory information.
On August 5, 2005, Vinson & Elkins distributed a
draft merger agreement to Mariner and Baker Botts.
On August 7, 2005, Mr. Josey met with representatives
of Lehman Brothers (Mariners financial advisor) in the
offices of Mariner. They discussed the general terms and
structure of the transaction and the proposed exchange ratio.
On August 8 and 9, 2005, technical teams from Forest
conducted a due diligence review and valuation analysis of
Mariners proved reserves, drilling inventory and
undeveloped acreage. Forest continued its technical, reserve,
accounting, employee benefits, title and legal due diligence
review over the course of the following weeks.
On August 9, 2005, representatives of Mariner and Baker
Botts began a due diligence review of certain legal, title and
employee benefits materials at the offices of Forest in Denver,
Colorado, and Mariners technical team conducted further
due diligence and continued its evaluation of Forests
proved reserves, drilling inventory and undeveloped acreage.
Materials provided included general corporate materials,
litigation summaries, land, lease and title materials, material
contracts, employment agreements, benefits arrangements and
summaries, licenses and permits and environmental and regulatory
information. With the assistance of appropriate legal, title,
financial, tax, engineering, and human resources consultants,
Mariner continued its technical, reserve, accounting, employee
benefits, title and legal due diligence review over the course
of the following weeks.
On August 10, 2005, Messrs. Clark and Keyte,
Mr. Matthew Wurtzbacher, Senior Vice President, Corporate
Planning and Development of Forest, and Mr. Cyrus Marter,
Vice President and General Counsel of Forest, and
Messrs. Josey, Lester, and Melendrez, and Ms. Teresa
Bushman, Vice President and General Counsel of Mariner, together
with representatives of Vinson & Elkins, Baker Botts,
Citigroup
99
and Lehman Brothers, met in the offices of Vinson &
Elkins in Houston, Texas. Vinson & Elkins explained how
the draft merger agreement had addressed some of the details of
the proposed transaction structure, which led to a discussion of
whether Mariner or Forest Energy Resources would be the
surviving entity in the business combination. Discussion of the
structural issue was postponed pending further analysis. The
parties also discussed interim operations following the
execution of the merger agreement, with Mariner suggesting that
both parties covenant to continue their exploration and
development programs in accordance with their capital budgets.
Forest indicated that it was amenable to this approach. Finally,
the draft agreement proposed superior offer termination
provisions in favor of Forest, which Mariner and Baker Botts
stated would not be acceptable. Also, Mariner and
Baker & Botts objected to the Mariner fiduciary
provisions since they did not include a fiduciary termination
provision. A fiduciary termination provision allows a
partys board of directors, if required by its fiduciary
duties, to terminate the agreement in order to accept a
subsequent superior offer. Representatives of Forest, Mariner,
Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins negotiated and
exchanged drafts of the merger agreement, distribution agreement
and other ancillary agreements over the course of the following
week.
On August 15, 2005, Messrs. Keyte and Marter of
Forest, and Messrs. Josey, Lester and Melendrez and
Ms. Bushman of Mariner, together with representatives of
Citigroup, Vinson & Elkins and Baker Botts, met by
teleconference to discuss the draft distribution agreement. The
companies discussed, and reached agreement in principle on, the
manner in which known and unknown liabilities, including
environmental and plugging and abandonment liabilities, would be
allocated between Mariner and Forest. The companies also
discussed the mechanism for handling revenues and expenses
associated with the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations between
July 1, 2005 and the closing of the merger.
On August 16, 2005, representatives of Baker Botts and
Vinson & Elkins met by teleconference to discuss the
deal protection provisions proposed by Forest in the
draft merger agreement. Vinson & Elkins indicated
Forests unwillingness to proceed with a transaction in
which it did not have the right to terminate the agreement in
the face of a superior proposal to purchase the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations or Forest as a whole. Baker Botts indicated
that Mariner would not be willing to enter into a merger
agreement that included such a termination right.
On August 18, 2005, representatives of Mariner, Forest,
Baker Botts and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
(Forests outside tax counsel) met by teleconference to
discuss the draft tax sharing agreement and related documents.
During the meeting, Forest and Weil, Gotshal & Manges
discussed certain factual circumstances involving forward
contracts to sell Forest stock entered into by a Forest
shareholder who held more than 10% of Forest stock, the effect
of which could have imposed increased restraints on Mariner in
the future in order to maintain favorable tax treatment of the
spin-off.
Also on August 18, representatives of Mariner, Forest,
Citigroup, Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins met by
teleconference to discuss the other transaction agreements.
Following this teleconference, Lehman Brothers contacted
Citigroup to notify them of Mariners unwillingness to
proceed further until the potential tax issue regarding how the
forward contracts entered into by the 10% Forest shareholder
could impact the tax-free nature of the spin-off was resolved to
Mariners satisfaction.
On August 19, 2005, Lehman Brothers contacted Citigroup to
discuss various matters pertaining to the transaction and to
propose that, in order to resolve the potential tax issue raised
on August 18, the cash distribution to Forest be decreased
by $100 million (thereby decreasing the amount of debt to
be incurred in the transaction) and the number of Mariner shares
to be issued to Forest shareholders be correspondingly increased.
On August 21, 2005, Mr. Josey of Mariner sent
Messrs. Clark and Keyte of Forest a list of the most
significant outstanding issues, including the potential tax
issue, the superior offer termination provision, the
representations on diligence materials and public filings, the
treatment of Forest stock options, retention arrangements, the
allocation of specified abandonment and derivative liabilities
and the status of Mariners then-pending
drill-to-earn
transaction in West Texas. The parties agreed to meet in person
to attempt to resolve the issues identified.
100
On August 22, 2005, Messrs. Josey, Clark, Keyte and
Melendrez met in Forests offices in Denver, Colorado. At
the meeting, the parties agreed, in order to resolve the
potential tax issue, to decrease the cash distribution to Forest
by $100 million, to have Mariner assume certain
mark-to-market
derivative liabilities of approximately $50 million at
June 30, 2005, and to increase the number of Mariner shares
to be issued to Forest shareholders to approximately 58%. They
also discussed the superior offer termination provision and the
amount of the termination fee, without reaching agreement. The
parties respective counsels revised the transaction
agreements accordingly, and the transaction teams continued to
negotiate various provisions in the agreements and to discuss
various diligence issues over the course of the week.
On August 23, 2005, Messrs. Keyte and Josey met
briefly by teleconference to discuss, among other things, the
West Texas drill-to-earn transaction, the superior offer
termination provision and the amount of the termination fee.
That same day, the parties agreed to extend the exclusivity
period under their existing agreement until August 29.
On August 24, 2005, Forests board of directors held a
regular meeting at Forests offices in Denver, Colorado.
Members of Forest management and representatives of Citigroup
and CSFB were also present during the portion of the meeting
devoted to the potential spin-off and merger transaction. At
this meeting, the board was briefed on financial and other
aspects of the transaction, including the status of negotiations
with Mariner and the current terms of the transaction
agreements. Also on August 24, 2005, Messrs. Clark and
Josey met by teleconference to discuss additional diligence
requests regarding reserves, current projects and plugging and
abandonment costs from Mariner and Forest. Mr. Clark and
Mr. Josey agreed to speak again when responsive data had
been gathered.
On August 25, 2005, Messrs. Clark and Josey met by
teleconference, during which the requested diligence information
described above was exchanged and additional diligence matters
were discussed.
On August 27, 2005, Mr. Marter of Forest, and
Messrs. Lester and Melendrez and Ms. Bushman of
Mariner, together with representatives of Vinson &
Elkins and Baker Botts, met in the offices of Vinson &
Elkins in Houston, Texas. The parties discussed and negotiated
some of the outstanding issues remaining with respect to the
transaction agreements, including the scope and pricing of the
transition services to be provided by Forest after the closing,
and the allocation of certain specified abandonment and
environmental liabilities of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. The parties reached substantial agreement on
transition services, but did not agree which party would bear
the abandonment and environmental liabilities associated with
two properties.
On August 28, 2005, Messrs. Keyte, Wurtzbacher and
Marter of Forest, and Messrs. Lester and Melendrez and
Ms. Bushman of Mariner, together with representatives of
Vinson & Elkins and Baker Botts, met in the offices of
Vinson & Elkins in Houston, Texas. The parties
negotiated and discussed the outstanding issues remaining with
respect to the transaction agreements, including Forests
proposed superior offer termination right, the status of
Mariners then-pending
drill-to-earn
transaction in West Texas and the specified abandonment and
environmental liabilities. The parties agreed that Mariner would
obtain a performance bond to secure its performance in the
drill-to-earn program,
and that it would assume a portion of the abandonment and
environmental liabilities, subject to a cap. Mr. Keyte
stated that Forest would be willing to proceed without a
superior offer termination provision in favor of Forest. The
parties also agreed that Mariner would have the ability to
terminate the agreement in certain circumstances in order to
accept a superior proposal to acquire Mariner. Finally, the
parties agreed on a termination fee of $25 million and an
expense reimbursement provision payable by Mariner if the merger
agreement were terminated or rejected by its stockholders in
order to accept an alternative transaction. The Mariner
representatives did not insist on a termination fee or
reimbursement provision applicable to Forest because there would
be no provisions in the merger agreement pursuant to which
Forest could terminate the agreement in order to accept an
alternative transaction. The parties concluded the meeting by
agreeing to keep each other updated on developments related to
Hurricane Katrina, which was expected to reach the parties
properties in the Gulf of Mexico that evening.
On August 29, 2005, Messrs. Clark and Josey met in
Mariners offices in Houston, Texas to discuss retention
arrangements for Mariners executive officers and for the
employees of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
101
operations. During the meeting, they reviewed organizational
charts and discussed the companies benefits and incentive
plans. The parties discussed the basic retention parameters for
both sets of employees, including the terms of Mariners
executive officers waivers of change of control benefits,
with details to be agreed upon later. The parties also agreed to
exchange periodic updates on the impact of Hurricane Katrina on
the companies respective assets and equipment. Baker Botts
and Vinson & Elkins exchanged drafts of the transaction
documents over the course of the day. That same day, the Forest
board of directors held a special meeting by teleconference.
Members of Forest management and representatives of Citigroup,
Vinson & Elkins and Weil, Gotshal & Manges
were also present at the meeting. Forest management and a
representative of Vinson & Elkins briefed the board on
the status of negotiations with Mariner and the current form of
the transaction agreements. Mr. Kenneth Heitner of Weil,
Gotshal & Manges briefed the board regarding the
various tax issues that were relevant to the spin-off, how those
issues were addressed in the transaction agreements, and the
constraints that Mariner and Forest would face in the future in
order to maintain favorable tax treatment of the spin-off.
Vinson & Elkins advised the board regarding various
corporate law matters and confirmed that a superior offer
termination provision in favor of Forest was not necessary from
a legal point of view. Forest management also briefed the board
regarding Forests on-going investigation of the potential
impact of Hurricane Katrina on both Forest and Mariner.
On August 30, 2005, the board of directors of Mariner held
a special meeting by teleconference, at which Mariners
management, together with Lehman Brothers and Baker Botts,
updated the board on the proposed transaction and related
matters, including the strategic and business considerations
relating to the transaction, the ongoing diligence review, the
status of discussions between the parties and the principal
terms of the transaction agreements. Lehman Brothers discussed
with the board the expected financial terms of the transaction
and the preliminary valuation analyses it had performed with
respect to Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations,
noting that the valuation inputs and ranges used in the analysis
were subject to change until due diligence was completed and the
terms of the transaction were finalized. A representative of
Baker Botts reviewed in detail the fiduciary termination
provisions of the agreement and certain other principal terms of
the transaction agreements. Following extensive discussion,
including discussions regarding the potential impact of
Hurricane Katrina on both Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, the Mariner board authorized continuing discussions
regarding the proposed transaction.
On August 31, 2005, Messrs. Clark and Josey met by
teleconference to finalize their agreement with respect to
retention arrangements and to provide one another with updates
regarding the potential impact of Hurricane Katrina on the
companies respective assets.
On September 1, 2005, the Forest board of directors met by
teleconference. Members of Forest management and representatives
of Citigroup, Vinson & Elkins and Weil,
Gotshal & Manges were also present at the meeting. At
this meeting, the Forest board was updated on financial and
other aspects of the transaction, including Forests
investigation of the potential impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Forest and Mariner and the status of negotiations with Mariner.
The Forest board then granted full authority to the executive
committee to finalize the transaction agreements.
On September 3 and 4, 2005, representatives from
Forest and Mariner conducted visual inspections by helicopter
and fixed-wing aircraft of certain of Forests and
Mariners properties in the Gulf of Mexico in order to
assess the damage sustained as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
From September 2 through September 6, 2005, the parties
exchanged revised drafts of the transaction agreements. On
September 6, 2005, the executive committee of Forests
board met by teleconference. Members of Forest management were
also present at the meeting. The executive committee was briefed
by management on the status of discussions with Mariner and
regarding Forests investigation of the potential impact of
Hurricane Katrina on Forest and Mariner. The executive committee
instructed Forest management regarding necessary changes to the
transaction agreements, focusing on the need to clarify the
impact of Hurricane Katrina.
102
On September 7, 2005, Mr. Keyte of Forest and
Mr. Melendrez of Mariner met by teleconference to resolve
the remaining issues relating to the transaction, including the
limitation applicable to the specified abandonment and
environmental liabilities and the scope of the condition to
closing that Forest obtain the consent of its bondholders. The
parties reached compromises on both points and also agreed to
exchange written reports detailing the damage sustained to their
respective assets as a result of Hurricane Katrina, which
reports, along with finalized projections for both companies,
were subsequently exchanged on September 8, 2005.
On September 9, 2005, the board of directors of Mariner
held a special meeting by teleconference, to review the proposed
transaction. At the meeting, Mariners management, together
with representatives of Lehman Brothers and Baker Botts,
apprised the Mariner board of the status of discussions and
reviewed the terms of the transaction as reflected in the final
forms of the transaction agreements. Lehman Brothers delivered
its oral opinion (subsequently confirmed in writing) to the
board that, as of September 9, 2005, based upon and subject
to the factors and assumptions set forth in the opinion, the
exchange ratio in the merger was fair from a financial point of
view to Mariner. There were no material differences between
Lehman Brothers written opinion and the oral opinion given
at the board meeting. Baker Botts advised the board regarding
certain corporate law matters. Following extensive discussion,
the Mariner board approved the merger and the merger agreement
and resolved to recommend that Mariners stockholders vote
to adopt the merger agreement. That same day, the executive
committee of Forests board of directors met by
teleconference. Members of Forest management and representatives
of Citigroup and Vinson & Elkins were also present at
the meeting. At this meeting, the executive committee was
briefed on the final form of the transaction agreements
(including the agreed upon financial terms of the transaction as
reflected in the transaction documents) and on Forests
latest assessment of Hurricane Katrinas impact on Forest
and Mariner. After full discussion, the executive committee
approved the final form of the merger agreement and other
transaction agreements. Shortly after the meetings, the merger
agreement and other transaction agreements were executed by the
parties to the agreements.
Reasons for the Merger; Recommendation of the Mariner Board
of Directors
The Mariner board of directors has determined that the merger is
fair to and in the best interests of Mariner and its
stockholders, and that the merger agreement is advisable. The
Mariner board of directors has unanimously approved the merger
agreement, the proposed amendment to the certificate of
incorporation and the proposed amendment and restatement of the
stock incentive plan, and recommends the adoption of the merger
agreement and the approval of the other proposals by the Mariner
stockholders.
In considering the recommendation of the Mariner board of
directors with respect to the merger, you should be aware that
some executive officers and directors of Mariner have interests
in the merger that may be different from, or in addition to, the
interests of Mariner stockholders generally. The Mariner board
of directors was aware of these interests in approving the
merger and merger agreement.
These interests can be summarized as follows:
Governance Structure. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, the board of directors of Mariner after completion of
the merger will be comprised of seven individuals, five of whom
are current directors of Mariner, and two of whom will be
mutually agreed to by Mariner and Forest prior to the completion
of the merger.
Payments for Waivers of Rights under Employment Agreements.
The executive officers of Mariner will receive cash payments
of $1,000 each in exchange for the waiver of certain rights
under their employment agreements, including the automatic
vesting or acceleration of restricted stock and options upon the
completion of the merger and the right to receive a lump sum
cash payment, equal to 2.0 (2.5 for Mr. Polasek and 2.99
for Mr. Josey) times the sum of the officers base
salary and three year average annual bonus, if the officer
voluntarily terminates employment without good reason within
nine months following the completion of the merger.
103
Severance Arrangements. The executive officers have
employment agreements that will remain in effect after the
completion of the merger. These agreements generally entitle the
officers to severance benefits in the event of a resignation for
good reason, a termination without cause or, in the case of
Scott Joseys agreement, Mariners non-renewal of the
agreement. These severance benefits are comprised of (i) a
payment equal to 18 months of salary continuation (two
years for Mr. Josey and Mr. Polasek) at the highest
rate in effect prior to termination, (ii) health care
coverage for a period of eighteen months (two years for
Mr. Josey and Mr. Polasek), (iii) an amount equal
to the sum of all bonuses paid to the officer in the year prior
to the year in which termination occurs, (iv) 100% vesting
of all restricted shares under our Equity Participation Plan,
and (v) 50% vesting of all other rights under any other
equity plans, including our Stock Incentive Plan.
The employment agreements also provide for certain change of
control benefits. Upon termination for any reason other than
cause at any time within nine months after a change of control
that occurs while the executive is employed, or upon the
occurrence of a change of control within nine months following
resignation of employment for good reason or termination without
cause, the agreements provide for the following benefits:
(i) a lump sum payment equal to 2.0 (2.5 for
Mr. Polasek and 2.99 for Mr. Josey) times the sum of
the officers base salary and three year average annual
bonus, and (ii) 100% vesting of all rights under any equity
plans, including our Equity Participation Plan and our Stock
Incentive Plan. The officers are entitled to a full tax gross-up
payment if the aggregate payments and benefits to be provided
constitute a parachute payment subject to a Federal
excise tax. Pursuant to the waivers described above, the
executive officers will waive their rights to the automatic
vesting or acceleration of restricted stock and options upon
completion of the merger and to receive a lump sum payment if
they terminate their employment with Mariner without good reason
within nine months following the completion of the merger.
As of the close of business on February 1, 2006, directors
and executive officers of Mariner and their affiliates as a
group beneficially owned and were entitled to vote approximately
3.7 million shares of Mariner common stock (including
restricted stock subject to vesting), representing approximately
10.4% of the shares of Mariner common stock outstanding on that
date. All of the directors and executive officers of Mariner who
are entitled to vote at the meeting have indicated that they
intend to vote their shares of Mariner common stock in favor of
adoption of the merger agreement.
In reaching its decision on the merger, the Mariner board of
directors considered a number of factors, including the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
the increased size of the combined company, which would have
approximately three times the pro forma daily net production of
Mariner on a stand-alone basis, could reduce volatility related
to large-scale deepwater projects, and could allow it to
participate in larger scale exploratory and development drilling
projects and acquisition opportunities than would be available
to Mariner on a stand-alone basis; |
|
|
|
the merger would be expected to increase Mariners
estimated proved reserves, on a pro forma basis as of
December 31, 2004, by approximately 243%, making Mariner
larger on a reserve basis than many of its peer companies, and
would more than double Mariners undeveloped acreage; |
|
|
|
the integration of the businesses and the realization of
expected benefits could be facilitated by the fact that Mariner
is already active in the Gulf of Mexico with assets that are
complementary to the Forest Gulf of Mexico assets; |
|
|
|
the merger could generate increased visibility in the capital
markets and trading liquidity for the combined company, which
could enhance the market valuation of Mariner common stock; |
|
|
|
the merger would increase the number of Mariners producing
fields by approximately 400%, thereby diversifying
Mariners asset base and reducing Mariners dependence
on a concentrated number of properties; |
|
|
|
the assets comprising the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations,
which historically have been used as a cash flow generator for
Forest, could be candidates for increased exploitation; |
104
|
|
|
|
|
oil and natural gas prices are currently at or near historical
highs, which could increase the revenues and enhance the
profitability of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations; |
|
|
|
the merger would be consummated only if approved by the holders
of a majority of the Mariner common stock; |
|
|
|
the merger is structured as a tax-free reorganization for
U.S. federal income tax purposes and, accordingly, would
not be taxable either to Mariner or its stockholders; |
|
|
|
the boards belief that the potential financial benefits
stemming from the enhanced growth prospects of the combined
company outweigh the anticipated direct and indirect costs of
the merger; |
|
|
|
the terms of the merger agreement permit Mariner to terminate
the merger agreement at any time before the stockholder meeting
to accept a superior proposal, subject to its obligation to
comply with certain procedural requirements and to pay a
termination fee and expense reimbursement; and |
|
|
|
the opinion, dated September 9, 2005, of Lehman Brothers
Inc. to the Mariner board of directors that, as of that date,
based upon and subject to the factors and assumptions set forth
in the opinion, the exchange ratio in the merger was fair from a
financial point of view to Mariner. |
The Mariner board of directors also identified and considered
some risks and potential disadvantages associated with the
merger, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the risk that there may be difficulties in combining the
business of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations; |
|
|
|
the risk that the potential benefits sought in the merger might
not be fully realized; |
|
|
|
the risk that the proved undeveloped, probable and possible
reserves of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations may never be
converted to proved developed reserves; |
|
|
|
the risks inherent in owning properties located in the Gulf of
Mexico, including the risks of future hurricanes that could
damage or destroy the acquired properties; |
|
|
|
the risk that current high commodity prices could fall, thereby
reducing the profitability of the acquired operations; |
|
|
|
the risk that the merger might not be completed; |
|
|
|
the fact that, in order to preserve the tax-free treatment of
the spin-off, Mariner would be required to abide by restrictions
that could reduce its ability to engage in certain business
transactions that otherwise might be advantageous; |
|
|
|
the fact that under the merger agreement, Mariner could be
required to pay Forest a termination fee and expense
reimbursement in certain circumstances; and |
|
|
|
|
certain of the other matters described under Risk
Factors beginning on page 24. |
|
In the judgment of the Mariner board of directors, the potential
benefits of the merger outweigh the risks and the potential
disadvantages. In view of the variety of factors considered in
connection with its evaluation of the proposed merger and the
terms of the merger agreement, the Mariner board of directors
did not quantify or assign relative weights to the factors
considered in reaching its conclusion. Rather, the Mariner board
of directors views its recommendation as being based on the
totality of the information presented to and considered by it.
In addition, individual Mariner directors may have given
different weights to different factors.
105
Certain Financial Projections
In connection with the due diligence process during
negotiations, Mariner and Forest provided each other with
financial and operating projections for 2005 and 2006.
Mariners projections are summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Revenue (in millions)
|
|
$ |
230.2 |
|
|
$ |
421.4 |
|
EBITDA (in millions)
|
|
$ |
185.2 |
|
|
$ |
353.9 |
|
Net income (in millions)
|
|
$ |
60.9 |
|
|
$ |
158.7 |
|
Net income per common share
|
|
$ |
1.71 |
|
|
$ |
4.45 |
|
Capital expenditures (in millions)
|
|
$ |
257.4 |
|
|
$ |
250.5 |
|
Mariners projections were based on a number of
assumptions, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
weighted average common shares outstanding of 35.6 million
in both periods; |
|
|
|
NYMEX prices for oil and Henry Hub prices for gas, as adjusted
for pricing differentials and hedging contracts in place at such
date as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oil (per Bbl)
|
|
$ |
41.27 |
|
|
$ |
48.83 |
|
Gas (per Mcf)
|
|
$ |
6.86 |
|
|
$ |
7.87 |
|
Total (per Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
6.87 |
|
|
$ |
7.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
annual production as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
Gas (Bcf)
|
|
|
21.6 |
|
|
|
38.8 |
|
Total (Bcfe)
|
|
|
33.2 |
|
|
|
53.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a depreciation, depletion and amortization rate of $1.84 per
Mcfe for 2005 and $1.80 per Mcfe for 2006; |
|
|
|
an effective income tax rate of 35% in each period; and |
|
|
|
various assumptions relating to delays in scheduled commencement
of production at Pluto, Swordfish, Ochre and Dice, suspension of
production at producing fields and increased capital
expenditures due to Hurricane Katrina. |
Forests projections for the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations are summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Revenue (in millions)
|
|
$ |
214.1 |
|
|
$ |
529.4 |
|
EBITDA (in millions)
|
|
$ |
173.5 |
|
|
$ |
450.5 |
|
Net income (in millions)
|
|
$ |
43.9 |
|
|
$ |
124.3 |
|
Net income per common share
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
2.45 |
|
Capital expenditures (in millions)
|
|
$ |
123.0 |
|
|
$ |
202.3 |
|
106
Forests projections were based on a number of assumptions,
including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
weighted average common shares outstanding of 50.6 million
in each period; |
|
|
|
NYMEX prices for oil and Henry Hub prices for gas, as adjusted
for pricing differentials and hedging contracts in place at such
date as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oil (per Bbl)
|
|
$ |
47.42 |
|
|
$ |
48.41 |
|
Gas (per Mcf)
|
|
$ |
6.64 |
|
|
$ |
7.13 |
|
Total (per Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
7.02 |
|
|
$ |
7.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oil (MBbls)
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
Gas (Bcf)
|
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
54.7 |
|
Total (Bcfe)
|
|
|
30.5 |
|
|
|
72.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a depreciation, depletion and amortization rate of $3.26 per
Mcfe for 2005 and $3.43 per Mcfe for 2006; |
|
|
|
an effective income tax rate of 35% in each period; |
|
|
|
the allocation from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 of
general and administrative expenses as set forth in the
distribution agreement; |
|
|
|
net hedging losses of $11.7 million for the six months
ended December 31, 2005 and $19.5 million in 2006; |
|
|
|
various assumptions relating to general and administrative
expenses to reflect the allocation set forth in the distribution
agreement; and |
|
|
|
transaction-related expenses of $12 million for the six
months ended December 31, 2005. |
Mariner and Forest make public only very limited information as
to future performance and neither company provides specific or
detailed information as to earnings or performance over an
extended period. The foregoing prospective financial information
is included in this prospectus only because this information was
provided to the other party during negotiations. The prospective
financial information of Mariner and Forest, which was prepared
by the respective management of Mariner and Forest, was not
prepared with a view to public disclosure or with a view toward
complying with the published guidelines of the SEC or the
guidelines established by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants regarding prospective financial information.
The projections do not purport to present operations in
accordance with GAAP. The internal financial forecasts (upon
which these projections were based in part) are, in general,
prepared solely for internal use and capital budgeting and other
management decisions and are subjective in many respects and
thus susceptible to interpretations and periodic revision based
on actual experience and business developments. Neither
Mariners nor Forests independent auditors, nor any
other independent accountants, have compiled, examined or
performed any procedures with respect to the prospective
financial information, nor have they expressed any opinion or
any other form of assurance on such information or its
achievability, and assume no responsibility for, and disclaim
any association with, the prospective financial information.
In addition to the specific assumptions set forth above, the
projections also reflect numerous assumptions made by management
of both companies, including assumptions with respect to general
business, economic, market and financial conditions and other
matters, including effective tax rates and interest rates and
the anticipated amount of borrowings, all of which are difficult
to predict and many of
107
which are beyond the control of the preparing party.
Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the assumptions made
in preparing the projections will prove accurate. Actual results
may be materially greater or less than those contained in the
projections. The inclusion of the projections in this prospectus
should not be regarded as an indication that the projections
will be predictive of actual future events, and the projections
should not be relied upon as such.
The projections were disclosed to the other party and its
representatives as a matter of due diligence, and are included
in this prospectus on that account. Each of Mariner and Forest
believes that the projections prepared by it were reasonable at
the time they were made; however, none of Mariner or Forest or
any of their respective representatives has made or makes any
representation to any stockholder regarding the ultimate
performance of Mariner or the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
compared to the information contained in the projections, and
none of them intends to update or otherwise revise the
projections to reflect circumstances existing after the date
when made or to reflect the occurrence of future events in the
event that any or all of the assumptions underlying the
projections are shown to be in error. In particular, these
projections were prepared prior to, and do not take into account
the full effects of business interruptions due to, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in August 2005 and September 2005, respectively.
Opinion of Mariners Financial Advisor
Mariner engaged Lehman Brothers to act as its financial advisor
in connection with the merger. On September 9, 2005, Lehman
Brothers rendered its written opinion to the board of directors
of Mariner, that, as of that date, based upon and subject to the
matters stated in its opinion letter, from a financial point of
view, the exchange ratio of 1.0 share of Mariner common
stock for each share of Forest Energy Resources common stock in
the merger was fair to Mariner.
The Mariner board of directors determined that the process
leading up to the execution of the merger agreement was
procedurally fair to all stockholders, including unaffiliated
stockholders. The board did not obtain an independent
advisors opinion with respect to procedural fairness,
because numerous factors supported the conclusion that
sufficient procedural safeguards existed to protect the
interests of all stockholders, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the fact that Mariners board of directors unanimously
approved the merger, including all directors with no interest in
the merger other than their interests as stockholders of Mariner; |
|
|
|
the fact that the stockholders of Mariner will be given the
opportunity to vote on the merger, and that the merger agreement
would not be adopted without the affirmative vote of at least a
majority of Mariners common stock; |
|
|
|
the fact that Mariner does not have a controlling stockholder,
and that directors and officers of Mariner own less than 11% of
the outstanding stock of Mariner; |
|
|
|
the fact that independent financial and legal advisors were
retained to assist in the negotiation of the terms of the merger
agreement, the distribution agreement and the other ancillary
agreements; and |
|
|
|
the fact that Mariner received a written opinion from its
independent financial advisor as to the fairness, from a
financial point of view, of the merger consideration. |
The full text of Lehman Brothers opinion dated
September 9, 2005, which sets forth assumptions made,
procedures followed, matters considered and limitations upon the
review undertaken in connection with the opinion, is included as
Annex B to the joint proxy statement/prospectus-information
statement issued by Mariner in connection with the annual
meeting of stockholders.
Lehman Brothers advisory services and opinion were
provided for the information and assistance of the board of
directors of Mariner in connection with its consideration of the
merger. Lehman Brothers opinion is not intended to be and
does not constitute a recommendation to any stockholder of
Mariner as to how such stockholder should vote in connection
with the merger. Lehman Brothers was not
108
requested to opine as to, and Lehman Brothers opinion
does not in any manner address, Mariners underlying
business decision to proceed with or effect the merger.
In arriving at its opinion, Lehman Brothers reviewed, among
other things:
|
|
|
|
|
the merger agreement, the distribution agreement, the other
transaction agreements and the specific terms of the merger; |
|
|
|
publicly available information concerning Mariner that Lehman
Brothers believed to be relevant to its analysis, including,
without limitation, the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on
Form S-1 filed on
July 26, 2005 by Mariner; |
|
|
|
publicly available information concerning Forest that Lehman
Brothers believed to be relevant to its analysis, including,
without limitation, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004 and the Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q for the
periods ended March 31, 2005 and June 30, 2005; |
|
|
|
financial and operating information with respect to the
business, operations and prospects of Mariner as furnished to
Lehman Brothers by Mariner, including financial projections and
oil and gas reserve estimates as of June 30, 2005 for
Mariner as prepared by the management of Mariner; |
|
|
|
financial and operating information with respect to the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations as furnished to Lehman Brothers by
Forest, including financial projections and oil and gas reserve
estimates as of June 30, 2005 for the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations as prepared by the management of Forest; |
|
|
|
a comparison of the historical financial results and present
financial condition of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations with each other and with those of other companies
that Lehman Brothers deemed relevant; |
|
|
|
a comparison of the financial terms of the merger with the
financial terms of certain other transactions that Lehman
Brothers deemed relevant; |
|
|
|
commodity prices assumptions used by the management of Mariner,
commodity prices assumptions published by Lehman Brothers equity
research, and commodity prices as quoted on the NYMEX on
August 19, 2005 (collectively the Commodity Price
Assumptions); |
|
|
|
estimates of certain proved reserves generated by third-party
reserve engineers as of December 31, 2004 for Mariner and
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations; |
|
|
|
the potential pro forma impact of the merger on the current
financial condition and future financial performance of Mariner,
including the impact on Mariners operating metrics,
including, the composition of its reserves between oil and gas;
the percentage of reserves attributable to onshore, the shelf of
the Gulf of Mexico and deepwater Gulf of Mexico; and the ratio
of reserves as of June 30, 2005 to 2005 expected production; |
|
|
|
the relative contributions of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations to the current and future financial
performance of the combined company on a pro forma basis; |
|
|
|
the report dated as of September 9, 2005, prepared by the
management of Mariner, assessing the damage to the Gulf of
Mexico assets of Mariner caused by Hurricane Katrina; and |
|
|
|
the report dated as of September 9, 2005, prepared by the
management of Forest, assessing the damage to the Gulf of Mexico
assets of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations caused by
Hurricane Katrina. |
In addition, Lehman Brothers had discussions with the
managements of Mariner and Forest concerning their respective
businesses, operations, assets, financial conditions, reserves,
production profiles, hedging levels, exploration programs and
prospects of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
and undertook such other studies, analyses and investigations as
Lehman Brothers deemed appropriate.
109
In arriving at its opinion, Lehman Brothers assumed and relied
upon the accuracy and completeness of the financial and other
information used by Lehman Brothers without assuming any
responsibility for independent verification of such information.
Lehman Brothers further relied upon the assurances of the
managements of Mariner and Forest that they were not aware of
any facts or circumstances that would make such information
inaccurate or misleading. With respect to the financial
projections of Mariner, upon advice of Mariner, Lehman Brothers
assumed that such projections were reasonably prepared on a
basis reflecting the best currently available estimates and
judgments of the management of Mariner as to the future
financial performance of Mariner and that Mariner would perform
substantially in accordance with such projections. With respect
to the financial projections of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, upon advice of Forest, Lehman Brothers assumed that
such projections were reasonably prepared on a basis reflecting
the best currently available estimates and judgments of the
management of Forest as to the future financial performance of
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations and that the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations would perform substantially in accordance with
such projections. However, in the course of its analysis and in
arriving at its opinion, Lehman Brothers also considered the
various Commodity Price Assumptions, which resulted in certain
adjustments to the projections of Mariner and the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations. Lehman Brothers discussed these adjusted
projections with the management of Mariner and they agreed with
the appropriateness of the use of such adjusted projections, as
well as Forests management projections, in performing its
analysis.
In arriving at its opinion, Lehman Brothers did not conduct a
physical inspection of the properties and facilities of Mariner
and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations and did not make or
obtain from third parties any evaluations or appraisals of the
assets and liabilities of Mariner or the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. Lehman Brothers opinion is necessarily based
upon market, economic and other conditions as they existed on,
and could be evaluated as of, the date of its opinion letter.
Lehman Brothers is an internationally recognized investment
banking firm and, as part of its investment banking activities,
is regularly engaged in the valuation of businesses and their
securities in connection with mergers and acquisitions,
negotiated underwritings, competitive bids, secondary
distributions of listed and unlisted securities, private
placements and valuations for corporate and other purposes.
Mariners board of directors selected Lehman Brothers
because of its expertise, reputation and familiarity with
Mariner and the energy industry generally and because its
investment banking professionals have substantial experience in
transactions comparable to the merger.
Pursuant to the terms of an engagement letter dated
August 9, 2005 between Lehman Brothers and Mariner, Mariner
paid Lehman Brothers a fee upon delivery of Lehman
Brothers opinion, dated September 9, 2005. Mariner
has also agreed to pay Lehman Brothers an additional fee at the
time of closing. Mariner also has agreed to reimburse Lehman
Brothers for its reasonable expenses incurred in connection with
this engagement, and to indemnify Lehman Brothers and certain
related persons against certain liabilities that may arise out
of its engagement by Mariner and the rendering of the Lehman
Brothers opinion. The estimated aggregate compensation
Lehman Brothers will receive in connection with the merger is
$3.0 million, of which $1.0 million was contingent on
the execution of a merger agreement and an additional
$1.25 million is contingent on the consummation of the
merger. Lehman Brothers from time to time renders investment
banking services to Mariner and Forest and receives customary
fees for such services. Lehman Brothers has provided no
financing advisory or other financing services to Mariner during
the past two years. In July 2004 Lehman Brothers participated as
an underwriter in a senior note offering of Forest. Lehman
Brothers aggregate compensation for the transaction was
$72,000.
During the course of its engagement, representatives of Lehman
Brothers participated in discussions with members of
Mariners senior management regarding the rationale for,
benefits of and risks and uncertainties relating to the merger.
Among the benefits discussed with senior management were the
economies of scale and the portfolio management opportunities
provided by the increases to proved reserves and undeveloped
acreage, the potential reduction in volatility related to
deepwater projects, and increased visibility in the capital
markets. Among the uncertainties discussed with senior
management were those related to current high commodity prices
and the possibility that probable and possible reserves of the
acquired operations may never be converted to proved developed
reserves.
110
In the ordinary course of its business, Lehman Brothers may
actively trade in the debt or equity securities of Mariner and
Forest for its own account and for the accounts of its customers
and, accordingly, may at any time hold a long or short position
in such securities.
The Spin-Off
On September 12, 2005, Forest announced that Forest would
spin-off to its shareholders the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, and that the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations would
immediately thereafter be acquired in a merger transaction by
Mariner. Forest is carrying out the spin-off to facilitate
Mariners acquisition of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and the spin-off is a condition to the merger. After
the spin-off and merger, Mariner will be a separately traded
public company that will own and operate the combination of
Mariners business and the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
As a result of the transaction, in addition to retaining all of
their shares of Forest common stock, Forest shareholders will
receive approximately 0.8 shares of Mariner common stock
for each share of Forest common stock owned on the record date
of the transaction. Forest shareholders will receive
approximately 58% of the common stock of Mariner on a pro forma
basis.
Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws
Following the merger, the certificate of incorporation and
by-laws of Mariner would differ from the current certificate of
incorporation and by-laws only with respect to the number of
authorized shares of stock, which pursuant to the proposed
amendment would be increased from 90 million to
200 million.
Material United States Federal Tax Consequences of the
Merger
The following discussion summarizes certain material
U.S. tax consequences of the merger to Mariner stockholders
and to stockholders of Forest Energy Resources at the effective
time of the merger. It is a condition to the completion of the
merger that Forest and Forest Energy Resources receive an
opinion from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, tax counsel to
Forest and to Forest Energy Resources, and that Mariner receive
an opinion from Baker Botts L.L.P., tax counsel to Mariner, in
both cases dated as of the effective date of the merger, to the
effect that the merger will qualify as a reorganization within
the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The discussion below of the Material U.S. Tax
Consequences of the Merger represents the further opinion
of Baker Botts L.L.P. of the tax consequences of the merger that
will follow from the merger qualifying as a reorganization under
Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
This discussion is based upon existing U.S. tax law,
including legislation, regulations, administrative rulings and
court decisions, as in effect on the date of this prospectus,
all of which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive
effect.
For purposes of this discussion:
|
|
|
|
|
a U.S. holder is a beneficial owner of Forest
Energy Resources or Mariner common stock that is (1) an
individual citizen or resident of the U.S., (2) a
corporation or any other entity taxable as a corporation created
or organized in or under the laws of the U.S. or of a state
of the U.S. or the District of Columbia, (3) a trust
(i) in respect of which a U.S. court is able to
exercise primary supervision over the administration of the
trust and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to
control all substantive decisions of the trust or (ii) that
was in existence on August 20, 1996 and validly elected to
continue to be treated as a domestic trust, or (4) an
estate that is subject to U.S. tax on its worldwide income
from all sources; |
|
|
|
a
non-U.S. holder
is any holder of Forest Energy Resources or Mariner common stock
other than a U.S. holder; and |
111
|
|
|
|
|
the term U.S. tax means U.S. federal
income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. |
The discussion assumes that holders hold their Forest Energy
Resources or Mariner common stock, as applicable, as capital
assets. Other tax consequences may apply to holders who are
subject to special treatment under U.S. tax or
U.S. federal estate tax law, such as:
|
|
|
|
|
tax exempt organizations; |
|
|
|
financial institutions, insurance companies and broker-dealers; |
|
|
|
holders who hold their Forest Energy Resources or Mariner common
stock, as applicable, as part of a hedge, straddle, wash sale,
synthetic security, conversion transaction or other integrated
investment comprised of Forest Energy Resources or Mariner
common stock and one or more other investments; |
|
|
|
mutual funds; |
|
|
|
holders that have a functional currency other than the
U.S. dollar; |
|
|
|
traders in securities who elect to apply a
mark-to-market method
of accounting; |
|
|
|
holders who acquired their shares in compensatory transactions; |
|
|
|
holders who are subject to the alternative minimum tax; or |
|
|
|
non-U.S. holders
who are or have previously been engaged in the conduct of a
trade or business in the U.S. or who have ceased to be
U.S. citizens or to be taxed as resident aliens. |
In the case of a stockholder that is a partnership,
determinations as to tax consequences will generally be made at
the partner level, but other special considerations not
described may apply. The discussion is generally limited to
U.S. federal income and estate tax considerations and does
not address other U.S. federal tax considerations or state,
local or foreign tax considerations.
The opinions of counsel referred to above to be delivered at
closing will be, and the opinions of counsel set forth herein
are, based on present law, which is subject to change, possibly
with retroactive effect. In providing their opinions at the
closing of the merger, counsel will make customary assumptions
and rely upon the accuracy of certain representations made to
them by Forest, Forest Energy Resources, and Mariner, in
officers certificates. In addition, counsel will rely upon
the accuracy of the information in this prospectus and in other
documents filed by Mariner and by Forest with the SEC and upon
other information provided to them by Mariner and Forest. Any
change in present law, or the failure of factual assumptions or
representations to be true, correct and complete in all
respects, could affect the continuing validity of counsels
tax opinions. The conditions to the completion of the spin-off
and merger relating to the receipt of the tax opinions may not
be waived by Forest or Mariner after receipt of the Mariner
shareholder approval unless further shareholder approval is
obtained with appropriate disclosure. No ruling will be
requested from the Internal Revenue Service on any aspect of the
proposed transactions. An opinion of counsel represents
counsels best legal judgment and is not binding on the
Internal Revenue Service or any court. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service will agree with
the conclusions set forth herein or in the opinion letters to be
delivered at closing, and it is possible that the Internal
Revenue Service or another tax authority could assert a position
contrary to one or all of those conclusions and that a court
could sustain that contrary position.
This summary is not a substitute for an individual analysis
of the tax consequences of the proposed transaction to a Mariner
stockholder. You are urged to consult a tax adviser as to the
U.S. tax consequences of the proposed transactions,
including any consequences arising from your particular facts
and circumstances, and as to any estate, gift, state, local or
foreign tax consequences of the proposed transaction.
112
|
|
|
Material U.S. Tax Consequences of the Merger |
It is a condition to the consummation of the merger that:
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner receive an opinion from Baker Botts L.L.P., dated as of
the effective date of the merger, to the effect that the merger
will qualify as a reorganization within the meaning of
Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code; and |
|
|
|
Forest and Forest Energy Resources receive an opinion from Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, tax counsel to Forest, dated as
of the effective date of the merger, to the effect that the
merger will qualify as a reorganization within the meaning of
Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. |
Baker Botts L.L.P. is of the opinion that the U.S. federal
income tax consequences of such treatment will be that:
|
|
|
|
|
a Mariner stockholder will not recognize gain or loss pursuant
to the merger, and such holders tax basis and holding
period in Mariner common stock will not be affected by the
merger; |
|
|
|
a Forest Energy Resources stockholder who exchanges Forest
Energy Resources common stock solely for Mariner common stock in
the merger will not recognize gain or loss except, as described
below, to the extent of any cash received in lieu of fractional
shares of Mariner common stock; |
|
|
|
the aggregate tax basis in the Mariner common stock a Forest
Energy Resources stockholder receives in the merger (including
any fractional shares for which cash is received) will be the
same as his or her aggregate tax basis in the Forest Energy
Resources common stock surrendered in the merger; |
|
|
|
the holding period of the Mariner common stock received in the
merger by a holder of Forest Energy Resources common stock
(including any fractional shares for which cash is received)
will include the holding period of Forest Energy Resources
common stock that such stockholder surrendered in the merger; and |
|
|
|
a Forest Energy Resources stockholder who receives fractional
share proceeds as a result of the sale of shares of Mariner
common stock by the transfer agent will be treated as if such
fractional share had been received by the shareholder as part of
the merger and then sold by such stockholder. Accordingly, such
stockholder will recognize capital gain or loss equal to the
difference between the cash so received and the portion of the
tax basis in Mariner common stock that is allocable to such
fractional share. Any such capital gain or loss will be treated
as a long-term or short-term capital gain or loss based on the
holders holding period for the Mariner common stock (as
determined above).
Non-U.S. holders
who receive fractional share proceeds may be subject to
withholding tax with respect to the fractional share proceeds
under special rules governing the disposition of interests in a
United States real property holding corporation. |
Under the Internal Revenue Code, a holder of Forest Energy
Resources common stock may be subject, under certain
circumstances, to backup withholding at a current rate of 28%
with respect to the amount of cash, if any, received as a result
of the sale of fractional share interests unless such holder
provides proof of an applicable exemption or correct taxpayer
identification number, and otherwise complies with applicable
requirements of the backup withholding rules. Any amounts
withheld under the backup withholding rules are not additional
tax and may be refunded or credited against the holders
federal income tax liability, provided the required information
is timely furnished to the Internal Revenue Service.
|
|
|
Material U.S. Federal Tax Consequences to
U.S. Holders of Holding and Disposing of Mariner Common
Stock |
|
|
|
Distributions on Common Stock |
A distribution to a U.S. holder on a Mariner share will be
(i) first, a dividend to the extent of Mariners
current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under
general U.S. tax principles,
113
(ii) second, a non-taxable recovery of basis in that
Mariner share, causing a reduction in the adjusted basis of the
shares of Mariner common stock to the extent thereof (thereby
increasing the amount of gain, or decreasing the amount of loss,
to be recognized by the holder on a subsequent disposition of
our common stock), and (iii) finally, an amount that is
received in exchange for the Mariner share. A dividend on a
Mariner share that is received by a U.S. holder generally
before January 1, 2009 is subject to U.S. tax at a
maximum rate of 15 percent provided that the stockholder
satisfies certain holding period and other requirements with
respect to that Mariner share. Any amount that is deemed to have
been received in exchange for a Mariner share will be taxed as a
sale or disposition of a Mariner share, discussed below.
|
|
|
Sales or Dispositions of Common Stock |
Upon a sale or other disposition of a Mariner share, a
U.S. holder generally will recognize gain or loss in an
amount that is equal to the difference between (i) the sum
of any cash and the fair market value of any other property
received and (ii) such U.S. holders adjusted
basis in such Mariner share. Any such gain or loss will
generally be a capital gain or loss if the Mariner share that is
surrendered was held as a capital asset and will be a long-term
capital gain or loss if the Mariner share had been held more
than one year when the sale or other disposition occurs.
Deduction of capital losses is subject to certain limitations
under the Internal Revenue Code.
|
|
|
Information Reporting and Backup Withholding |
Payments of dividends and the proceeds of a disposition of a
Mariner share that are made within the U.S. or through
certain U.S. related financial intermediaries may be
required to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and may
be subject to backup withholding unless (i) the
U.S. holder is a corporation or other exempt recipient, or
(ii) such person provides a taxpayer identification number
or complies with applicable certification requirements. Amounts
withheld under the backup withholding rules will be allowed as a
refund or credit against a persons U.S. tax liability
if the required information is timely furnished to the Internal
Revenue Service.
Common stock owned or treated as owned by an individual who is a
U.S. holder for U.S. federal estate tax purposes at
the time of death will be included in the individuals
gross estate for U.S. federal estate tax purposes, and
therefore may be subject to U.S. federal estate tax.
|
|
|
Material U.S. Federal Tax Consequences to
Non-U.S. Holders
of Holding and Disposing of Mariner Common Stock |
|
|
|
Distributions on Common Stock |
A distribution to a
non-U.S. holder on
a Mariner share will be (i) first, a dividend to the extent
of Mariners current or accumulated earnings and profits,
as determined under general U.S. tax principles,
(ii) second, a non-taxable recovery of basis in that
Mariner share, causing a reduction in the adjusted basis of the
shares of common stock to the extent thereof (thereby increasing
the amount of gain, or decreasing the amount of loss, to be
recognized by the holder on a subsequent disposition of our
common stock), and (iii) finally, an amount that is
received in exchange for the Mariner share.
Dividends paid to
non-U.S. holders
that are not effectively connected with the
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a U.S. trade or business will be subject to
U.S. federal withholding tax at a 30% rate, or if a tax
treaty applies, a lower rate specified by the treaty.
Non-U.S. holders
should consult their tax advisors regarding their entitlement to
benefits under a relevant income tax treaty. Dividends that are
effectively connected with a
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the U.S. and, if an income tax
treaty applies, are attributable to a permanent establishment in
the U.S., are taxed on a net income basis at the regular
graduated rates and in the manner applicable to
U.S. persons. In that case, Mariner will not have to
withhold U.S. federal withholding tax if the
non-U.S. holder
complies with applicable certification and
114
disclosure requirements. In addition, a branch profits
tax may be imposed at a 30% rate, or a lower rate under an
applicable income tax treaty, on dividends received by a foreign
corporation that are effectively connected with its conduct of a
trade or business in the U.S.
A non-U.S. holder
that claims the benefit of an applicable income tax treaty
generally will be required to satisfy applicable certification
and other requirements. However,
|
|
|
|
|
in the case of Mariner common stock held by a foreign
partnership, the certification requirement will generally be
applied to the partners of the partnership and the partnership
will be required to provide certain information; |
|
|
|
in the case of Mariner common stock held by a foreign trust, the
certification requirement will generally be applied to the trust
or the beneficial owners of the trust depending on whether the
trust is a foreign complex trust, foreign
simple trust or foreign grantor trust as
defined in the U.S. Treasury Regulations; and |
|
|
|
look-through rules will apply for tiered partnerships, foreign
simple trusts and foreign grantor trusts. |
A non-U.S. holder
that is a foreign partnership or a foreign trust is urged to
consult its own tax advisor regarding its status under these
U.S. Treasury Regulations and the certification
requirements applicable to it.
A non-U.S. holder
that is eligible for a reduced rate of U.S. federal
withholding tax under an income tax treaty may obtain a refund
or credit of any excess amounts withheld by timely filing an
appropriate claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service.
|
|
|
Sales or Dispositions of Common Stock |
A non-U.S. holder
generally will not be subject to U.S. tax on gain
recognized on a disposition of a share of Mariner common stock
unless:
|
|
|
|
|
the gain is effectively connected with the
non-U.S. holders
conduct of a trade or business in the U.S. and, if an income tax
treaty applies, is attributable to a permanent establishment
maintained by the
non-U.S. holder in
the U.S.; in these cases, the gain will be taxed on a net income
basis at the rates and in the manner applicable to
U.S. persons, and if the
non-U.S. holder is
a foreign corporation, the branch profits tax described above
may also apply; |
|
|
|
the
non-U.S. holder is
an individual who is present in the U.S. for 183 days
or more in the taxable year of the disposition and meets other
requirements; or |
|
|
|
Mariner is or has been a United States real property
holding corporation for U.S. tax purposes at any time
during the shorter of the five-year period ending on the date of
disposition or the period that the
non-U.S. holder
held such Mariner common stock. |
Generally, a corporation is a United States real property
holding corporation if the fair market value of its United
States real property interests equals or exceeds 50% of the sum
of the fair market value of its worldwide real property
interests and its other assets used or held for use in a trade
or business. The tax relating to stock in a United States real
property holding corporation generally will not apply to a
non-U.S. holder
whose holdings, direct and indirect, at all times during the
applicable period, constituted 5% or less of Mariner common
stock, provided that Mariner common stock was regularly traded
on an established securities market. Mariner believes that it
currently is, and after the merger will continue to be, a United
States real property holding corporation for U.S. tax
purposes. Mariner also expects its common stock to be regularly
traded on an established securities market immediately after the
completion of the merger.
115
|
|
|
Information Reporting and Backup Withholding |
Dividends paid to a
non-U.S. holder
may be subject to information reporting and U.S. backup
withholding. A
non-U.S. holder
will be exempt from this backup withholding tax if such
non-U.S. holder
properly provides a Form W-8BEN certifying that such
stockholder is a
non-U.S. holder or
otherwise meets documentary evidence requirements for
establishing that such stockholder is a
non-U.S. holder or
otherwise qualifies for an exemption.
The gross proceeds from the disposition of Mariner common stock
may be subject to information reporting and backup withholding.
If a
non-U.S. holder
sells its common stock outside the U.S. through a
non-U.S. office of
a non-U.S. broker
and the sales proceeds are paid to such stockholder outside the
U.S., then the U.S. backup withholding and information
reporting requirements generally will not apply to that payment.
However, U.S. information reporting will generally apply to
a payment of sale proceeds, even if that payment is made outside
the U.S., if a
non-U.S. holder
sells Mariner common stock through a
non-U.S. office of
a broker that:
|
|
|
|
|
is a U.S. person for U.S. tax purposes; |
|
|
|
derives 50% or more of its gross income in specific periods from
the conduct of a trade or business in the U.S.; |
|
|
|
is a controlled foreign corporation for
U.S. tax purposes; or |
|
|
|
is a foreign partnership, if at any time during its tax year: |
|
|
|
|
|
one or more of its partners are U.S. persons who in the
aggregate hold more than 50% of the income or capital interests
in the partnership; or |
|
|
|
the foreign partnership is engaged in a U.S. trade or
business, |
unless the broker has documentary evidence in its files that the
non-U.S. holder is
a non-U.S. person
and certain other conditions are met, or the
non-U.S. holder
otherwise establishes an exemption. In such circumstances,
backup withholding will not apply unless the broker has actual
knowledge that the seller is not a
non-U.S. holder.
If a
non-U.S. holder
receives payments of the proceeds of a sale of Mariner common
stock to or through a U.S. office of a broker, the payment
is subject to both U.S. backup withholding and information
reporting unless such
non-U.S. holder
properly provides a Form W-8BEN certifying that such
stockholder is a
non-U.S. person or
otherwise establishes an exemption.
A non-U.S. holder
generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld under the
backup withholding rules that exceed such stockholders
U.S. tax liability by timely filing a properly completed
claim for refund with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
Mariner common stock owned or treated as owned by an individual
who is a
non-U.S. holder
for U.S. federal estate tax purposes at the time of death
will be included in the individuals gross estate for
U.S. federal estate tax purposes, unless an applicable
estate tax or other treaty provides otherwise, and therefore may
be subject to U.S. federal estate tax.
You are urged to consult your own tax advisor as to the
specific tax consequences to you of the merger, including tax
return reporting requirements, the applicability and effect of
federal, state, local, and other applicable tax laws and the
effect of any proposed changes in the tax laws.
116
Accounting Treatment
If the merger is consummated, the acquisition of Forest Energy
Resources by Mariner will be accounted for under the purchase
method of accounting under U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles, with Mariner treated as the acquiror. As
a result, the assets and liabilities of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations will be recorded at their estimated fair
values at the date of merger with any excess of the purchase
price over the net amount of such fair values recorded as
goodwill.
Regulatory Matters
None of the parties is aware of any other material governmental
or regulatory approval required for the completion of the
merger, other than the effectiveness of the registration
statement of which this prospectus is a part and the
registration statement on
Form S-4 relating
to the issuance of Mariner common stock to Forest shareholders,
and compliance with applicable antitrust law (including the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act) and the corporate law of the State of
Delaware. On November 14, 2005, the waiting period under
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act with respect to the merger expired.
117
THE MERGER AGREEMENT
The Merger
At the effective time of the merger, MEI Sub, a newly formed,
wholly owned subsidiary of Mariner, will merge with and into
Forest Energy Resources. Forest Energy Resources will remain as
the surviving corporation and immediately after the merger will
become a wholly owned subsidiary of Mariner.
|
|
|
Effective Time of the Merger |
The closing of the merger will occur within two business days
after the fulfillment or waiver of the conditions described
under Conditions to the Completion of the
Merger below, unless Forest Energy Resources and Mariner
agree in writing upon another time or date. Unless Mariner
consents otherwise, the closing will not occur earlier than five
business days following the record date for the spin-off. The
merger will become effective upon the filing of a certificate of
merger with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware or
at such later time as the parties to the merger agreement may
agree and as is provided in the certificate of merger. The
filing of the certificate of merger will take place as soon as
practicable at or after the time of the closing of the merger.
The merger agreement provides that each share of Forest Energy
Resources common stock (other than certain shares described
under Cancellation of Certain Shares below)
that is outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of
the merger will, at the effective time of the merger, be
converted into the right to receive one share of Mariner common
stock as adjusted for any stock split, reverse stock split,
stock dividend, subdivision, reclassification, combination,
exchange, recapitalization or other similar transaction, except
that shareholders will receive cash in lieu of any fractional
share of Mariner common stock.
|
|
|
Cancellation of Certain Shares |
Each share of Forest Energy Resources common stock held by
Forest Energy Resources as treasury stock, and each share of
Forest Energy Resources common stock owned by Mariner or MEI
Sub, in each case immediately prior to the effective time of the
merger, will automatically be canceled and no stock or
consideration will be delivered in exchange therefor. Neither
Mariner nor MEI Sub currently owns any shares of Forest Energy
Resources common stock.
|
|
|
Procedure for Surrender of Certificates |
Shares of Forest Energy Resources common stock to be issued in
the spin-off will be issued in
book-entry form,
meaning that, although Forest shareholders will own the shares,
they will not be issued physical share certificates. Prior to
the effective time of the merger, an exchange agent will be
appointed to handle the exchange of Forest Energy Resources
stock certificates for Mariner stock certificates. As promptly
as practicable after the effective time of the merger, Mariner
will cause the exchange agent to effect the exchange, via
book-entry procedures,
of Forest Energy Resources shares for Mariner shares. Mariner
will not issue physical certificates for the shares of common
stock issued in the merger. After the merger becomes effective,
Forest Energy Resources will not register any further transfers
of shares of Forest Energy Resources common stock.
|
|
|
Treatment of Certain Forest Stock Options |
At the effective time of the merger, the portion of each
outstanding option to acquire Forest common stock that is
unexercisable as of the effective time and which is held by a
Forest Energy Resources employee who remains employed by Forest
Energy Resources, Mariner or their subsidiaries after the
118
effective time of the merger will be converted into an option to
acquire from Mariner a number of shares of Mariner common stock
determined by multiplying:
|
|
|
|
|
the number of shares of Forest common stock subject to the
portion of such option that is unexercisable immediately before
the effective time, by |
|
|
|
the option exchange ratio described below, |
and rounding to the nearest whole number. The purchase price per
share of Mariner common stock under the converted option will be
the exercise price per share under the original Forest stock
option divided by the option exchange ratio, with the resulting
price rounded to the nearest whole cent.
The option exchange ratio means the quotient,
rounded to the third decimal place, determined by dividing:
|
|
|
|
|
the average of the daily closing prices per share of Forest
common stock for the last five trading days immediately
preceding the effective time of the merger, by |
|
|
|
the average of the daily closing prices per share of Mariner
common stock for the first five trading days following the
effective time of the merger, |
subject to appropriate adjustment in the event of any stock
split, stock dividend or recapitalization after the date of the
merger agreement applicable to shares of Forest common stock or
Mariner common stock.
Mariner will take all actions necessary to reserve for issuance,
from and after the effective time of the merger, a sufficient
number of shares of Mariner common stock for delivery under the
Forest stock options that are deemed to constitute options to
purchase shares of Mariner common stock in accordance with the
preceding paragraphs, and, on or as soon as practicable after
the effective time of the merger, Mariner will file with the SEC
a registration statement with respect to such Mariner common
stock and cause such shares to be listed on the NYSE.
|
|
|
Board of Directors and Officers of Mariner |
The board of directors of Mariner immediately after the
effective time of the merger will consist of seven directors,
five of whom will be the directors of Mariner immediately before
the effective time of the merger and two of whom will be
mutually agreed upon by Mariner and Forest prior to the
effective time of the merger. The board of directors of Mariner
will also appoint committees as appropriate, including an audit
committee, a compensation committee and a nominating committee.
The officers of Mariner immediately prior to the effective time
of the merger will continue as the officers of Mariner
immediately after the effective time of the merger.
Representations and Warranties
The merger agreement contains certain representations and
warranties made by Forest and Forest Energy Resources jointly,
and by Mariner. These representations and warranties, which are
generally reciprocal unless otherwise stated below, relate to:
|
|
|
|
|
corporate existence, qualifications to conduct business and
corporate standing and power; |
|
|
|
corporate authorization, enforceability and actions by the board
of directors; |
|
|
|
capitalization; |
|
|
|
financial statements and undisclosed liabilities; |
|
|
|
absence of certain material changes or events since
June 30, 2005; |
|
|
|
governmental investigations and litigation; |
|
|
|
licenses and compliance with laws; |
119
|
|
|
|
|
the registration statements to be filed with the SEC and the
proxy statement/ prospectus-information statement related to the
Mariner annual meeting of stockholders; |
|
|
|
information supplied to governmental authorities; |
|
|
|
compliance with environmental laws; |
|
|
|
tax matters; |
|
|
|
benefit plans; |
|
|
|
labor matters; |
|
|
|
intellectual property matters; |
|
|
|
material contracts; |
|
|
|
financial advisor opinion (given only by Mariner); |
|
|
|
payment of brokers and finders fees in connection
with the merger agreement and other transaction agreements; |
|
|
|
takeover statutes (given only by Mariner); |
|
|
|
certain findings of the board of directors to approve the merger; |
|
|
|
stockholder votes necessary to complete the merger; |
|
|
|
absence of requirement for Forest stockholder approval (given
only by Forest); |
|
|
|
Forest Energy Resources stockholder approval (given only by
Forest Energy Resources); |
|
|
|
payments to certain affiliated individuals or entities; |
|
|
|
title to, and sufficiency of, assets; |
|
|
|
loans made to third parties; |
|
|
|
oil and gas reserves; and |
|
|
|
derivative transactions. |
Forest, on behalf of itself only, also makes representations and
warranties to Mariner with respect to its:
|
|
|
|
|
due organization and good standing; |
|
|
|
corporate power, authorization and validity of agreements; |
|
|
|
information supplied to governmental authorities; |
|
|
|
payment of brokers and finders fees in connection
with the merger agreement and other transaction
agreements; and |
|
|
|
rights plan. |
The parties acknowledge that the other parties to the merger
agreement do not make any express or implied representations or
warranties except as set forth in the merger agreement, the
distribution agreement or the ancillary agreements. The
representations and warranties contained in the merger agreement
do not survive the effective time of the merger.
120
Covenants
Forest Energy Resources, Forest and Mariner have each undertaken
certain covenants in the merger agreement. The following
summarizes the material covenants:
The merger agreement provides that Mariner will not, and will
not permit its directors and officers, and will use all
reasonable efforts to cause its employees, agents and
representatives not to:
|
|
|
|
|
solicit, initiate, encourage, facilitate or induce any inquiry,
proposal or offer with respect to an acquisition proposal; |
|
|
|
participate in any discussions or negotiations regarding,
provide nonpublic information with respect to, or otherwise
facilitate any acquisition proposal; |
|
|
|
engage in discussions with respect to an acquisition proposal; |
|
|
|
approve, endorse or recommend an acquisition proposal, except as
provided in the merger agreement; or |
|
|
|
enter into any agreement related to any acquisition proposal,
except as provided by the merger agreement. |
When we refer to an acquisition proposal, we mean
any inquiry, offer or proposal for a transaction or series of
related transactions involving any of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
any purchase by any person, entity or group, as defined in
Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, of more than 15% of the
total outstanding voting securities of Mariner; |
|
|
|
any tender or exchange offer that would result in any person,
entity or group, as defined in Section 13(d) of the
Exchange Act, owning 15% or more of the total outstanding voting
securities of Mariner; |
|
|
|
any merger, consolidation, business combination or similar
transaction involving Mariner; |
|
|
|
any sale, exchange, transfer, acquisition or disposition, or any
lease or license outside of the ordinary course of business, of
more than 15% of Mariners assets; or |
|
|
|
any liquidation of dissolution of Mariner. |
As of the date the merger agreement was executed, Mariner agreed
to immediately cease and terminate any existing discussions or
negotiations with respect to any acquisition proposal.
In the event that Mariner receives an acquisition proposal or
any request for nonpublic information or inquiry that it
reasonably believes could lead to an acquisition proposal,
Mariner agrees to:
|
|
|
|
|
notify Forest and Forest Energy Resources orally and in writing
of the material terms of the acquisition proposal, request or
inquiry; |
|
|
|
identify to Forest and Forest Energy Resources the person making
the acquisition proposal, request or inquiry; |
|
|
|
furnish to Forest and Forest Energy Resources copies of all
written materials provided in connection with the acquisition
proposal or inquiry; |
|
|
|
provide to Forest and Forest Energy Resources as promptly as
practicable, both orally and in writing, all information
reasonably necessary to keep Forest and Forest Energy Resources
informed in all material respects of the status and details of
the acquisition proposal, request or inquiry, including
providing copies of written materials received from and provided
to the third party making the acquisition proposal, request or
inquiry; and |
121
|
|
|
|
|
provide Forest and Forest Energy Resources 48 hours
prior notice (or such lesser notice as is provided to
Mariners directors) of any meeting of Mariners board
of directors at which it will consider an acquisition proposal,
unless shorter notice is provided to the board of directors, in
which case Forest and Forest Energy Resources are to be provided
the same notice. |
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mariners board of directors
may provide nonpublic information to, and engage in negotiations
with, a third party in response to an unsolicited, bona fide
acquisition proposal with respect to Mariner, if:
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner has complied with all of its non-solicitation and
notification obligations in the merger agreement; |
|
|
|
in the good faith judgment of Mariners board of directors
(after receiving the advice of its legal counsel and financial
advisor), the acquisition proposal is a superior offer or is
reasonably likely to result in a superior offer; |
|
|
|
concurrently with furnishing any nonpublic information, Mariner
notifies Forest and Forest Energy Resources in writing of its
intention to furnish nonpublic information and furnishes the
same nonpublic information to Forest and Forest Energy Resources; |
|
|
|
concurrently with engaging in negotiations with the third party,
Mariner notifies Forest and Forest Energy Resources in writing
of its intent to enter into negotiations with the third
party; and |
|
|
|
Mariner executes a customary confidentiality agreement with the
third party with terms at least as restrictive as the
confidentiality agreement between Forest and Mariner. |
When we refer to a superior offer, we mean an
unsolicited bona fide written proposal made by a third party to
acquire, directly or indirectly, pursuant to a tender or
exchange offer, merger, consolidation or other business
combination, all or substantially all of the assets of Mariner
or substantially all of the total outstanding voting securities
of Mariner. The superior offer must be on terms that the Mariner
board of directors has in good faith concluded, after receiving
the advice of its legal counsel and financial adviser and taking
into account all legal, financial, regulatory and other aspects
of the offer and the third party offeror, to be more favorable,
from a financial point of view, to Mariners stockholders
than the terms of the merger and to be reasonably capable of
being consummated.
If Mariner receives a superior offer and that superior offer has
not been withdrawn, Mariners board of directors is
permitted to change its recommendation that the Mariner
stockholders approve the merger if:
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner stockholders have not already approved the merger and
the merger agreement; |
|
|
|
Mariner notifies Forest and Forest Energy Resources in writing: |
|
|
|
|
|
that it has received a superior offer; |
|
|
|
of the terms and conditions of the superior offer; |
|
|
|
of the identity of the third party making the superior
offer; and |
|
|
|
that it intends to change its recommendation that Mariner
stockholders approve the merger and the manner in which it
intends to do so; |
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner provides Forest and Forest Energy Resources with copies
of all written materials delivered by Mariner to the third party
making the superior offer that have not previously been provided
to Forest and Forest Energy Resources, and Mariner has otherwise
made available to Forest and Forest Energy Resources all
materials and information made available to the third
party; and |
|
|
|
Mariner has not breached any of the provisions of the merger
agreement relating to acquisition proposals and superior offers. |
122
Subject to complying with its fiduciary duties under applicable
law, Mariners obligation to call, give notice of, convene
and hold its stockholders meeting regarding approval of
the merger agreement will not be limited or otherwise affected
by the commencement, disclosure, announcement or submission to
it of any acquisition proposal unless the merger agreement is
terminated. Prior to termination of the merger agreement,
Mariner will not submit to the vote of its stockholders any
acquisition proposal other than the merger or enter into any
agreement, agreement in principle or letter of intent with
respect to, or accept any acquisition proposal other than, the
merger.
In addition, notwithstanding the foregoing, Mariner and its
board of directors may take a position, and disclose to its
stockholders that position, with respect to a tender or exchange
offer by a third party in compliance with
Rule 14d-9 or
Rule 14e-2(a) of
the Exchange Act to the extent required by applicable law. The
content of any document disclosing the position of the Mariner
board of directors to Mariner stockholders will be governed by
the provisions of the merger agreement. The Mariner board of
directors may not recommend that Mariner stockholders tender or
exchange their Mariner common stock unless the Mariner board of
directors determines in good faith, after receiving advice of
its legal counsel and financial adviser, that the acquisition
proposal is a superior offer.
|
|
|
Board of Directors Covenant to Call Stockholders
Meeting and to Recommend the Merger |
As promptly as practicable following the date of the merger
agreement and the effectiveness of the registration statements,
Mariner has agreed to call a meeting of its stockholders to be
held as promptly as practicable for the purpose of voting upon
the adoption of the merger agreement and any related matters,
and to submit the merger agreement for adoption to the
stockholders of Mariner at such Mariner meeting. Mariner has
agreed to cause the Mariner meeting to be held and the vote
taken within 60 days following the effectiveness of
Mariners registration statement on Form
S-4. Mariner will
deliver to its stockholders the proxy statement/
prospectus-information statement in definitive form in
connection with the Mariner meeting, at the time and in the
manner provided by, and will conduct the Mariner meeting and the
solicitation of proxies in connection with the Mariner meeting
in accordance with, the applicable provisions of the law of the
State of Delaware, the Exchange Act and Mariners
certificate of incorporation and by-laws. Subject to the
provisions described in No Solicitation above,
Mariners board of directors has agreed to recommend that
the stockholders of Mariner adopt the merger agreement.
|
|
|
Operations of Forest (in respect of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations), Forest Energy Resources and Mariner Pending
Closing |
Forest (in respect of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations),
Forest Energy Resources and Mariner have each undertaken that,
until the earlier of the effective time of the merger and the
termination of the merger agreement, each will conduct its
business in the ordinary course consistent with past practice
and use all commercially reasonable efforts to preserve intact
its business organization, maintain its material rights and
franchises, keep available the services of its current officers
and key employees and preserve its relationships with material
third parties. Each has further agreed that it will not, except
as permitted by the distribution agreement or any ancillary
agreement or with the prior written consent of the other parties
(such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed), do
any of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
in the case of Mariner, declare or pay any dividends on or make
other distributions in respect of its capital stock; |
|
|
|
|
split, combine or reclassify any of its capital stock or issue
or authorize or propose the issuance of any other securities in
respect of, in lieu of, or in substitution for, shares of its
capital stock; |
|
|
|
redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire (or permit any
subsidiary to redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire) any
shares of its capital stock; |
|
|
|
issue, deliver or sell any shares of, or securities convertible
into, its capital stock of any class, except, in the case of
Mariner, the issuance of stock options with three-year vesting
or restricted stock for up to 300,000 shares of Mariner
common stock; |
123
|
|
|
|
|
amend its governing documents; |
|
|
|
other than purchases from vendors or suppliers in the ordinary
course of business consistent with past practice, exercises of
preferential rights and, in the case of Mariner, certain
specified transactions, engage in acquisitions valued at more
than $25 million in the aggregate; |
|
|
|
|
other than product sales and other dispositions in connection
with normal equipment maintenance or salvage in the ordinary
course of business and consistent with past practice and
permitted liens, dispose of assets valued at more than
$10 million in the aggregate, except, in the case of
Mariner, transactions permitted as described under
No Solicitation above, and except, in the case
of Forest, dispositions of property to Forest and any of its
wholly owned subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
|
incur or guarantee indebtedness, other than, in the case of
Forest Energy Resources, indebtedness incurred or guaranteed in
connection with the spin-off, or, in the case of Mariner, up to
$185 million pursuant to a new or amended credit agreement; |
|
|
|
fail to continue its capital expenditure program for exploration
and development or fail to perform, to the extent reasonably
practicable, all capital expenditures at an aggregate cost not
exceeding 120% of the aggregate costs set forth in the capital
expenditure program; |
|
|
|
make material changes to employment arrangements; |
|
|
|
fail to comply with any laws, ordinances or regulations or
permit to expire or terminate without renewal any license that
is necessary to the operation of the business, to the extent the
same would result in a material adverse effect; |
|
|
|
adopt a plan of complete or partial liquidation or dissolution; |
|
|
|
change its fiscal year or make any material change in its
methods of accounting except as required by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board or changes in generally accepted
accounting principles, or in response to comments made by the
SEC with respect to any registration statement; |
|
|
|
amend any agreement or arrangement with any affiliates
(including employees of Mariner and Forest Energy Resources) on
terms materially less favorable than could be reasonably
expected to have been obtained with an unaffiliated third party
on an arms-length basis; |
|
|
|
except in the ordinary course of business consistent with past
practice, modify, amend, terminate or renew any material
contract or waive, release or assign any material rights or
claims, in each case if the action would have a material adverse
effect or impair in any material respect the partys
ability to perform its obligations under the merger agreement
and other transaction agreements; |
|
|
|
waive any preferential rights; |
|
|
|
enter into any contract not in the ordinary course of business
involving total consideration of $2 million or more with a
term longer than one year, unless it can be terminated by it
without penalty upon no more than 30 days prior
notice; |
|
|
|
fail to maintain insurance in amounts and against risks and
losses as are customary for companies engaged in their
respective businesses, except, in the case of Mariner,
self-insurance with respect to operators extra expense
insurance, physical damage to wellsite real and personal
property insurance and business interruption insurance; |
|
|
|
make or rescind any material express or deemed election relating
to taxes unless the action will not materially and adversely
affect that party on a going-forward basis; |
|
|
|
settle or compromise any material claim or controversy relating
to taxes, except where the settlement or compromise will not
result in a material adverse effect on that party; |
|
|
|
amend any material tax returns; |
124
|
|
|
|
|
change in any material respect any of its methods of reporting
income or deductions for federal income tax purposes, except as
may be required by applicable law or except for changes that are
reasonably expected not to result in a material adverse effect
on that party; |
|
|
|
pay, discharge or satisfy any material claims, liabilities or
obligations, other than the payment, discharge or satisfaction,
in the ordinary course of business or, in the case of Mariner,
in accordance with their terms, of liabilities reflected or
reserved against in, or contemplated by, the most recent
consolidated financial statements or incurred in the ordinary
course of business; |
|
|
|
take or cause or permit to be taken any action that would
disqualify the spin-off under the distribution agreement from
constituting a tax-free spin-off or that would disqualify either
the merger or the contribution of assets from Forest to Forest
Energy Resources from constituting a tax-free reorganization; |
|
|
|
intentionally take or agree or commit to take any action that
would result in any of the conditions set forth in the merger
agreement not being satisfied at the effective time of the
merger; |
|
|
|
enter into any derivative transaction or any fixed price
commodity sales agreement with a term of more than
60 days; and |
|
|
|
agree or otherwise take any action inconsistent with the
foregoing. |
Mariner has also undertaken that it will cause MEI Sub not to
conduct any business operations, enter into any contract,
acquire any assets or incur any liabilities, and will use
reasonable commercial efforts to obtain the lender consent and
to enter into a new credit facility. Forest and Forest Energy
Resources have also undertaken not to form or propose to form a
new subsidiary of Forest Energy Resources.
Also, the parties agree to promptly advise the other parties
orally and in writing of any change or event having, or that,
insofar as can reasonably be foreseen, could have, either
individually or together with other changes or events, a
material adverse effect.
|
|
|
Commercially Reasonable Efforts, Further Assurances |
Forest, Forest Energy Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub have agreed
to use all commercially reasonable efforts to take, or cause to
be taken, all actions and to do, or cause to be done, all things
necessary under applicable laws and regulations to consummate
the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement and the
other transaction agreements. These actions include providing
information and obtaining all necessary exemptions, rulings,
consents, authorizations, approvals and waivers to effect all
necessary registrations and filings and to lift any injunction
or other legal bar to the merger and the other transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement and the other transaction
agreements as promptly as practicable, and taking all other
actions necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated by
the merger agreement and the other transaction agreements in a
manner consistent with applicable law. Forest, Forest Energy
Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub also agreed to cooperate and to
use their respective commercially reasonable efforts to obtain
any government clearances required to consummate the merger and
to respond to any government requests for information.
Forest Energy Resources and Mariner agreed in the merger
agreement that Forest Energy Resources employees who remain
employed by Forest Energy Resources, Mariner or their
subsidiaries from and after the effective time of the merger:
|
|
|
|
|
will participate in Mariner benefit plans as of the effective
time of the merger on a basis no less favorable than that
applicable to similarly situated Mariner employees, and be
granted full credit for all purposes under such plans for prior
service with Forest and Forest Energy Resources and their
affiliates before the effective time of the merger (except to
the extent necessary to avoid duplication of benefits); |
125
|
|
|
|
|
will, if the effective time of the merger occurs in 2006,
receive vacation benefits for 2006 that are equal to the
employees accrued and unused vacation under Forests
vacation policy as of the effective time of the merger plus any
additional vacation entitlement the employee would have earned
under the terms of Mariners vacation policy; and |
|
|
|
will receive specified relocation benefits if, from the
effective time of the merger to the later of June 30, 2006
or six months after the effective time of the merger, Mariner or
a subsidiary of Mariner relocates the principal place of
employment of the employee by 50 miles or more from the
location of his or her principal place of employment immediately
prior to the effective time of the merger. |
In addition, Forest Energy Resources employees will, in lieu of
the payment of any annual bonuses for 2005 under annual
incentive and bonus plans maintained by Forest, be eligible to
receive potential retention benefits, paid in installments
commencing in October 2005 and ending in June 2006, in an
aggregate amount equal to 250% of the employees target
annual bonus for 2005 under the annual incentive or bonus plan
maintained by Forest and applicable to the employee.
If, during the period beginning on the effective time of the
merger and ending on the later of June 30, 2006, or the
date that is six months after the effective time of the merger,
a Forest Energy Resources employee (a) voluntarily
terminates his employment within 30 days after a reduction
in his base salary or base wages from that in effect immediately
prior to the effective time of the merger, (b) voluntarily
terminates his employment after being notified that the
principal place of his employment is changing to a location
50 miles or more from the location of his principal place
of employment immediately prior to the effective time of the
merger, or (c) is involuntarily terminated from employment
other than for cause, then Mariner shall pay specified severance
benefits to such employee, reduced, however, by the amount of
any retention benefits previously paid to such employee, and
provided that such employee executes a release and is not
subsequently re-hired by Forest or any subsidiary of Forest
during the six-month period after the effective time of the
merger.
Mariner will reimburse Forest for severance amounts paid to
employees of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations who are
terminated by Forest with Mariners consent prior to the
effective time of the merger, provided that any such employee is
not subsequently rehired by Forest or any Forest subsidiary
during the six month period following the effective time of the
merger.
After the effective time of the merger, Forest will transfer the
aggregate account balances of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations employees under Forests retirement savings plan
to Mariners comparable plan. Any loans under the plan will
be transferred as part of the balance transfers. All savings
plan investments in shares of Forest or Mariner common stock
will be converted to cash prior to transfer.
|
|
|
Directors and Officers Indemnification |
From and after the effective time of the merger, Forest Energy
Resources will indemnify any persons who are or were officers or
directors of Mariner prior to the effective time of the merger
for losses in connection with any action arising out of or
pertaining to acts or omissions, or alleged acts or omissions,
by them in their capacities as such, whether commenced, asserted
or claimed before or after the effective time of the merger.
Forest Energy Resources will maintain existing, or provide
comparable, directors and officers liability
insurance policies for a period of six years following the
effective time of the merger.
Additional Covenants
Each of Forest, Forest Energy Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub
will use all commercially reasonable efforts to defend against
all actions in which such party is named as a defendant that
challenge or otherwise seek to enjoin, restrain or prohibit the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement or seek
damages with respect to such transactions.
126
Each party to the merger agreement will use its commercially
reasonable efforts to ensure that, following the effective time
of the merger, Mariner will establish a fiscal year ending on
December 31.
Forest, Forest Energy Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub intend that
the merger will qualify as a reorganization within the meaning
of Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the
parties have agreed to take the position for all tax purposes
that the merger so qualifies unless a contrary position is
required by a final determination within the meaning of
Section 1313 of the Internal Revenue Code. Forest, Forest
Energy Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub will each use their
respective commercially reasonable efforts to cause the merger
to qualify as a reorganization within the meaning of
Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, and will not
take actions, cause actions to be taken or fail to take actions
that are reasonably likely to prevent such result.
Mariner will obtain and maintain a letter of credit in favor of
Forest with an aggregate principal amount of $40.0 million
to secure Mariners performance of its obligations under an
existing drill-to-earn
program. The principal amount of the letter of credit will
decrease over time as Mariner drills more wells under the
program.
Conditions to the Completion of the Merger
The respective obligations of Forest, Mariner, MEI Sub and
Forest Energy Resources to complete the merger are subject to
the fulfillment, or the waiver by Forest and Mariner, of various
conditions which include, in addition other customary closing
conditions, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
completion of the spin-off in accordance with the distribution
agreement; |
|
|
|
obtaining all material consents, approvals and authorizations of
any governmental authority legally required for the consummation
of the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement and the
other transaction agreements; |
|
|
|
the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting period
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; |
|
|
|
|
the SEC having declared effective the registration statements of
Mariner relating to the shares of Mariner common stock to be
issued in connection with the merger and the shares held by its
existing stockholders; |
|
|
|
|
the approval for listing on the New York Stock Exchange or
Nasdaq of the shares of Mariner common stock and such other
shares required to be reserved for issuance in connection with
the merger, subject to official notice of issuance; |
|
|
|
adoption of the merger agreement by the Mariner stockholders at
the meeting; |
|
|
|
the absence of a final and non-appealable injunction or other
prohibition issued by a court or other governmental entity that
restrains, enjoins or prohibits the spin-off or the merger; |
|
|
|
there being no action by a governmental authority pending to
restrain, enjoin, prohibit or delay consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, or to impose
any material restrictions or requirements on the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement or on Forest Energy
Resources or Mariner with respect to the transactions; |
|
|
|
there being no action taken and no statute, rule, regulation or
executive order enacted, entered, promulgated or enforced by any
governmental authority with respect to the merger that,
individually or in the aggregate, would restrain, prohibit or
delay the consummation of the merger |
127
|
|
|
|
|
or impose material restrictions or requirements on consummation
of the merger or on Forest Energy Resources or Mariner with
respect to the transactions; |
|
|
|
|
|
the performance by Forest, Forest Energy Resources and Mariner
in all material respects of their respective covenants and
agreements contained in the merger agreement and the
truthfulness and correctness of the representations and
warranties in the merger agreement in all respects, except in
each case where the failure to be true and correct, individually
or in the aggregate, would not have a material adverse effect or
to the extent specifically contemplated or permitted by the
merger agreement; and |
|
|
|
Forest, Forest Energy Resources and Mariner having received an
opinion from their respective counsel to the effect that the
merger will be treated for federal income tax purposes as a
reorganization. |
Additionally, the obligation of Forest and Forest Energy
Resources to complete the merger is subject to the fulfillment
or waiver by Forest of the following additional conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
Forest having received any consents required from its
bondholders; and |
|
|
|
Forest having received the consents required pursuant to its
credit facility. |
Additionally, the obligation of Mariner and MEI Sub to complete
the merger is subject to the fulfillment or waiver by Mariner of
the following additional conditions:
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner having received the consents required pursuant to its
credit facility; and |
|
|
|
Forest Energy Resources and/or Mariner having entered into a new
or amended credit facility with available borrowing capacity
sufficient to operate the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations and
Mariners business after the closing of the merger
transaction consistent with past practice. |
None of Forest, Forest Energy Resources or Mariner may rely on
the failure of any condition set forth in the merger agreement
to be satisfied if such failure was caused by such partys
failure to act in good faith or to use its commercially
reasonable efforts to consummate the merger and the other
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement and the other
transaction agreements.
A material adverse effect is, with respect to any
person, any circumstance, change or effect that is or is
reasonably likely to be materially adverse to (i) the
business, operations, assets, liabilities, results of operations
or condition (financial or otherwise) of such person and its
subsidiaries, taken as a whole (which may include damage
attributable, both directly and indirectly, to Hurricane
Katrina), except for such effects on or changes in general
economic or capital market conditions and effects and changes
that generally affect the U.S. domestic oil and gas
exploration and production business, or (ii) the ability of
such person to perform its obligations under the merger
agreement or under the other transaction agreements, in each
case other than any such circumstance, change or effect that
relates to or results primarily from (x) the announcement,
pendency or consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement or the other transaction agreements or
(y) acts of war, insurrection, sabotage or terrorism.
Damages attributable to Hurricane Katrina disclosed in the
damage reports of Mariner and Forest will not be taken into
account in determining whether a material adverse effect exists
or has occurred.
On November 14, 2005, the waiting period under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act expired. On October 19, 2005, Forest
received the consent required pursuant to its credit facility.
On February 7, 2006, Mariners common stock was
approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange upon the
completion of the merger. As of February 7, 2006, no other
conditions to closing have been satisfied. Mariner is currently
negotiating the definitive documents for its new credit
facility, which documents also will grant the consent required
pursuant to its existing facility. Mariner and Forest are
actively working to obtain necessary consents, approvals and
authorizations from governmental authorities, including the
Minerals Management Service.
128
Based on its current valuation of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and the current amount of distributions permitted by
the covenants contained in the indentures governing
Forests outstanding bonds, Forest believes that no
consents of its bondholders will be required for the spin-off
and the merger. If Forests belief that bondholder consents
are not necessary remains unchanged as the merger closing
approaches, it intends to waive conditions in the merger
agreement and distribution agreement related to such consents.
Neither Mariner nor Forest currently believes that any other
condition to closing is likely to be waived.
Termination of the Merger Agreement
The merger agreement may be terminated and the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement may be abandoned at any
time prior to the effective time of the merger as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
by mutual written consent of the parties; |
|
|
|
by any party: |
|
|
|
|
|
if the effective time of the merger has not occurred on or
before March 31, 2006, except that a party may not
terminate the merger agreement if the cause of the merger not
being completed on or before such date resulted from the
partys failure to fulfill its obligations; |
|
|
|
if a court or other governmental entity issues a final and
non-appealable injunction or otherwise prohibits the merger and
the terminating party has used all commercially reasonable
efforts to remove such injunction or prohibition; or |
|
|
|
if the adoption of the merger agreement and the approval of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement by the Mariner
stockholders is not obtained, except that Mariner may not
terminate the merger agreement if the cause of the approval not
being obtained resulted from the action or failure to act of
Mariner and such action or failure to act constitutes a breach
by Mariner of the provisions of the merger agreement relating to
non-solicitation in any respect or a material breach by Mariner
of any of the other covenants or agreements contained in the
merger agreement; |
|
|
|
|
|
if either Forest or Forest Energy Resources fails to perform in
any material respect any of its respective covenants or
agreements contained in the merger agreement required to be
performed at or prior to the effective time of the merger, or
the respective representations and warranties of Forest or
Forest Energy Resources in the merger agreement are or will
become untrue in any respect at any time prior to the effective
time of the merger and the failure to be true and correct,
individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse
effect on the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, Forest Energy
Resources or Mariner and has not been cured within 30 days
after written notice was given to Forest and Forest Energy
Resources of such failure or untruth; or |
|
|
|
if the board of directors of Mariner changes its recommendation
that Mariner stockholders approve the merger in order to accept
a superior offer, provided that: |
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner is not in breach of the provisions of the merger
agreement relating to non-solicitation or in material breach of
any other covenant or agreement contained in the merger
agreement, and has not breached any of its representations and
warranties contained in the merger agreement in any material
respect; |
|
|
|
Forest has not made an offer that is at least favorable as the
superior offer within three business days after Forest receives
written notice of the superior offer; |
129
|
|
|
|
|
the Mariner board of directors authorizes Mariner to enter into
a binding written agreement with respect to the superior offer
and notifies Forest and Forest Energy Resources of its intent to
do so and provides a copy of the most current version of the
agreement; and |
|
|
|
Mariner pays the termination fee and expense reimbursement; |
|
|
|
|
|
if Mariner fails to perform in any material respect any of its
covenants or agreements contained in the merger agreement
required to be performed at or prior to the effective time of
the merger, or the representations and warranties of Mariner in
the merger agreement are or will become untrue in any respect at
any time prior to the effective time of the merger and the
failure to be true and correct, individually or in the
aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on Mariner, the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations or Forest Energy Resources and
has not been cured within 30 days after written notice was
given to Mariner of such failure or untruth; or |
|
|
|
if the board of directors of Mariner (i) fails to reaffirm
publicly its approval of the merger, as soon as reasonably
practicable, and in no event within three business days after
Forests request, or resolves not to reaffirm the merger,
(ii) fails to include in this proxy statement/
prospectus-information statement its recommendation, without
modification or qualification, that Mariner stockholders approve
the merger, (iii) withholds, withdraws, amends or modifies
its recommendation that Mariner stockholders approve the merger,
(iv) changes its recommendation that Mariner stockholders
approve the merger or (v) within ten business days after
commencement, fails to recommend against acceptance of any
tender or exchange offer for shares of Mariner common stock or
takes no position with respect to any tender or exchange offer. |
|
|
|
Termination Fees and Expenses |
If either Forest or Mariner terminates the merger agreement as a
result of:
|
|
|
|
|
the other partys failure to perform in any material
respect any of its covenants or agreements contained in the
merger agreement; or |
|
|
|
the representations and warranties of such other party in the
merger agreement being or becoming untrue; and |
|
|
|
the failure to be true and correct, individually or in the
aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on Forest Energy
Resources, the Mariner business or Mariner and has not been
cured within 30 days after written notice was given to such
party of such failure or untruth, |
the terminating party will be entitled to reimbursement of all
of its documented
out-of-pocket expenses
and fees incurred by such terminating party up to
$5 million in the aggregate.
In addition to the reimbursement of
out-of-pocket expenses
and fees, Mariner has agreed to pay Forest a termination fee of
$25 million, together with the expense reimbursement
described above, if:
|
|
|
|
|
(i) either Forest or Mariner terminates the merger
agreement as a result of the failure to obtain the requisite
stockholder approval from Mariner stockholders, (ii) either
Forest or Mariner terminates the merger agreement as a result of
the effective time of the merger not occurring on or before
March 31, 2006 or (iii) Forest terminates the merger
agreement as a result of the failure of Mariner to perform in
any material respect any of its covenants and agreements
contained in the merger agreement, plus an acquisition proposal
had been publicly announced prior to the termination and, within
twelve months of the date of termination, Mariner either
completes an acquisition proposal with a third party or enters
into an agreement or recommends approval of any acquisition
proposal that is subsequently completed (whether or not within
the twelve-month period); |
130
|
|
|
|
|
Forest terminates the merger agreement as a result of the board
of directors of Mariner (i) having failed to reaffirm
publicly its approval of the merger, as soon as reasonably
practicable, and in no event later than three business days,
after request by Forest, or having resolved not to reaffirm the
merger, (ii) having failed to include in this proxy
statement/ prospectus-information statement its recommendation,
without modification or qualification, that Mariner stockholders
approve the merger, (iii) having withheld, withdrawn,
amended or modified its recommendation that Mariner stockholders
approve the merger, (iv) having changed its recommendation
that Mariner stockholders approve the merger or (v) within
ten business days after commencement, having failed to recommend
against acceptance of any tender or exchange offer for shares of
Mariner common stock or takes no position with respect to any
such tender or exchange offer; or |
|
|
|
Mariner terminates the merger agreement as a result of the board
of directors of Mariner changing its recommendation that Mariner
stockholders approve the merger in order to permit Mariner to
accept a superior offer. |
Amendments and Waiver
Any provision of the merger agreement may, to the extent legally
allowed, be amended or waived at any time prior to the effective
time of the merger. However, if a provision of the merger
agreement is amended or waived after the Mariner stockholders
adopt the merger agreement, such amendment or waiver will be
subject to any necessary stockholder approval. Forest, Forest
Energy Resources, Mariner and MEI Sub must sign any amendments.
Any waiver must be signed by the party against whom the waiver
is to be effective. Mariner and Forest will recirculate revised
proxy materials and resolicit proxies if there are any material
changes in the terms of the merger, including those that result
from amendments or waivers.
131
THE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
Summary of the Transactions
In connection with the merger, Forest has contributed the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations to Forest Energy Resources pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the distribution agreement
summarized below. Prior to the merger, Forest will spin-off
Forest Energy Resources by distributing all of the shares of
Forest Energy Resources common stock to Forest shareholders on a
pro rata basis.
Contribution of the Forest Gulf of Mexico Assets and
Assumption of Liabilities
Under the distribution agreement, Forest has taken or caused to
be taken all actions necessary to cause the transfer to Forest
Energy Resources of all of the ownership interest of Forest and
its subsidiaries in:
|
|
|
|
|
all real property interests, overriding royalty interests,
reversionary interests, real or immovable property (including
use and occupation rights, rights to pooled, communitized or
unitized acreage, and platforms, pipelines and improvements),
easements, inventory, hydrocarbons, equipment, personal or
movable property, spare parts, contracts, books and records,
proceeds, refunds, settlements, claims and current assets to the
extent comprising a part of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations; |
|
|
|
other assets of Forest and the subsidiaries of Forest to the
extent specifically assigned by Forest or any subsidiaries
pursuant to the distribution agreement; and |
|
|
|
all rights of Forest Energy Resources under the distribution
agreement and the other agreements entered into in connection
with the merger and the spin-off. |
Forest Energy Resources has assumed certain liabilities,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
all of the liabilities of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
to the extent arising after June 30, 2005 and attributable
to the conduct of the business after that date; |
|
|
|
legal obligations to plug, abandon, remove or retire platforms,
pipelines, improvements, equipment, personal or movable
property, fixtures and improvements comprising part of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico assets, to the extent the obligation was
previously disclosed to Mariner, arose after June 30, 2005
or was not known to Forest after due inquiry on the date of the
distribution agreement; |
|
|
|
environmental liabilities arising from the conduct of the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations (subject to a monetary cap with
respect to specified conditions), unless such liability was
required to have been disclosed to Mariner prior to the
execution of the merger agreement and was not so
disclosed; and |
|
|
|
liabilities under specified derivatives contracts with an
estimated fair value of $50.8 million as of June 30,
2005. |
In connection with the spin-off, Forest Energy Resources will
also transfer a cash amount to Forest, which Forest will use to
reduce its indebtedness. The cash amount will equal
$200 million, plus or minus the following amounts:
|
|
|
|
|
minus revenue derived from the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
from June 30, 2005 through the date of the spin-off (which
period is referred to as the measurement period); |
|
|
|
minus cash consideration from any sale of property, plant and
equipment related to the Forest Gulf of Mexico assets during the
measurement period; |
|
|
|
plus certain net assets and liabilities specified on the date of
the distribution agreement; |
132
|
|
|
|
|
plus or minus the net gas balancing assets or liabilities of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations as of June 30, 2005; |
|
|
|
plus or minus the net settlement amounts in respect of
settlements of gas imbalances effected during the measurement
period; |
|
|
|
plus capital and operating expenditures attributable to the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations during the measurement period; |
|
|
|
plus an amount equal to hypothetical income taxes attributable
to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations during the measurement
period; |
|
|
|
plus interest expense attributable to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations during the measurement period; |
|
|
|
plus $1.6 million per month during the measurement period
in respect of general and administrative expenses; |
|
|
|
plus an amount, not to exceed $7 million, in respect of the
fees and expenses of Forest and Forest Energy Resources in
connection with the merger and related transactions; |
|
|
|
plus or minus an amount equal to the change in working capital
accounts (other than cash) of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations during the measurement period; |
|
|
|
plus or minus an amount to adjust for the above items to the
extent they are settled through intercompany accounts prior to
the closing. |
To the extent that any transfers are not completed before the
spin-off, the parties will use their commercially reasonable
efforts to effect any remaining transfers as promptly as
practicable following the spin-off.
Spin-off
Before the merger, Forest will distribute
50,637,010 shares, which will represent all of the
then-outstanding shares of Forest Energy Resources common stock,
to Forests shareholders. As a result of the spin-off,
Forest Energy Resources will be a separate company that will own
and operate the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Representations and Warranties
In the distribution agreement Forest represents to Mariner and
Forest Energy Resources that, at the time of the spin-off and on
June 30, 2005, the Forest Gulf of Mexico assets to be
contributed to Forest Energy Resources in connection with the
spin-off constitute all of Forests business and assets in
the offshore Gulf of Mexico, and that all such assets are owned
free and clear of all liens other than liens permitted under the
agreement.
Indemnification
Forest Energy Resources has agreed to indemnify, defend and hold
Forest and each of its affiliates and their representatives
harmless from and against all losses or liabilities arising out
of or related to any liabilities assumed by Forest Energy
Resources or from Forest Energy Resources failure to
perform its obligations under the distribution agreement.
Forest has agreed to indemnify, defend and hold Forest Energy
Resources and each of its affiliates and their representatives
harmless from and against all losses or liabilities arising out
of or related to the failure of Forest or any of its
subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
to pay, among other things, any losses or liabilities of Forest
or its subsidiaries (including liabilities under the agreements
entered into in connection with the merger and the spin-off); |
133
|
|
|
|
|
to transfer to Forest Energy Resources or any of its
subsidiaries all of the assets to be transferred to Forest
Energy Resources; and |
|
|
|
to perform any of its obligations under the distribution
agreement. |
Forest has agreed that it will use commercially reasonable
efforts to assist Forest Energy Resources in asserting claims
relating to the assets transferred to Forest Energy Resources or
liabilities assumed by Forest Energy Resources under
Forests insurance policies, to the extent such claims are
based on events prior to the spin-off date or were commenced
prior to the spin-off date.
Conditions to the Spin-off
The obligations of Forest under the distribution agreement are
subject to the fulfillment (or waiver by Forest) at or prior to
the spin-off of a number of conditions, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
obtaining all material consents, approvals and authorizations of
any governmental authority that are legally required for the
spin-off and other transactions contemplated by the other
agreements entered into in connection with the spin-off and the
merger; |
|
|
|
the absence of an injunction or other prohibition issued by a
court or other governmental entity that restrains, enjoins or
prohibits or otherwise imposes material restrictions on the
spin-off or the merger; |
|
|
|
the SEC having declared effective the registration statement on
Form S-4 of Mariner
relating to the shares of Mariner common stock to be issued into
which shares of Forest Energy Resources common stock will be
converted pursuant to the merger. |
|
|
|
the approval for listing on the New York Stock Exchange or
Nasdaq of the Mariner common stock and the other shares required
to be reserved for issuance in connection with the merger,
subject to official notice of issuance; |
|
|
|
the adoption of the merger agreement by the Mariner stockholders
at the meeting; |
|
|
|
Forest having received an opinion from its tax counsel to the
effect that the contribution will constitute a reorganization
under Section 368(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and the
distribution will qualify under Section 355 of the Internal
Revenue Code; |
|
|
|
Forest having received the consents required from its
bondholders; |
|
|
|
the performance by Mariner in all material respects of its
covenants and agreements contained in the merger agreement
required to be performed at or prior to the date of the
spin-off; and |
|
|
|
the truthfulness and correctness of the representations and
warranties of Mariner in the merger agreement in all respects,
except as permitted by the merger agreement or where the failure
to be true and correct would not have a material adverse effect. |
Based on its current valuation of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and the current amount of distributions permitted by
the covenants contained in the indentures governing
Forests outstanding bonds, Forest believes that no
consents of bondholders will be required for the spin-off and
the merger. If Forests belief that bondholder consents are
not necessary remains unchanged as the merger closing
approaches, it intends to waive conditions in the merger
agreement and distribution agreement related to such consents.
134
ANCILLARY AGREEMENTS
Forest and Forest Energy Resources have entered into agreements
that will govern the ongoing relationships among Mariner, Forest
Energy Resources and Forest and provide for an orderly
transition after the spin-off and the merger. These agreements
are summarized below.
Tax Sharing Agreement
In order to allocate the responsibilities for payment of taxes
and certain other tax matters, Forest, Mariner and Forest Energy
Resources have entered into a tax sharing agreement. The
following is a summary of the material terms of the tax sharing
agreement.
|
|
|
Preparation and Filing of Tax Returns |
Forest will prepare and file all tax returns (including any tax
returns reporting the results of Forest Energy Resources) for
periods ending on or prior to the date of the distribution of
Forest Energy Resources to the shareholders of Forest, as well
as any consolidated or combined returns of Forest that include
Forest Energy Resources or the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Mariner and Forest Energy Resources will be responsible for
filing all tax returns with respect to Forest Energy
Resources operations for all other periods.
Each party has agreed to indemnify the other in respect of all
taxes for which it is responsible under the tax sharing
agreement. Forest is responsible for all taxes for all periods
arising from the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations prior to the
time that the common stock of Forest Energy Resources is
distributed to the Forest shareholders and agrees to hold Forest
Energy Resources and Mariner harmless in respect of those taxes.
Forest is entitled to receive all refunds of previously paid
taxes arising from the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations during
such time. Forest remains responsible for all taxes related to
the businesses of Forest other than the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations and has agreed to indemnify Forest Energy Resources
and Mariner in respect of any liability for any of such taxes.
Forest Energy Resources and Mariner are responsible for all
taxes for all periods arising from the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations subsequent to the time that Forest Energy Resources
is distributed to the Forest shareholders and agree to hold
Forest harmless in respect of those taxes.
If the spin-off fails to qualify as a tax-free transaction
because of an action by Mariner (or one of its affiliates) that
was not contemplated or permitted by the transaction agreements,
Mariner and Forest Energy Resources agree to indemnify and hold
Forest harmless for any resulting tax liability (or for the
utilization of any tax attributes used to absorb any resulting
taxable gain). In all other circumstances, Forest is liable for
and agrees to indemnify and hold Forest Energy Resources and
Mariner harmless for any tax liability if the spin-off fails to
qualify as a tax-free transaction.
Forest, Mariner and Forest Energy Resources each agrees not to
take (and each agrees to cause its respective affiliates to
refrain from taking) any position on a tax return that will be
inconsistent with the treatment of the spin-off and the merger
as tax-free transactions under the applicable provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code. In addition, Forest, Forest Energy
Resources and Mariner each agrees that, during the two-year
period following the spin-off, it will not take or fail to take
(or permit any affiliate to take or fail to take) any action
which would cause the spin-off to fail to qualify as a tax-free
spin-off.
Moreover, Forest and Mariner each agrees that, during the
two-year period following the spin-off, prior to entering into
any agreement, or failing to take any action, that would result
in a more than immaterial possibility that the spin-off would be
treated as part of a plan pursuant to which one or more
135
persons acquire directly or indirectly Forest Energy Resources
stock or Forest stock representing a 50-percent or greater
interest within the meaning of Section 355(e)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code, it will obtain:
|
|
|
|
|
a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that
the action contemplated would not affect the tax-free status of
the spin-off, |
|
|
|
an opinion from a nationally recognized law firm both reasonably
acceptable to Forest and Mariner to the effect that the action
contemplated would not affect the tax-free status of the
spin-off, or |
|
|
|
the agreement of both Forest and Mariner that such contemplated
action would not affect the tax-free status of the spin-off. |
Actions which may be restricted by these requirements include an
issuance of shares of Mariner (or any instrument that is
convertible or exchangeable into Mariner shares) in an
acquisition or public or private offering. Under
U.S. Treasury Regulations, certain safe harbors exist under
which certain issuances of shares of Mariner will not be deemed
part of the same plan as the spin-off and thus not restricted.
Among other safe harbors, safe harbors exist for transactions if
specific timing conditions are met as to when agreements or
substantial negotiations relating to such transactions occur,
and a safe harbor exists for certain issuances pursuant to
compensatory employment-related arrangements.
The tax sharing agreement also provides that Forest and Forest
Energy Resources will cooperate with each other and exchange
necessary information in connection with tax audits and
examinations and the tax sharing agreement contains provisions
entitling the appropriate party to control particular tax audits
and controversies.
Employee Benefits Agreement
Forest and Forest Energy Resources have entered into an employee
benefits agreement that provides for the transfer of the
employees of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations to Forest
Energy Resources, effective upon completion of the spin-off.
The employee benefits agreement also allocates the assets and
liabilities under certain existing Forest employee benefit plans
and other employment-related liabilities to Forest and Forest
Energy Resources, respectively. In general, at the time of the
spin-off, Forest Energy Resources will assume the liabilities
relating to the former employees of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations arising after the date of the spin-off and other
specified liabilities, and Forest will retain the pre-spin-off
liabilities relating to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
employees and all liabilities relating to its continuing
employees. The employee benefits agreement also:
|
|
|
|
|
sets forth the rights of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
employees under certain of the Forest plans in which they
previously participated, including with respect to the portion
of their stock options that are exercisable at the effective
time of the merger; and |
136
|
|
|
|
|
provides for the assumption by Forest Energy Resources of
certain liabilities of Forest relating to employees who are
transferred to Forest Energy Resources, including the assumption
of liabilities under Forests educational assistance plan
and accrued vacation liabilities. |
Pursuant to the employee benefits agreement, each of Forest
Energy Resources and Forest has agreed that, without the prior
consent of the other, it will not solicit employees of the other
party for two years following the spin-off date.
Transition Services Agreement
Forest and Forest Energy Resources have entered into a
transition services agreement under which Forest will provide
services to Forest Energy Resources on an as-needed basis for a
limited period of time after the merger.
137
FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO THE SPIN-OFF AND THE
MERGER
At the closing of the merger, Mariner and Mariner Energy
Resources expect to enter into a new $500 million senior
secured revolving credit facility, and Mariner also will obtain
a $40 million senior secured letter of credit facility. The
revolving credit facility will mature on the fourth anniversary
of the closing, and the letter of credit facility will mature on
the third anniversary of the closing. We may use the borrowings
under the revolving credit facility to retire existing debt, to
facilitate the merger and for general corporate purposes. The
letter of credit facility will be used to obtain a letter of
credit in favor of Forest to secure our performance of our
obligations under an existing
drill-to-earn program.
The outstanding principal balance of loans under the revolving
credit facility may not exceed the borrowing base, which
initially will be set at $400 million. The borrowing base
will be redetermined semi-annually by the lenders, subject to
reduction by Mariner. In addition, the agent and Mariner may
request one additional redetermination during the interval
between each scheduled redetermination, and the agent may
require redeterminations in connection with certain material
dispositions. If the borrowing base falls below the outstanding
balance under the revolving credit facility, we will be required
to prepay the deficit, pledge additional unencumbered collateral
or some combination of such prepayment and pledge.
Interest under the revolving credit facility will be determined
by reference to the following grid:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applicable Margin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usage as a % |
|
LIBOR |
|
Reference |
|
Unused |
Borrowing Base |
|
Loans |
|
Rate Loans |
|
Fee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 50%
|
|
|
1.25% |
|
|
|
0.00% |
|
|
|
0.375% |
|
51% to 75%
|
|
|
1.50% |
|
|
|
0.00% |
|
|
|
0.375% |
|
76% to 90%
|
|
|
1.75% |
|
|
|
0.25% |
|
|
|
0.250% |
|
Greater than 90%
|
|
|
2.00% |
|
|
|
0.50% |
|
|
|
0.250% |
|
Interest will be payable quarterly for Union Bank of California
Reference Rate loans and at the applicable maturity date for
LIBOR (London interbank offered rate) loans. The fee for letters
of credit issued under the revolving credit facility will be the
LIBOR margin indicated in the grid, per annum. The fee for
letters of credit under the letter of credit facility will be
1.50% due quarterly in advance.
The obligations under the credit facilities will be secured by
first priority liens on substantially all of our real and
personal property, including our existing and after-acquired oil
and gas properties and related real property interests.
Additionally, the obligations under the credit facilities will
be guaranteed by us and each of our subsidiaries.
The credit facilities will contain various covenants that limit
our ability to do the following, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
incur certain indebtedness; |
|
|
|
grant certain liens; |
|
|
|
merge or consolidate with another entity; |
|
|
|
sell unmortgaged property or other assets which generate
proceeds in excess of 10% of the borrowing base; |
|
|
|
sell assets comprising collateral pledged to the lenders; |
|
|
|
make certain loans and investments; |
|
|
|
enter new lines of business; and |
|
|
|
permit certain trade payables to exceed 90 days. |
138
The credit facilities also will contain covenants, which, among
other things, require us to maintain specified ratios or
conditions as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
consolidated current assets plus the unused borrowing base to
consolidated current liabilities of not less than 1.0 to
1.0; and |
|
|
|
total debt to EBITDA of not more than 2.5 to 1.0. |
If an event of default exists under the credit facilities, the
lenders will be able to accelerate the maturity of the credit
facilities and exercise other rights and remedies. Events of
default will include defaults in payment or performance under
the credit facilities, misrepresentations, cross-defaults to
other debt or material obligations, and insolvency, material
adverse judgments, change of control (including certain changes
in ownership and in the event Mr. Scott D. Josey ceases to
be involved in Mariners management, the failure to timely
replace him with someone with comparable qualifications) and any
material adverse change.
139
SELECTED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND
DIRECT OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE FOREST GULF OF MEXICO
OPERATIONS
The selected consolidated statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses for the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations for
the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 and the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were derived
from the historical records of Forest. For additional
information concerning this financial data, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
Operations. Complete financial and operating information
related to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, including
balance sheet and cash flow information, are not presented below
because the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations were not maintained
as a separate business unit, and therefore the assets,
liabilities or indirect operating costs applicable to the
operations were not segregated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(dollars in thousands) | |
Oil and natural gas revenues(1)
|
|
$ |
326,722 |
|
|
|
324,426 |
|
|
|
453,139 |
|
|
|
342,019 |
|
|
|
228,896 |
|
Direct Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
57,431 |
|
|
|
63,022 |
|
|
|
80,079 |
|
|
|
45,716 |
|
|
|
52,076 |
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
1,424 |
|
|
|
2,175 |
|
|
|
2,652 |
|
|
|
3,855 |
|
|
Production taxes
|
|
|
1,948 |
|
|
|
1,243 |
|
|
|
1,548 |
|
|
|
1,521 |
|
|
|
947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total direct operating expenses
|
|
|
61,863 |
|
|
|
65,689 |
|
|
|
83,802 |
|
|
|
49,889 |
|
|
|
56,878 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues in excess of direct operating expenses
|
|
$ |
264,859 |
|
|
|
258,737 |
|
|
|
369,337 |
|
|
|
292,130 |
|
|
|
172,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
41,442 |
|
|
|
46,036 |
|
|
|
61,684 |
|
|
|
58,785 |
|
|
|
50,566 |
|
Oil and condensate (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,845 |
|
|
|
2,004 |
|
|
|
2,624 |
|
|
|
2,143 |
|
|
|
1,974 |
|
Natural gas liquids (MBbls)
|
|
|
628 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
56,280 |
|
|
|
59,176 |
|
|
|
81,064 |
|
|
|
71,655 |
|
|
|
62,446 |
|
Average daily production (MMcfe/d)
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
Per Mcfe:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized sales price(1)
|
|
$ |
5.81 |
|
|
|
5.48 |
|
|
|
5.59 |
|
|
|
4.77 |
|
|
|
3.67 |
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
|
1.06 |
|
|
|
0.99 |
|
|
|
0.64 |
|
|
|
0.83 |
|
Transportation
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
Production taxes
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes effects of hedging. |
140
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE FOREST GULF OF MEXICO
OPERATIONS
Overview
The accompanying historical statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses are presented using accrual basis, full cost
accounting and relate to Forests interests in certain
producing oil and gas properties located offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico. These historical statements may not be representative of
future operations. The historical statements were prepared from
the historical accounting records of Forest. The historical
statements do not include Federal and state income taxes,
interest expenses, depletion, depreciation and amortization,
accretion, or general and administrative expenses. The
historical statements include oil and natural gas revenues and
direct lease operating and production expenses, including
transportation and production taxes, for all the periods
presented.
Complete financial statements, including a balance sheet, are
not presented. The Forest Gulf of Mexico operations were not
maintained as a separate business unit within Forest, and
assets, liabilities or indirect operating costs applicable to
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations were not segregated.
Accordingly, it was not practicable to identify all assets,
liabilities or indirect operating costs applicable to the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations.
Recent Developments
Hurricane Impact
Forests Gulf of Mexico operations were adversely affected
by one of the most active hurricane seasons in recorded history.
As of December 31, 2005, Forest had approximately 70
MMcfe/d of net production
shut-in relating to the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. Forest estimates that as of
January 25, 2006, approximately 51 MMcfe/d net remains shut
in. The majority of the production that remains
shut-in is due to
repairs necessary to platforms as well as
third-party processing
facilities and infrastructure. The timetable for restoring full
production is uncertain as it is dependent on repairs to
transportation and processing facilities that are owned by
others. Forest estimates that total production associated with
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations deferred for hurricanes
Katrina and Rita during the fourth quarter of 2005 was
approximately 9.3 Bcfe, while total production deferred in the
third and fourth quarters of 2005 was approximately 13.3 Bcfe.
Forest carries property and casualty insurance to insure against
property damages such as those caused by hurricanes. The
insurance has a $5 million deductible for each occurrence.
Forests estimated uninsured liability for the repair of
its facilities damaged by hurricanes in the third quarter of
2005 will be $10 million, the majority of which will be
incurred in the fourth quarter of 2005 as the related repairs
are made. Forests insurance does not insure against losses
or deferrals of production caused by shut-in production.
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 Highlights
Revenues in excess of direct operating expenses of
$264.9 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 were 2% higher than revenues in excess of direct operating
expenses of $258.7 million for the same period in 2004. The
period-over-period revenues in excess of direct operating
expenses were primarily driven by the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Sales volumes decreased 5% to 56.3 Bcfe in the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 from 59.2 Bcfe in 2004. |
|
|
|
Average realized prices increased 6% to $5.81 per Mcfe in
2005 from $5.48 per Mcfe in 2004. |
|
|
|
Higher realized prices partially offset by decreased sales
volumes resulted in oil and natural gas revenues increasing 1%
to $326.7 million in the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 from $324.4 million in the
corresponding period in 2004. |
|
|
|
Lease operating expense declined 4% from $1.06 per Mcfe for
2004 to $1.02 per Mcfe for 2005. |
141
Production from the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations for the
nine months ended September 30, 2005 averaged approximately
152 MMcf of natural gas per day and approximately
9,000 barrels of oil per day or total equivalents of
approximately 206 MMcfe per day. Natural gas production
comprised approximately 74% of the total production.
Historically, a majority of the production from the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations has been comprised of natural gas, and the
concentration of natural gas production is expected to continue.
As a result, the revenues, profitability and cash flows of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations will be more sensitive to
natural gas prices than to oil and condensate prices.
|
|
|
Oil and Gas Property Costs |
In the nine months ended September 30, 2005,
$104.7 million in capital expenditures were made with
respect to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, with 55% and
45% related to development activities and exploration
activities, respectively. The exploration activities consisted
of drilling and completion of new wells in the Brazos, South
Marsh Island, South Timbalier, Vermillion and West Cameron
fields. The development activities consisted of development
drilling and recompletions in the Eugene Island, South Timbalier
and West Cameron fields.
During 2004, $185.5 million in capital expenditures were
made with respect to the Forest Gulf of Mexico properties,
including $28.3 million in exploration activities,
$70.0 million in development activities, and
$87.2 million in acquisitions. The exploration activities
primarily were related to drilling and completion of new wells
in the High Island, Main Pass and Vermillion fields. The
development activities primarily were related to recompletions,
drilling and completion of development wells, as well as
installation of production facilities in the West Cameron field
and in the Eugene Island, High Island, Ship Shoal, South Marsh
Island and West Cameron fields. The $87.2 million in
acquisition costs related primarily to the offshore Gulf of
Mexico properties acquired in connection with Forests
acquisition of the Wiser Oil Company in June 2004 and the
acquisition of BPs interest in the Vermillion 14
field in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Estimated net proved reserves related to the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations have been maintained between approximately
330 Bcfe to 370 Bcfe from 2002 through 2004 primarily
through acquisition activities. During the same time period, a
total of 215 Bcfe was produced. Approximately 140 Bcfe
of estimated proved reserves were acquired from 2001 to 2004 and
were augmented by additions from exploration and development
activities of approximately 53 Bcfe during the same period.
As of December 31, 2004, estimated net proved reserves
related to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations were
approximately 340 Bcfe, with a PV10 of approximately
$1.2 billion and a standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows attributable to estimated proved reserves
of approximately $925.8 million. Please see The
Forest Gulf of Mexico OperationsEstimated Proved
Reserves for a definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of
PV10 to the standardized measure of discounted future net cash
flows. See The Forest Gulf of Mexico
OperationsEstimated Proved Reserves for more
information concerning the net reserve estimates for the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations.
|
|
|
Oil and Natural Gas Prices and Hedging Activities |
Prices for oil and natural gas can fluctuate widely, thereby
affecting the amount of cash flow generated from the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations which is available to cover operating costs
and capital expenditures, and the amount of oil and natural gas
that can be economically produced. Recently, oil and natural gas
prices have been at or near historical highs and very volatile
as a result of various factors, including weather, industrial
demand, war and political instability and uncertainty related to
the ability of the energy industry to provide supply to meet
future demand.
142
The revenues, profitability and future growth of the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations depend substantially on prevailing prices
for oil and gas and the ability to find, exploit and develop oil
and gas reserves that are economically recoverable while
controlling and reducing costs. A substantial or extended
decline in oil and natural gas prices or poor drilling results
could have a material adverse effect on the results of
operations and quantities of oil and natural gas reserves that
can economically be produced.
Hedging arrangements have been utilized from time to time to
reduce exposure to fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices.
Historically, the hedging strategy has involved entering into
commodity price swaps and costless collars with third parties.
Price swaps establish a fixed price and an index-related price
for the covered commodity. When the index-related price exceeds
the fixed price, the third party is paid the difference, and
when the fixed price exceeds the index-related prices, the third
party pays the difference. Costless collars establish fixed cap
(maximum) and floor (minimum) prices as well as an
index-related price for the covered commodity. When the
index-related price exceeds the fixed cap price, the third party
is paid the difference, and when the index-related price is less
than the fixed floor price, the third party pays the difference.
While hedging arrangements provide a more predictable cash flow,
they also limit the benefits of increased prices. As a result of
increased oil and natural gas prices throughout 2004 and 2005,
hedging losses totaling $57.1 million were incurred during
the year ended December 31, 2004 and $83.8 million
during the nine months ended September 30, 2005.
The following table sets forth information regarding the
commodity swap agreements that will be transferred to Forest
Energy Resources in the spin-off. The fair value of the
commodity swaps based on the futures prices quoted on
September 30, 2005 was a liability of approximately
$125.2 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (NYMEX HH) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average | |
|
|
Bbtu per | |
|
Hedged Price per | |
|
|
Day | |
|
MMBtu | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Fourth Quarter 2005
|
|
|
55.0 |
|
|
$ |
4.88 |
|
First Quarter 2006
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
6.15 |
|
Second Quarter 2006
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
6.15 |
|
Third Quarter 2006
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
6.15 |
|
Fourth Quarter 2006
|
|
|
40.0 |
|
|
|
6.15 |
|
Results of Operations
For certain information with respect to oil and natural gas
production, average sales price received and expenses per unit
of production related to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004 and
the three years ended December 31, 2004, see Selected
Consolidated Statements of Revenues and Direct Operating
Expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico Operations beginning
on page 140.
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 compared to Nine
Months Ended September 30, 2004 |
Net production during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 decreased approximately 5% to
56.3 Bcfe from 59.2 Bcfe in the same period of 2004.
The decrease in production volumes was primarily attributable to
approximately 6 Bcfe of production shut-in during the third
quarter of 2005 due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico
partially offset by offshore oil and gas properties purchased in
connection with Forests acquisition of Wiser in June of
2004 and deep shelf discoveries in 2004.
Oil and natural gas revenues increased 1% to
$326.7 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2005 from $324.4 million in the corresponding period of
2004. The increase in oil and natural gas revenues was due to a
6% increase in average sales price received per Mcfe from $5.48
in 2004 to $5.81 in 2005 partially offset by the 5% decrease in
production.
Hedging activities in the first nine months of 2005
decreased the average realized natural gas price received by
$1.13 per Mcf and revenues by $47.0 million, compared
with a decrease of $0.45 per Mcf and
143
revenues of $20.9 million for the same period in 2004. The
hedging activities with respect to crude oil during the first
nine months of 2005 decreased the average sales price received
by $19.95 per barrel and revenues by $36.8 million,
compared with a decrease of $6.61 per barrel and revenues
of $13.2 million for the same period in 2004.
Lease operating expenses (LOE) decreased 9%
from $63.0 million in the first nine months of 2004 to
$57.4 million in the first nine months of 2005. On a
per-Mcfe basis, LOE decreased 4% from $1.06 in 2004 to $1.02 in
2005. The reduced costs were primarily attributable to cost
control efforts implemented in the third quarter of 2004,
specifically focusing on helicopter, boat and crane charges, as
well as catering and paramedic charges.
Transportation expenses were $2.5 million or
$0.04 per Mcfe for the nine months ended September 30,
2005, compared to $1.4 million or $0.02 per Mcfe in
the first nine months of 2004. The increase in transportation
expenses in total and on a per unit of production basis is
attributable to a large discovery which had initial production
in June 2004 and had higher-than-average transportation costs.
In addition, beginning in 2005, equity gas production is being
used and transported to processing plants for the replacement of
plant thermal reduction in lieu of buying third party gas, as
had been done through 2004.
Production taxes were $1.9 million or $0.03 per
Mcfe for the nine months ended September 30, 2005, compared
to $1.2 million or $0.02 per Mcfe in the first quarter
of 2004. The increase was primarily attributable to the increase
in the average realized prices of oil and natural gas before
hedging losses.
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2003 |
Net production for 2004 increased approximately 13% to
81.1 Bcfe from 71.7 Bcfe in 2003, primarily due the
acquisition of additional offshore oil and gas properties in
late 2003 and during 2004, exploration of these properties and
deep shelf discoveries.
Oil and natural gas revenues increased 32% to
$453.1 million for 2004 from $342.0 million in 2003.
The increase in oil and natural gas revenues was due to a 17%
increase in average sales price received per Mcfe, from $4.77 in
2003 to $5.59 in 2004, and a 13% increase in production.
Hedging activities in 2004 decreased the average realized
natural gas price received by $0.56 per Mcf and revenues by
$34.6 million, compared with a decrease of $0.63 per
Mcf and revenues of $36.8 million for 2003. The hedging
activities with respect to crude oil during 2004 decreased the
average sales price received by $8.55 per barrel and
revenues by $22.4 million, compared with a decrease of
$1.90 per barrel and revenues of $4.1 million for 2003.
Lease operating expenses were $80.1 million in 2004
and $45.7 million in 2003. On a per-Mcfe basis, LOE
increased 55% from $0.64 in 2003 to $0.99 in 2004. The increase
was primarily attributable to properties purchased in late 2003
and during 2004. These properties had higher initial LOE due
primarily to deferred maintenance of the properties at the time
of acquisition.
Transportation expenses were $2.2 million or
$0.03 per Mcfe for 2004, compared to $2.7 million or
$0.04 per Mcfe in 2003.
Production taxes were comparable at $1.5 million or
$0.02 per Mcfe for 2004 and $1.5 million or
$0.02 per Mcfe in 2003, despite higher average realized oil
and natural gas prices on a per Mcfe basis, due to a change in
the mix of offshore production subject to production taxes.
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2002 |
Net production for 2003 increased approximately 15% to
71.7 Bcfe from 62.4 Bcfe for 2002, primarily due the
acquisition of offshore oil and gas properties in late 2003.
144
Oil and natural gas revenues increased 49% to
$342.0 million for 2003 from $228.9 million in 2002.
The increase in oil and natural gas revenues was due to a 30%
increase in average sales price received per Mcfe from $3.67 in
2002 to $4.77 in 2003, and a 15% increase in production.
Hedging activities in 2003 decreased the average realized
natural gas price received by $0.63 per Mcf and revenues by
$36.8 million, compared with an increase of $0.17 per Mcf
and revenues of $8.4 million for the same period in 2002.
The hedging activities with respect to crude oil during 2003
decreased the average sales price received by $1.90 per barrel
and revenues by $4.1 million. There was no hedge activity
with respect to crude oil during 2002.
Lease operating expenses were $45.7 million in 2003
and $52.1 million in 2002. On a per-Mcfe basis, LOE
decreased 23%, from $0.83 in 2002 to $0.64 in 2003. The reduced
costs were primarily attributable to less workover costs and
hurricane repairs in 2003 compared to 2002.
Transportation expenses were $2.7 million or
$0.04 per Mcfe for 2003, compared to $3.9 million or
$0.06 per Mcfe in 2002. The change is primarily due to
improvements in marketing arrangements and cost control.
Production taxes were $1.5 million and
$0.9 million for 2003 and 2002, respectively. Production
taxes were $0.02 per Mcfe for each period.
Capital Expenditures
Expenditures for property acquisitions, exploration, and
development related to the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Property acquisitions
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
|
85,546 |
|
|
|
87,165 |
|
|
|
168,485 |
|
|
|
3,263 |
|
Exploration
|
|
|
47,418 |
|
|
|
23,261 |
|
|
|
28,331 |
|
|
|
39,683 |
|
|
|
17,503 |
|
Development
|
|
|
57,248 |
|
|
|
57,145 |
|
|
|
70,027 |
|
|
|
74,690 |
|
|
|
70,833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Expenditures
|
|
$ |
104,691 |
|
|
|
165,952 |
|
|
|
185,523 |
|
|
|
282,858 |
|
|
|
91,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
145
THE FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
As of December 1, 2005, Forest has transferred and
contributed the assets and certain liabilities associated with
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations to Forest Energy Resources.
The following discussion describes the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations that Forest has contributed to Forest Energy
Resources, and does not reflect Mariners business
integration plans after the merger.
As of December 31, 2004, the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations included estimated proved reserves of
339.7 Bcfe, of which approximately 79% were natural gas and
21% were oil and condensate. Approximately 76% of these
estimated proved reserves were classified as proved developed as
of December 31, 2004. For the year ended December 31,
2004, the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations had total net
production of 81.1 Bcfe, or an average of 221 MMcfe
per day. During 2004, capital expenditures for exploration and
development and property acquisitions associated with the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations totaled $185.5 million.
The following discussion includes statements that may be deemed
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See
Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking
Statements for more details. Also, the discussion uses
terms that pertain to the oil and gas industry, and you should
see Glossary of Oil and Natural Gas Terms for the
definition of certain terms.
Significant Properties
The oil and gas properties, including producing and
non-producing properties, that are included in the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations are located primarily in federal waters.
Based on the present value of estimated future net proved
reserves as of December 31, 2004, the largest offshore Gulf
of Mexico properties include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water | |
|
Gross | |
|
Date Production | |
|
Estimated | |
|
PV10 Value | |
|
Standardized | |
|
|
|
|
Working | |
|
Depth | |
|
Producing | |
|
Commenced/ | |
|
Proved Reserves | |
|
(In $ | |
|
Measure | |
|
|
Operator | |
|
Interest | |
|
(Feet) | |
|
Wells(a) | |
|
Expected | |
|
(Bcfe)(b) | |
|
Millions)(b) | |
|
(In $ Millions) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Cameron 14
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1969 |
|
|
|
17.2 |
|
|
$ |
81.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Island 273
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
77.7 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1970 |
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
27.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Island 292
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
45.0 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1970 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
39.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eugene Island 53
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
50.0 |
(c) |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
1964 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
68.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Island 116
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
98.9 |
(d) |
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1986 |
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
|
|
44.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Island 195
|
|
|
Apache |
|
|
|
23.5 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
1989 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
20.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Pass 166
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ship Shoal 26
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1969 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
24.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Marsh Isl 149
|
|
|
Unocal |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1979 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
31.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Marsh Isl 18
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
|
|
32.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Pass 24NCOC
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
1957 |
|
|
|
22.8 |
|
|
|
73.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Timbalier 72
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
(e) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1963 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
|
|
39.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vermilion 14
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1959 |
|
|
|
35.4 |
|
|
|
129.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vermilion 380
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1982 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
40.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Cameron 110
|
|
|
BP/Amoco |
|
|
|
37.5 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1958 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
36.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Cameron 112
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
55% |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
22.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
West Cameron 205
|
|
|
FOC |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1982 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146.1 |
|
|
|
392.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Breaks 420
|
|
|
Samedan |
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
2,560 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
16.2 |
|
|
|
67.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
974 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
339.7 |
|
|
$ |
1,222.2 |
|
|
$ |
925.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146
|
|
(a) |
Wells producing or capable of producing as of December 31,
2004. |
|
(b) |
As of December 31, 2004. Please see The Forest Gulf of
Mexico OperationsEstimated Proved Reserves for a
definition of PV10 and a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows. |
|
(c) |
Forest operates the field and owns working interests in
individual wells ranging from approximately 50% to 100%. |
|
(d) |
Forest operates the field and owns working interests in
individual wells ranging from approximately 98.9% to 100%. |
|
(e) |
Forest operates the field and owns working interests in
individual wells ranging from approximately 37.5% to 100%. |
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Shelf Properties |
East Cameron 14. Forest acquired a 50% working interest
in this property through Forests acquisition of Forcenergy
Inc in 2000. This property is located in approximately
25 feet of water, approximately 30 miles southeast of
Cameron, Louisiana.
Eugene Island 273. This is a legacy Forest property
installed in 1970 in approximately 175 feet of water,
approximately 142 miles southeast of Cameron, Louisiana.
Forest owns a 77.7% working interest in this field.
Redevelopment of this property occurred in 2004 with the
installation of a new platform.
Eugene Island 292. This is a legacy Forest property
installed in 1967, with first production commencing in 1970.
Forest owns a 45% working interest in this field. The property
consists of a hub for the complex including six platforms. The
property is located in approximately 195 feet of water,
approximately 140 miles southeast of Cameron, Louisiana.
Eugene Island 53. Forest acquired the shallow rights to
this property in 1993 from Sandefer Offshore Operating.
Subsequently, Forest acquired the deep rights from Pennzoil in
1995 and 1997. Forest owns between 50% and 100% working
interests in various wells in the field. The property is located
in approximately 40 feet of water, approximately
111 miles southeast of Cameron, Louisiana.
High Island 116. Forest acquired this property in 1993
from Arco. Forest farmed out a prospect to Zilkha Energy in
1996, subsequently acquiring 44% of Zilkhas working
interest and participating in the drilling of the discovery well
in deeper horizons as a 44% working interest owner. In 2000
Forest purchased the remaining working interests in this
property and now owns a 100% working interest. The property is
located in approximately 45 feet of water, approximately
49 miles southwest of Cameron, Louisiana.
High Island 195. Forest acquired its 23.5% working
interest in this property, operated by Apache, through its
acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. The property is located
in approximately 50 feet of water, approximately
66 miles southwest of Cameron, Louisiana.
Main Pass 166. Forest acquired this property in an Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Sale in 2004. The property was acquired
to drill a well to exploit bypassed pay in the 2,800-foot and
3,600-foot sands. Forest owns a 100% working in this property,
which is located approximately 96 miles southeast of New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Ship Shoal 26. Forest acquired this property through its
acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest owns a 100%
working interest in the property. The property is located in
approximately 10 feet of water, approximately 97 miles
southwest of New Orleans, Louisiana.
South Marsh Island 149. Forest acquired this property
through its acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest
subsequently sold a 50% working interest in the property to
Unocal in 2001. This property is located in approximately
150 feet of water, approximately 130 miles southeast
of Cameron, Louisiana.
South Marsh Island 18. Forest acquired this property
through its acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest
subsequently sold a 50% working interest in the property to
Unocal in 2001. As part of an
147
acquisition of properties from Union Oil of California (Unocal)
in 2003, Forest repurchased Unocals 50% working interest,
and Forest currently holds a 100% working interest. The
property is located in approximately 75 feet of water,
approximately 101 miles southeast of Cameron, Louisiana.
South Pass 24 NCOC. Forest acquired this property through
its acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest acquired the
remaining working interest (approximately 25%) from Pogo in
2004. The property is located approximately 82 miles south
of New Orleans, Louisiana in approximately 10 feet of water.
South Timbalier 72. Forest acquired this property through
its acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Redevelopment
occurred in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Forest operates the property
and owns working interests in individual wells ranging from 75%
to 100%. The property is located in approximately 65 feet
of water, approximately 100 miles southwest of New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Vermillion 14. Forest acquired a 50% working interest in
this property from Unocal in 2003. In 2004, Forest acquired
BPs 50% working interest and now owns a 100% working
interest. The property is located in approximately 20 feet
of water, approximately 63 miles southeast of New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Vermillion 380. Forest acquired this property through its
acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest subsequently sold
a 50% working interest to Unocal in 2001. As part of the Unocal
acquisition in 2003, Forest repurchased Unocals 50%
working interest. Forest operates the property and owns working
interests in the individual wells ranging from approximately 55%
to 100%. The property is located in approximately 320 of water,
approximately 135 miles southeast of Cameron, Louisiana.
West Cameron 110. Forest acquired a 37.5% working
interest in this property through its acquisition of Forcenergy
Inc in 2000. BP operates the property. The property is located
in approximately 320 feet of water, approximately
21 miles south of Cameron, Louisiana.
West Cameron 112. Forest acquired this property through
the acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest initially held
a 100% working interest in the property and sold a portion of
its working interest in 2003 and, as a result, Forest owns a 55%
working interest. The property is located in approximately
40 feet of water, approximately 45 miles southeast of
Cameron, Louisiana.
West Cameron 205. Forest acquired this property through
its acquisition of Forcenergy Inc in 2000. Forest owns a 100%
working interest in the property, which is located in
approximately 50 feet of water, approximately 36 miles
south of Cameron, Louisiana.
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Property |
East Breaks 420. Forest leased three blocks located on
this property in 1996, and an additional block in 1998. Forest
subsequently sold a 50% working interest to Noble. The property
is located in approximately 2,560 feet of water,
approximately 174 miles southwest of Cameron, Louisiana.
Estimated Proved Reserves
The following tables set forth certain information with respect
to the estimated proved reserves attributable to the Forest Gulf
of Mexico operations as of December 31, 2004. Reserve
volumes and values were estimated using the method prescribed by
the SEC which requires the application of period-end prices and
costs held constant throughout the projected reserve life. The
reserve information as of December 31, 2004 is based on
reserve estimates prepared by the internal staff of engineers at
Forest. A substantial portion of Forests reserves are
audited by independent petroleum engineers engaged by Forest.
These reserve audits are conducted in accordance with
Forests reserve audit procedures that require the
independent reserve engineers to prepare their own independent
estimates of proved reserves for fields comprising at least 80%
of Forests year-end PV10 value of the fields, and a
minimum of 80% of the PV10 value of the reserves added during
the year through discoveries, extensions, and acquisitions.
Forest may also include fields that fall outside of the top 80%
of the PV10 value that represent material volumes of proved
reserves, have experienced material revisions to prior estimates
of proved reserve volumes or value,
148
or have experienced changes as a result of new operational
activity. Forests procedures prohibit exclusions of any
fields, or any part of a field, that comprises part of the top
80% of the PV10 value. The independent reserve engineers then
compare their estimates to those prepared by Forest. The
independent reserve audits prepared for Forest are not financial
audits and are not performed in accordance with the established
generally accepted financial audit procedures. Instead, a
reserve audit is conducted based on rules and regulations,
reserve definitions and costs, and price parameters specified by
the SEC.
For the year-end 2004, Forest engaged two independent petroleum
engineering firms to perform reserve audit services for the
properties included in the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Ryder Scott Company and DeGolyer and MacNaughton audited the
estimates of reserves attributable to properties included in the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. When compared on a
field-by-field basis, some of Forests estimates of net
proved reserves are greater and some are less than the estimates
prepared by Forests independent petroleum engineers.
However, there was no material difference, in the aggregate,
between Forests internal estimates of total net proved
reserves and the estimates prepared by the independent petroleum
engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Proved | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve Quantities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural | |
|
|
|
PV10 Value(3) | |
|
|
|
|
Oil | |
|
Gas | |
|
Total | |
|
| |
|
Standardized | |
Geographic Area |
|
(MMbbls) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
(Bcfe) | |
|
Developed | |
|
Undeveloped | |
|
Total | |
|
Measure | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(millions) | |
|
(millions) | |
Gulf of Mexico Shelf(1)
|
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
253.6 |
|
|
|
323.5 |
|
|
$ |
907.8 |
|
|
$ |
246.6 |
|
|
$ |
1,154.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.2 |
|
|
|
16.2 |
|
|
|
67.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
11.7 |
|
|
|
269.8 |
|
|
|
339.7 |
|
|
$ |
975.6 |
|
|
$ |
246.6 |
|
|
$ |
1,222.2 |
|
|
$ |
925.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved Developed Reserves
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
201.8 |
|
|
|
258.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Shelf refers to water depths less than 1,300 feet. |
|
(2) |
Deepwater refers to water depths greater than 1,300 feet
(the approximate depth of deepwater designated for royalty
purposes by the U.S. Minerals Management Service). |
|
(3) |
Please see below for a definition of PV10 and a reconciliation
of PV10 to the standardized measure of discounted future net
cash flows. |
Uncertainties are inherent in estimating quantities of proved
reserves, including many factors beyond the control of Forest.
Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating
subsurface accumulations of oil and gas that cannot be measured
in an exact manner, and the accuracy of any reserve estimate is
a function of the quality of available data and the
interpretation thereof. As a result, estimates by different
engineers often vary, sometimes significantly. In addition,
physical factors such as the results of drilling, testing, and
production subsequent to the date of an estimate, as well as
economic factors such as change in product prices, may require
revision of such estimates. Accordingly, oil and gas quantities
ultimately recovered will vary from reserve estimates.
PV10 is an estimated present value of future net revenues from
proved reserves before income taxes. PV10 may be considered a
non-GAAP financial measure under SEC regulations because it does
not include the effects of future income taxes, as is required
in computing the standardized measure of discounted future net
cash flows. Forest and Forest Energy Resources believe PV10 to
be an important measure for evaluating the relative significance
of the natural gas and oil properties included in the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations and that PV10 is widely used by
professional analysts and investors in evaluating oil and gas
companies. Because many factors that are unique to each
individual company impact the amount of future income taxes to
be paid, the use of a pre-tax measure provides greater
comparability of assets when evaluating companies. Forest and
Forest Energy Resources believe that most other companies in the
oil and gas industry calculate PV10 on the same basis. The
management of Forest and Forest Energy Resources also use PV10
in evaluating acquisition candidates.
149
PV10 is computed on the same basis as the standardized measure
of discounted future net cash flows but without deducting income
taxes. The table below provides a reconciliation of PV10 to the
standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(millions) | |
PV10
|
|
$ |
1,222.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,217.2 |
|
|
$ |
828.1 |
|
Future income taxes, discounted at 10%
|
|
|
296.4 |
|
|
|
267.8 |
|
|
|
180.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
925.8 |
|
|
$ |
949.4 |
|
|
$ |
648.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing oil and natural gas reservoirs generally are
characterized by declining production rates that vary depending
upon reservoir characteristics and other factors. Therefore,
without reserve additions in excess of production through
successful exploration and development activities or
acquisitions, the reserves and production of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations will decline. See Risk Factors for
a discussion of the risks inherent in oil and natural gas
estimates and for certain additional information concerning the
proved reserves.
The weighted average prices of oil and natural gas at
December 31, 2004 used in the proved reserve and future net
revenues estimates above were calculated using NYMEX prices at
December 31, 2004, of $43.45 per bbl of oil and
$6.15 per MMBtu of gas, adjusted for price differentials
but excluding the effects of hedging.
Production
The following table presents certain information with respect to
net oil and natural gas production attributable to the
properties included in the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations,
average sales price received and expenses per unit of production
during the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (Bcf)
|
|
|
41.4 |
|
|
|
61.7 |
|
|
|
58.8 |
|
|
|
50.6 |
|
|
Oil (MMbbls)
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
Natural gas liquids (MMbbls)
|
|
|
.6 |
|
|
|
.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total natural gas equivalent (Bcfe)
|
|
|
56.3 |
|
|
|
81.1 |
|
|
|
71.7 |
|
|
|
62.4 |
|
Average realized sales price per unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
7.14 |
|
|
$ |
6.30 |
|
|
$ |
5.41 |
|
|
$ |
3.39 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(1.13 |
) |
|
|
(0.56 |
) |
|
|
(0.63 |
) |
|
|
0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
|
6.01 |
|
|
|
5.74 |
|
|
|
4.78 |
|
|
|
3.56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil ($/bbl):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
51.97 |
|
|
$ |
40.06 |
|
|
$ |
30.19 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
Effects of hedging
|
|
|
(19.95 |
) |
|
|
(8.55 |
) |
|
|
(1.90 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales price received
|
|
|
32.02 |
|
|
|
31.51 |
|
|
|
28.29 |
|
|
|
24.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas liquids ($/bbl)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales price received
|
|
$ |
29.54 |
|
|
$ |
27.28 |
|
|
$ |
19.00 |
|
|
$ |
12.33 |
|
Average realized sales price per Mcfe (including effects of
hedging) ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
5.81 |
|
|
$ |
5.59 |
|
|
$ |
4.77 |
|
|
$ |
3.67 |
|
150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses ($/Mcfe):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating
|
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
$ |
0.99 |
|
|
$ |
0.64 |
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
Production taxes
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
|
|
0.02 |
|
Productive Wells
The following table shows the number of productive oil and gas
wells included in the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations in which
Forest Energy Resources will own a working interest, as of
December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
Productive | |
|
|
Wells at | |
|
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Oil
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
Gas
|
|
|
636 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
974 |
|
|
|
529 |
|
Acreage
The following table shows the developed and undeveloped acreage
included in the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations as of
December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed Acres(1) | |
|
Undeveloped Acres(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Location |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gulf of Mexico Shelf(3)
|
|
|
906,448 |
|
|
|
402,094 |
|
|
|
341,976 |
|
|
|
215,675 |
|
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater(4)
|
|
|
11,520 |
|
|
|
5,760 |
|
|
|
46,080 |
|
|
|
40,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
917,968 |
|
|
|
407,854 |
|
|
|
388,056 |
|
|
|
255,995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Developed acres are acres spaced or assigned to productive wells. |
|
(2) |
Undeveloped acres are acres on which wells have not been drilled
or completed to a point that would permit the production of
commercial quantities of oil and natural gas regardless of
whether such acreage contains proved reserves. |
|
(3) |
Shelf refers to water depths less than 1,300 feet. |
|
(4) |
Deepwater refers to water depths greater than 1,300 feet
(the approximate depth of deepwater designated for royalty
purposes by the U.S. Minerals Management Service). |
At December 31, 2004, approximately 24%, 30%, and 4.4% of
the net undeveloped acreage included in the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations was subject to leases that have terms that
expired in 2005 and will expire in 2006 and 2007, respectively,
if not extended by exploration or production activities. All of
the properties that are subject to expiration terms that have
not been extended by exploration or production activities are
located in the Gulf of Mexico shelf.
151
Drilling Activity
The following table summarizes the drilling activity performed
on the oil and gas properties included in the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations during the years ended December 31, 2002,
2003, and 2004, excluding wells in which Forest Energy Resources
will not have a working interest. As of December 31, 2004,
there were no wells in progress involving the Forest Gulf of
Mexico operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
Net | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Exploratory wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
6.15 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
2.92 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.72 |
|
|
Dry holes
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.62 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
2.00 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
0.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
|
|
8.77 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.92 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
1.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.37 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.20 |
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
7.30 |
|
|
Dry holes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.50 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.37 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
4.70 |
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
|
|
7.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total wells:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
10.52 |
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
7.12 |
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
|
|
8.02 |
|
|
Dry holes
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.62 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
2.50 |
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
0.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
13.14 |
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
9.62 |
|
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
8.87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title to Properties
A portion of the oil and natural gas properties included in the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations are subject to liens securing
Forests credit facility. As a condition to the merger,
these liens will be released. In addition, Forest Energy
Resources title to these oil and gas properties will be
subject to customary royalty, overriding royalty, carried, net
profits, working and similar interests and liens incident to
operating agreements and customary in the oil and gas industry.
These properties may also be subject to liens for current taxes
not yet due and other typical burdens and encumbrances. Forest
does not believe that any of the burdens or encumbrances
unrelated to Forests credit facility materially interfere
with the use of such properties.
With respect to the oil and gas properties included in the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, Forests general practice
has been to conduct a title examination on all material property
acquisitions. Further, prior to commencing drilling operations,
title examination and, if necessary, curative work is performed.
Forest believes that title issues generally are not as likely to
arise on offshore oil and gas properties as on onshore
properties, and that the methods of title examination utilized
in connection with the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations are
reasonable and are designed to insure that production from these
operations and properties, if obtained, will be salable for
Forest Energy Resources account.
Employees
As of February 1, 2006, approximately 120 employees
currently work directly with the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. These employees are not currently represented by any
labor unions.
Offices
The business activities of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
are conducted out of offices located in Denver, Colorado and
Lafayette and Metairie, Louisiana. Forest believes that these
facilities are adequate for these operations as currently
conducted.
152
Legal Proceedings
Forest Energy Resources currently is not a party, claimant
and/or a defendant in any pending legal proceedings.
In August and September 2005, Forest incurred damage from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that affected certain properties and
facilities included in the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations.
Hurricane Katrina did not cause significant damage to the assets
of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations, although it resulted in
shut-in production that has not fully recommenced, primarily as
a result of damage to third-party pipeline and plants in South
Louisiana. Hurricane Rita damaged third-party pipeline and gas
processing plants offshore and in Louisiana and damaged a number
of Forests offshore platforms, thereby resulting in
shut-in production for the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. The
shut-in production has not fully recommenced and Forest
continues to assess the damage. Until it is able to complete all
investigations and the repair work and submit the costs to
Forests insurance underwriters for review, Forest will not
be able to identify the net losses and costs of the two
hurricanes, but Forest currently estimates damages of
approximately $50 million net to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations. Forest carries property and casualty insurance with
a $5 million deductible for each occurrence, which would
indicate that approximately $40 million of the
approximately $50 million in estimated damages would be
reimbursed through insurance. Forest does not have insurance for
losses in revenue caused by shut-in production.
For more information on the marketing and customers,
competition, and environmental and other regulatory matters
which would impact the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations
following the merger, see BusinessMarketing and
Customers, BusinessCompetition,
BusinessRegulation and
BusinessEnvironmental Regulations.
153
FOREST OIL CORPORATION
Forest is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development and production of natural
gas and liquids in North America and selected international
locations. Forest was incorporated in New York in 1924, as the
successor to a company formed in 1916, and has been a publicly
held company since 1969. Forest operates from offices located in
Denver, Colorado; Lafayette and Metairie, Louisiana; Anchorage,
Alaska; and Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Following the spin-off and merger of the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations, Forest will be a long-lived onshore resource
company. Forest believes the onshore resource company resulting
from the spin-off and merger will provide for enhanced strategic
clarity and management focus. In order to achieve its objectives
as an onshore focused resource company, Forest intends to
continue to pursue a modified four-point strategy that calls for
continued growth through operations, pursuit of acquisition
opportunities, reduced costs, and preserving financial
flexibility. Forest expects to continue to conduct its
operations through five business units, including the Western
Business Unit, the Alaska Business Unit, a new Southern Business
Unit that will conduct operations onshore in Louisiana and South
Texas, the Canadian Business Unit and the International Business
Unit.
154
MANAGEMENT OF MARINER
Directors and Executive Officers
The board of directors of Mariner following the merger will be
composed initially of seven directors, five of whom will be the
current directors of Mariner and two of whom will be mutually
agreed by Mariner and Forest prior to the completion of the
merger.
The following table sets forth the names, ages (as of
February 1, 2006) and titles of the individuals who would
be the directors and executive officers of Mariner following the
effective time of the merger, other than the two additional
directors to be mutually agreed by Mariner and Forest prior to
the completion of the merger. All directors are elected for
terms in accordance with their class, as described in
Board of Directors below. All executive
officers hold office until their successors are elected and
qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age | |
|
Position with Company |
|
|
| |
|
|
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Chief Operating Officer |
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
Jesus G. Melendrez
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
Vice President Corporate Development |
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Vice President and Chief Exploration Officer |
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
Judd A. Hansen
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Vice President Shelf and Onshore |
Cory L. Loegering
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Vice President Deepwater |
Bernard Aronson
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
Director |
Jonathan Ginns
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
Director |
John F. Greene
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
Director |
John L. Schwager
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Director |
Scott D. Josey Mr. Josey has served as
Chairman of the Board since August 2001. Mr. Josey was
appointed Chief Executive Officer in October 2002 and President
in February 2005. From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Josey served as
Vice President of Enron North America Corp. and
co-managed its Energy
Capital Resources group. From 1995 to 2000, Mr. Josey
provided investment banking services to the oil and gas industry
and portfolio management services. From 1993 to 1995,
Mr. Josey was a Director with Enron Capital &
Trade Resources Corp. in its energy investment group. From 1982
to 1993, Mr. Josey worked in all phases of drilling,
production, pipeline, corporate planning and commercial
activities at Texas Oil and Gas Corp. Mr. Josey is a member
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the Independent
Producers Association of America.
Dalton F. Polasek Mr. Polasek was appointed
Chief Operating Officer in February 2005. From April 2004 to
February 2005, Mr. Polasek served as Executive Vice
PresidentOperations and Exploration. From February 2001 to
October 2001, Mr. Polasek was self-employed. From October
2001 to April 2004, Mr. Polasek served as Senior Vice
PresidentOperations. Prior to joining Mariner,
Mr. Polasek served as: Vice President of Gulf Coast
Engineering for Basin Exploration, Inc. from 1996 until February
2001; Vice President of Engineering for SMR Energy from 1994 to
1996; director of Gulf Coast Acquisitions and Engineering for
General Atlantic Resources, Inc. from 1991 to 1994; and manager
of planning and business development for Mark Producing Company
from 1983 to 1991. He began his career in 1975 as a reservoir
engineer for Amoco Production Company. Mr. Polasek is a
Registered Professional Engineer in Texas and a member of the
Independent Producers Association of America, the American
Association of Drilling Engineers and the American Petroleum
Institute.
155
Rick G. Lester Mr. Lester joined Mariner as
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in October
2004. From January 2004 to October 2004, Mr. Lester was
self-employed as a consultant. From 1998 to 2003,
Mr. Lester was the Executive Vice President, CFO and
Treasurer of Contour Energy Company (which filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in July 2002 and emerged
from bankruptcy in December 2002). From 1991 to 1998,
Mr. Lester held the positions of Vice President, CFO and
Treasurer for Domain Energy Corporation and its Tenneco Ventures
predecessor. Prior to 1991, he held various positions with
Tenneco, Inc. and Tenneco Exploration and Production including
Corporate Finance Manager, International Tax Manager and
Business Division Accounting Manager. Mr. Lester has over
30 years of industry experience and is a Certified Public
Accountant.
Jesus G. Melendrez Mr. Melendrez has served as
Vice President Corporate Development since July 2003.
Mr. Melendrez also served as a director of Mariner from
April 2000 to July 2003. From February 2000 until July 2003,
Mr. Melendrez was a Vice President of Enron North America
Corp. in the Energy Capital Resources group where he managed the
groups portfolio of oil and gas investments. He was a
Senior Vice President of Trading and Structured Finance with TXU
Energy Services from 1997 to 2000, and from 1992 to 1997,
Mr. Melendrez was employed by Enron in various commercial
positions in the areas of domestic oil and gas financing and
international project development. From 1980 to 1992,
Mr. Melendrez was employed by Exxon in various reservoir
engineering and planning positions.
Mike C. van den Bold Mr. van den Bold was appointed
Vice President and Chief Exploration Officer in April 2004. From
October 2001 to April 2004, he served as Vice President
Exploration. Mr. van den Bold joined Mariner in July 2000
as Senior Development Geologist. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. van
den Bold worked for British-Borneo Oil & Gas plc. He
began his career at British Petroleum. Mr. van den Bold has
over 17 years of industry experience. He is a Certified
Petroleum Geologist, Texas Board Certified Geologist and member
of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Teresa G. Bushman Ms. Bushman joined Mariner
as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in June 2003.
From 1996 until joining Mariner in 2003, Ms. Bushman was
employed by Enron North America Corp., most recently as
Assistant General Counsel representing the Energy Capital
Resources group, which provided debt and equity financing to the
oil and gas industry. Prior to joining Enron, Ms. Bushman
was a partner with Jackson Walker, LLP, in Houston.
Judd A. Hansen Mr. Hansen has served as Vice
President Shelf and Onshore since February 2002. From
October 2001 to February 2002, Mr. Hansen was self-employed
as a consultant. From 1997 until March 2001, Mr. Hansen was
employed as Operations Manager of the Gulf Coast Division for
Basin Exploration, Inc. From 1991 to 1997, he was employed in
various engineering positions at Greenhill Petroleum
Corporation, including Senior Production Engineer and Workover/
Completion Superintendent. Mr. Hansen started his career
with Shell Oil Company in 1978 and has 27 years of
experience in conducting operations in the oil and gas industry.
Cory L. Loegering Mr. Loegering has served as
Vice President Deepwater since August 2002.
Mr. Loegering joined Mariner in July 1990 and since 1998
has held various positions including Vice President of Petroleum
Engineering and Director of Deepwater development.
Mr. Loegering was employed by Tenneco from 1982 to 1989, in
various positions including as senior engineer in the economic,
planning and analysis group in Tennecos corporate offices.
Mr. Loegering began his career with Conoco in 1977 and held
positions in the construction, production and reservoir
departments responsible for Gulf of Mexico production and
development. Mr. Loegering has 29 years of experience in the
industry.
Bernard Aronson Mr. Aronson was elected as a
director in March 2004. He is a founding partner of ACON
Investments, a private equity fund. Prior to founding ACON
Investments in 1996, Mr. Aronson was International Advisor
to Goldman Sachs & Co. for Latin America from 1994 to
1996. From 1989 through 1993, Mr. Aronson served as
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. He is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the
Presidents Advisory Commission on Trade Promotions and
Negotiations. Mr. Aronson currently serves on the boards of
directors of Liz Claiborne, Inc., Royal Caribbean International
Inc., Tropigas S.A. and Hyatt International Corp.
156
Jonathan Ginns Mr. Ginns was elected as a
director in March 2004. He is a founding partner of ACON
Investments. Prior to founding ACON Investments, a private
equity fund, in 1996, Mr. Ginns served as a Senior
Investment Officer for the Global Environment-Emerging Markets
Fund, part of the GEF Funds group, from 1994 to 1995.
Mr. Ginns currently serves on the boards of directors of
The Optimal Group, Signal International, Tropigas S.A. and The
Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation.
John F. Greene Mr. Greene was elected as a
director in August 2005. He served as Executive Vice President
of Worldwide Exploration, Production and Natural Gas Marketing
at Louisiana Land & Exploration Company before his
retirement in 1995. Prior to joining Louisiana Land &
Exploration Company, Mr. Greene was the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Milestone Petroleum, Inc. (today,
Burlington Resources, Inc.) from 1981 to 1985. Mr. Greene
served on the board of directors of Colorado-Wyoming Reserves
Company from 1998 through 2004 and as a director and member of
the compensation committee of Basin Exploration, Inc. from 1996
through 2001. Mr. Greene began his career at Conoco and
served in the United States Navy from 1963 until 1986. He is
currently a partner and director of The Shoreline Company and
Leaf River Resources.
John L. Schwager Mr. Schwager was elected as a
director in August 2005. Prior to his retirement in 2004,
Mr. Schwager served as Chief Executive Officer and
President of Belden & Blake Corporation. Before joining
Belden & Blake Corporation in 1999, Mr. Schwager
was the founder and served as President of AnnaCarol
Enterprises, Inc., a consulting firm that provided planning,
advisory, evaluation and management services to the energy
industry. From 1984 until 1997 he served in several management
roles, including President and Chief Executive Officer at
Alamco, Inc. From 1970 through 1984, Mr. Schwager held
various engineering, operations, management and executive
officer positions with Callon Petroleum Company and Shell Oil
Company.
Messrs. Aronson and Ginns, both of whom served on the board
of managers of our former sole stockholder, MEI Acquisitions
Holdings, LLC, were elected to the board in connection with the
merger in March 2004 with our former sole stockholder, MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC. As of February 1, 2006, MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC is the record holder of approximately
5.3% of the outstanding common stock and ACON Investments is the
beneficial owner of an additional 4.3% of the outstanding common
stock. Until February 2006, Messrs. Aronson and Ginns were
managers of ACON E&P. Messrs. Aronson and Ginns are
managing members of ACON Investments LLC. With respect to
transactions between us and MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC and
ACON E&P, please see Certain Transactions with
Affiliates and Management of Mariner.
Board of Directors
Under the terms of the merger agreement, the board of directors
of Mariner after completion of the merger will be composed
initially of seven individuals, five of whom will be the current
directors of Mariner and two of whom will be mutually agreed
upon by Mariner and Forest prior to the completion of the merger.
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide for a
classified board of directors consisting of three classes of
directors, each serving staggered three-year terms. As a result,
stockholders will elect a portion of our board of directors each
year. The Class I directors term will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders scheduled to occur on Thursday,
March 2, 2006, Class II directors terms will
expire at the annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2007
and Class III directors terms will expire at the
annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2008. Currently,
the Class I director is Mr. Aronson, the Class II
directors are Messrs. Greene and Schwager, and the
Class III directors are Messrs. Ginns and Josey.
Pursuant to provisions in our certificate of incorporation
regarding vacancies on the board of directors, Messrs. Greene
and Schwager (in addition to Mr. Aronson, as the
Class I director) must stand for reelection at the annual
stockholders meeting scheduled to occur on Thursday,
March 2, 2006. At each annual meeting of stockholders held
after the initial classification, the successors to directors
whose terms will then expire will be elected to serve from the
time of election until the third annual meeting following
election. The division of our board of directors into three
classes with staggered terms may delay
157
or prevent a change of our management or a change in control.
See Description of Capital Stock Anti-Takeover
Effects of Provisions of Delaware Law, Our Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws Amendments to our Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws.
In addition, our bylaws provide that the authorized number of
directors, which shall constitute the whole board of directors,
may be changed by resolution duly adopted by the board of
directors. Any additional directorships resulting from an
increase in the number of directors will be distributed among
the three classes so that, as nearly as possible, each class
will consist of one-third of the total number of directors.
Vacancies and newly created directorships may be filled by the
affirmative vote of a majority of our directors then in office,
even if less than a quorum.
Committees of the Board
Our board of directors intends to establish three committees,
the audit committee, the compensation committee and the
nominating and corporate governance committee.
Messrs. Aronson, Ginns and Schwager will be the initial members
of our audit committee. Mr. Schwager is
independent under the listing standards of
New York Stock Exchange and SEC rules. In addition, the
board of directors has determined that Mr. Ginns is an
audit committee financial expert, as defined under
the rules of the SEC. Within 90 days of the effectiveness
of the registration statement, at least a majority of our audit
committee will be independent, and within one year all audit
committee members will be independent. The audit committee will
recommend to the board of directors the independent public
accountants to audit our financial statements and will oversee
the annual audit. The committee will also approve any other
services provided by public accounting firms. The audit
committee will provide assistance to the board of directors in
fulfilling its oversight responsibility to the stockholders, the
investment community and others relating to the integrity of our
financial statements, our compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements, the independent auditors qualifications and
independence and the performance of our internal audit function.
The committee will oversee our system of disclosure controls and
procedures and system of internal controls regarding financial,
accounting, legal compliance and ethics that management and the
board of directors have established. In doing so, it will be the
responsibility of the committee to maintain free and open
communication between the committee and our independent
auditors, the internal accounting function and management of
Mariner.
Messrs. Aronson and Greene will serve on the nominating and
corporate governance committee of our board of directors. Mr.
Greene is independent under the listing standards of
the New York Stock Exchange and SEC rules. This committee will
nominate candidates to serve on our board of directors and
approves director compensation. The committee will also be
responsible for monitoring a process to assess board
effectiveness, developing and implementing our corporate
governance guidelines and in taking a leadership role in shaping
the corporate governance of Mariner. Within 90 days of the
effectiveness of the registration statement, at least a majority
of the committee will be independent, and within one year all
committee members will be independent.
Messrs. Ginns, Greene and Schwager will serve on the
compensation committee of our board of directors. Messrs. Greene
and Schwager are independent under the listing
standards of the New York Stock Exchange and SEC rules. The
compensation committee will review the compensation and benefits
of our executive officers, establish and review general policies
related to our compensation and benefits and administers our
Equity Participation Plan and Stock Incentive Plan. Under the
compensation committee charter, the compensation committee will
determine the compensation of our CEO. Within 90 days of
the effectiveness of the registration statement, at least a
majority of the committee will be independent, and within one
year all committee members will be independent.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider
Participation
None of our executive officers serves as a member of the board
of directors or compensation committee of any entity that has
one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of our
board of directors or compensation committee.
158
During the fiscal year 2005, the board of directors determined
executive compensation.
Director Compensation
Officers and employees who also serve as directors will not
receive additional compensation. To date, Messrs. Aronson and
Ginns have not received compensation for their services as
directors. Messrs. Greene and Schwager have received and
will receive annual cash compensation of $40,000, and received a
grant of 4,500 stock options upon their appointment to the
board, which options will vest in
1/3
increments on each of the three successive annual meetings of
Mariners stockholders following the date of grant. In
addition, each director will be reimbursed for
out-of-pocket expenses
in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors
or committees. Each director will be fully indemnified by us for
actions associated with being a director to the extent permitted
under Delaware law.
Indemnification
We maintain directors and officers liability
insurance. Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws include
provisions limiting the liability of directors and officers and
indemnifying them under certain circumstances, as described
under Description of Capital StockLiability and
Indemnification of Officers and Directors. We have also
entered into indemnification agreements with our executive
officers and directors providing our executive officers and
directors with additional assurances in a manner consistent with
Delaware law.
Executive Compensation
The following table shows the annual compensation for our chief
executive officer and the four other most highly compensated
executive officers for the three fiscal years ended
December 31, 2005.
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Compensation | |
|
Long-Term Compensation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards | |
|
Payouts | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted Stock | |
|
Underlying | |
|
LTIP | |
|
All Other | |
Name and Principal Position |
|
Year | |
|
Salary($) | |
|
Bonuses(1)($) | |
|
Awards($)(2) | |
|
Options(#) | |
|
Payouts($) | |
|
Compensation($)(3) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
$ |
375,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
16,210 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board, |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
9,522,534 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
575,000 |
|
|
|
15,133 |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
300,290 |
|
|
|
850,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
514,895 |
|
|
and President |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,626 |
|
|
Chief Operating Officer |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
|
|
4,316,886 |
|
|
|
102,000 |
|
|
|
248,400 |
|
|
|
15,236 |
|
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
176,698 |
|
|
|
325,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
280,677 |
|
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,819 |
|
|
Vice President and |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
192,500 |
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
3,174,178 |
|
|
|
74,000 |
|
|
|
322,000 |
|
|
|
14,949 |
|
|
Chief Exploration Officer |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
170,150 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,430 |
|
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,363 |
|
|
Vice President, |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
43,352 |
|
|
|
120,000 |
|
|
|
428,512 |
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,502 |
|
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Treasurer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,197 |
|
|
Vice President, General |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
190,000 |
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
1,920,380 |
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
59,800 |
|
|
|
14,834 |
|
|
Counsel and Secretary |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
97,750 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,270 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As of January 31, 2006, bonuses for 2005 have not yet been
paid. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Dollar amounts are calculated by multiplying the number of
shares of common stock awarded by $14, the trading price of our
common stock on the business day immediately preceding the date
the award was granted. Grantees are entitled to vote, and accrue
dividends on, the restricted stock prior to vesting; provided,
that any dividends that accrue on the restricted stock prior to
vesting will only be paid to grantees to the extent the
restricted stock vests. Except in specified circumstances, the |
|
159
|
|
|
restricted shares will be automatically forfeited in the event a
grantees employment terminates prior to the vesting date
of the awards. The restricted stock granted will vest, and
restrictions will terminate, on the later of (i) the first
anniversary of the grant date, which was March 11, 2005,
and (ii) the occurrence of a Public Sale Date,
as defined in our Equity Participation Plan; but in no event
later than the second anniversary of the date of grant.
Notwithstanding this vesting schedule, the unvested shares of
restricted stock will become fully vested upon death or
disability of the employee, or if employment is terminated by us
for reasons other than for cause, or if the employee
elects to terminate employment with good reason, or
upon the occurrence of a change of control, as those
terms are defined in the agreement with us governing the grant.
In connection with the merger, each of Mariners executive
officers has agreed, in exchange for a cash payment of $1,000,
that his or her shares of restricted stock will not vest before
the later of March 11, 2006 or ninety days after the
effective date of the merger. For additional information
regarding these special long-term grants, please see
Equity Participation Plan. |
|
|
|
At December 31, 2005, the value of all restricted stock
held by each named executive (based on the $17.75 trading price
of our common stock on December 31, 2005) was as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
No. of Shares | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
680,181 |
|
|
$ |
12,073,213 |
|
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
308,349 |
|
|
|
5,473,195 |
|
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
226,727 |
|
|
|
4,024,404 |
|
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
30,608 |
|
|
|
543,292 |
|
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
137,170 |
|
|
|
2,434,768 |
|
|
|
(3) |
Amounts shown reflect insurance premiums paid by us with respect
to term life insurance for the benefit of the named executive
officers and retention payments paid during the year. The
amounts for 2005 for Messrs. Josey, Polasek, van den Bold,
and Lester and Ms. Bushman include $7,000 of employer
matching contributions made pursuant to our 401(k) plan and
$8,400 made pursuant to the profit sharing portion of our 401(k)
plan. In addition, the 2005 amount for Mr. Josey includes
$810 of insurance premiums under our group term life insurance.
The 2005 amount for Mr. Polasek also includes $1,226 of
insurance premiums under our group term life insurance. The 2005
amount for Mr. van den Bold also includes $419 of insurance
premiums under our group term life insurance. The 2005 amount
for Mr. Lester also includes $963 of insurance premiums
under our group term life insurance. The 2005 amount for
Ms. Bushman includes $1,797 of insurance premiums under our
group term life insurance. |
Employment Agreements and Other Arrangements
We have entered into an employment agreement with each of the
current executive officers named in the above compensation
table. Each employment agreement has an initial term that runs
through March 2, 2007. The employment agreements
automatically renew each March 3 for an additional one-year
period unless prior notice is given. Each employment agreement
provides for a base salary, a discretionary bonus, and
participation in our benefit plans and programs.
Mr. Joseys agreement also provides for life insurance
equal to two times his base salary.
Under the employment agreements, the officers are entitled to
the following severance benefits in the event of a resignation
for good reason, a termination without cause or, in the case of
Mr. Joseys agreement, our non-renewal of the
agreement: (i) a payment equal to 18 months of salary
continuation (two years for Mr. Josey and Mr. Polasek)
at the highest rate in effect prior to termination,
(ii) health care coverage for a period of eighteen months
(two years for Mr. Josey and Mr. Polasek),
(iii) an amount equal to the sum of all bonuses paid to the
officer in the year prior to the year in which termination
occurs, (iv) 100% vesting of all restricted shares under
our Equity Participation Plan, and (v) 50% vesting of all
other rights under any other equity plans, including our Stock
Incentive Plan.
160
The employment agreements also provide for certain change of
control benefits. Upon termination for any reason other than
cause at any time within nine months after a change of control
that occurs while the executive is employed, or upon the
occurrence of a change of control within nine months following
resignation of employment for good reason or termination without
cause, the agreements provide for the following benefits:
(i) a lump sum payment equal to 2.0 (2.5 for
Mr. Polasek and 2.99 for Mr. Josey) times the sum of
the officers base salary and three year average annual
bonus, and (ii) 100% vesting of all rights under any equity
plans, including our Equity Participation Plan and our Stock
Incentive Plan. The officers are entitled to a full tax
gross-up payment if the
aggregate payments and benefits to be provided constitute a
parachute payment subject to a Federal excise tax.
The executive officers of Mariner will receive cash payments of
$1,000 each in exchange for the waiver of certain rights under
their employment agreements, including the automatic vesting or
acceleration of restricted stock and options upon the completion
of the merger and the right to receive a lump sum cash payment
if the officer voluntarily terminates employment without good
reason within nine months following the completion of the merger.
The agreements also include confidentiality and non-solicitation
provisions.
Overriding Royalty Arrangements
Mariners geologist and geophysicist employees are eligible
to participate in Mariners Amended and Restated Gulf of
Mexico Overriding Royalty Interest Plan. Pursuant to the terms
of the plan, overriding royalty interests (ORRIs)
may be awarded to participants in the plan for prospects in the
Gulf of Mexico that are generated or identified and acquired
during the term of the participants employment at Mariner.
The maximum ORRI for all participants is 1.8% for shelf leases
and 0.9% for deepwater leases, subject to proportionate
reduction. The maximum ORRI per participant is
1/2
of one percent for shelf leases and
1/4
of one percent for deepwater leases, subject to proportionate
reduction. Unless approved by Mariners overriding royalty
interest committee, no ORRIs are awarded for developed or
undeveloped reserve acquisitions. Certain of the Forest Gulf of
Mexico leases not covering developed or undeveloped reserves may
become burdened by ORRIs under the plan as determined by such
committee in accordance with the terms of the plan. None of the
members of the committee is eligible to participate in the plan.
To avoid potential conflicts of interest, Mariners
geologist and geophysicist employees that participate in the
Overriding Royalty Interest Plan (the ORRI Plan
Participants) do not make decisions with respect to the
pursuit of the acquisition, exploration or development of
prospects. When an ORRI Plan Participant develops a lead for a
prospect, executive management makes the decision whether to
pursue to the acquisition, exploration or development of the
prospect. In addition, ORRI Plan Participants are required at
the time they become eligible for participation in the plan and
periodically thereafter to disclose oil and gas properties in
which they or their immediate family members have any interest
and to abstain from participation in the evaluation of any
property in which they or their immediate family members have
any interest.
Currently nine employees are participants in the plan. None of
Mariners officers or managers are eligible to participate
in the plan. Since the inception of the plan in July 2002
through December 31, 2004, approximately $252,000 has been
distributed to participants with respect to ORRIs granted to
them under the plan.
In 2002, two of our current executive officers, Dalton F.
Polasek, Executive Vice PresidentOperations and
Exploration and Judd A. Hansen, Vice PresidentShelf and
Onshore, received assignments of ORRIs in certain leases
acquired by us under a consulting arrangement. A consulting
company owned in part by Mr. Polasek was assigned a 2% ORRI
from us in four federal offshore leases as partial consideration
for having brought the related prospect to us. With our
knowledge and consent, the consulting company subsequently
assigned portions of the ORRIs to Mr. Hansen and a company
owned by Mr. Polasek. At the time of the assignments,
Messrs. Polasek and Hansen served Mariner as officers and
consultants but were not employed by Mariner. No payments were
made in respect of these ORRIs until 2004, when each received
less than $60,000 with respect to his ORRI.
161
We may have obligations under previously terminated employment
and consulting agreements to assign additional ORRIs in some of
our oil and natural gas prospects to current and former
employees and consultants. Cory L. Loegering, Vice President of
Deepwater, is the only current executive officer who may be
entitled to receive ORRIs under any of these agreements.
All ORRIs assigned to these parties are excluded from
Mariners interests evaluated in our reserve report.
Equity Participation Plan
We have adopted an Equity Participation Plan that provided for
the one-time grant at the closing of our private equity
placement on March 11, 2005 of 2,267,270 restricted shares
of our common stock to certain of our employees. No further
grants will be made under the Equity Participation Plan,
although persons who receive such a grant will be eligible for
future awards of restricted stock or stock options under our
Stock Incentive Plan described below.
We intended the grants of restricted stock under the Equity
Participation Plan to serve as a means of incentive compensation
for performance and not primarily as an opportunity to
participate in the equity appreciation of our common stock.
Therefore, Equity Participation Plan grantees did not pay any
consideration for the common stock they received, and we
received no remuneration for the stock.
The table below includes information regarding the restricted
stock awards granted in March of 2005 under the Equity
Participation Plan to our chief executive officer, our four
other most highly compensated executive officers as of the year
2005, and all officers as a group. Grantees are entitled to
vote, and accrue dividends on, the restricted stock prior to
vesting; provided, however that any dividends that accrue on the
restricted stock prior to vesting will only be paid to grantees
to the extent the restricted stock vests.
Equity Participation Plan
Restricted Stock Awards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Officer or Group |
|
No. of Shares | |
|
Value at Grant(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
680,181 |
|
|
$ |
9,522,534 |
|
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
308,349 |
|
|
|
4,316,886 |
|
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
226,727 |
|
|
|
3,174,178 |
|
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
30,608 |
|
|
|
428,512 |
|
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
137,170 |
|
|
|
1,920,380 |
|
Officers as a group (8 persons)
|
|
|
1,803,613 |
|
|
|
25,250,582 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Based on a price of $14.00 per share. |
Except as described below, the restricted shares will be
automatically forfeited in the event a grantees employment
terminates prior to the vesting date of the awards. The
restricted stock granted will vest, and restrictions will
terminate, on the later of (i) the first anniversary of the
grant date, which was March 11, 2005, and (ii) the
occurrence of a Public Sale Date; but in no event
later than the second anniversary of the date of grant. For
purposes of grants under the Equity Participation Plan,
Public Sale Date means the earlier to occur of:
|
|
|
|
|
the 90th day following the date on which our common stock
is listed on the New York Stock Exchange or admitted to trading
and quoted on the Nasdaq National Market or Nasdaq SmallCap
Market; and |
|
|
|
the first date on which both of the following conditions are
met: (a) a registration statement covering the resale of
the restricted stock has been declared effective by the SEC, and
no stop order suspending the effectiveness of such registration
statement is in effect and (b) the common stock is listed
on the New York Stock Exchange or admitted to trading and quoted
on the Nasdaq National Market or Nasdaq SmallCap Market; |
162
provided, however, that if either of the above events occurs and
the restricted shares are subject to restrictions on resale as a
result of any lock-up
agreement or arrangement in connection with a public offering,
the Public Sale Date shall be the earlier of the first business
day following the date of expiration of the
lock-up period and a
date 181 days from the date the
lock-up period
commences.
Notwithstanding the above vesting schedule, the unvested shares
of restricted stock will become fully vested upon death or
disability of the employee, or if employment is terminated by us
for reasons other than for cause, or if the employee
elects to terminate employment with good reason, or
upon the occurrence of a change of control, as those
terms are defined in the agreement with us governing the grant.
In connection with the merger, each of Mariners executive
officers has agreed, in exchange for a cash payment of $1,000,
that his or her shares of restricted stock will not vest before
the later of March 11, 2006 or ninety days after the
effective date of the merger.
In accordance with GAAP, we expect to incur significant
compensation expense as a result of the grants of restricted
stock under the Equity Participation Plan. See
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of OperationsCritical Accounting
Policies Deferred Compensation Expense for a
discussion of these charges.
Stock may be withheld by us upon vesting to satisfy our tax
withholding obligations with respect to the vesting of the
restricted stock. Participants in the Equity Participation Plan
will have the right to elect to have us withhold and cancel
shares of the restricted stock to satisfy withholding
obligations. In such events, we would be required to pay any tax
withholding obligation in cash.
The Equity Participation Plan will be administered by our board
of directors. The board of directors may delegate administration
of the plan to a committee of the board of directors. The Equity
Participation Plan will expire upon the vesting or forfeiture of
all shares granted thereunder.
Stock Incentive Plan
We have adopted a Stock Incentive Plan, which became effective
March 11, 2005. The objectives of the Stock Incentive Plan
are to encourage employees and directors to acquire or increase
their equity interest with Mariner and to provide a means
whereby they may develop a sense of proprietorship and personal
involvement in the development and financial success of Mariner.
The Stock Incentive Plan is also designed to enhance
Mariners ability to attract and retain the services of
individuals who are essential for the growth and profitability
of Mariner. We have proposed to amend and restate the Stock
Incentive Plan to add 4.5 million shares of common stock to
the plan, to extend the plan through October 12, 2015, and
to limit the number of shares subject to stock options or shares
of restricted stock issuable under the plan to any individual to
2.85 million, subject to the completion of the merger.
Awards to participants under the Stock Incentive Plan may be
made in the form of incentive stock options, or ISOs,
non-qualified stock options or restricted stock. The
participants to whom awards are granted, the type or types of
awards granted to a participant, the number of shares covered by
each award, the purchase price, conditions and other terms of
each award are determined by the Board of Directors or the
committee appointed by the Board of Directors to administer the
Stock Incentive Plan (the Committee).
|
|
|
Shares Subject to the Stock Incentive Plan |
At the inception of the Stock Incentive Plan, a maximum of two
million shares of common stock of Mariner could be issued to
participants. Pursuant to the proposed addition of shares to the
Stock Incentive Plan, the maximum number of shares would, if the
proposal is approved, be increased to 6.5 million shares.
As of September 30, 2005, approximately 1.2 million
shares remained available under the Stock Incentive Plan for
future issuance to participants.
163
|
|
|
Administration and Eligibility |
The Committee has the authority to administer the Stock
Incentive Plan and to take all actions that are specifically
contemplated by the Stock Incentive Plan or are necessary or
appropriate in connection with the administration of the Stock
Incentive Plan. The Committee has the full power and authority
to designate participants, determine the type or types of
awards, the number of shares to be covered by awards, and the
terms and conditions of any award. The Committee also determines
whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances awards may
be settled or exercised in cash, shares or other securities,
other awards or other property, or canceled, forfeited or
suspended and the method or methods by which awards may be
settled, exercised, canceled, forfeited or suspended. The
Committee has the authority to establish, amend, suspend or
waive such rules and regulations, and appoint such agents as it
shall deem appropriate, and make any other determination or take
any other action the Committee deems necessary for the proper
administration of the Stock Incentive Plan.
Any employee of Mariner (or any parent entity or subsidiary) and
any non-employee director of Mariner is eligible to be
designated a participant by the Committee. As of
December 31, 2005, two non-employee directors and
51 employees had been granted awards under the Stock
Incentive Plan.
Awards may, in the discretion of the Committee, be granted
either alone or in addition to, or in tandem with, any other
award granted under the Stock Incentive Plan or any award
granted under any other plan of Mariner or any parent entity or
subsidiary. Awards granted in addition to or in tandem with
other awards or awards granted under any other plan of Mariner
or any parent entity or subsidiary may be granted either at the
same time as or at a different time from the grant of such other
awards. All or part of an award may be subject to conditions
established by the Committee.
The types of awards to participants that may be made under the
Stock Incentive Plan are as follows:
Options. Options are rights to purchase a specified
number of shares of common stock at a specified price. The
Committee will determine the participants to whom options are
granted, the number of shares to be covered by each option, the
purchase price and the conditions, which of the options is an
ISO or a non-qualified stock option, and limitations applicable
to the exercise of the option. To the extent that the aggregate
fair market value, determined at the time the respective ISO is
granted, of common stock with respect to which ISOs are
exercisable for the first time by an individual during any
calendar year under all incentive stock option plans of Mariner
and its parent and subsidiary corporations exceeds $100,000, or
such option fails to constitute an ISO for any reason, such
purported ISOs will be treated as non-qualified stock options.
ISOs may be granted only to an individual who is an employee of
Mariner or any parent or subsidiary corporation at the time the
option is granted. The Committee determines the exercise price
at the time each option is granted, but the exercise price shall
never be less than the fair market value per share on the
effective date of such grant. The Committee determines the time
or times at which each option may be exercised, the method or
methods by which, and the form or forms in which, payment of the
exercise price may be made or deemed to have been made.
An ISO must be granted within 10 years from the date the
Stock Incentive Plan was approved by the Board or the
shareholders, whichever is earlier. No ISO shall be granted to
an individual if, at the time the ISO is granted, such
individual owns stock possessing more than 10% of the total
combined voting power of all classes of stock of Mariner or of
its parent or subsidiary corporation, unless
|
|
|
|
|
at the time the ISO is granted, the option price is at least
110% of the fair market value of the common stock subject to the
option and |
|
|
|
such ISO, by its terms, is not exercisable after the expiration
of five years from the date of grant. |
164
Options are not transferable, other than by will or the laws of
descent and distribution, and are exercisable during the
participants lifetime only by the participant or the
participants guardian or legal representative.
Restricted Stock. Restricted stock is stock that has
limitations placed on it. Dividends paid on restricted stock may
be paid directly to the participant, sequestered and held in a
bookkeeping account, or reinvested in additional shares, which
may be subject to the same restrictions as the underlying award
or other restrictions, as determined by the Committee.
Restricted stock is evidenced in such manner as deemed
appropriate by the Committee, but any stock certificate that is
issued in respect of restricted stock granted under the Stock
Incentive Plan must be registered under the participants
name and bear an appropriate legend referring to the terms,
conditions and restrictions applicable to the restricted stock.
Unless otherwise determined by the Committee or provided in an
award agreement, upon termination of a participants
employment for any reason during the applicable restricted
period, which is the period established by the Committee with
respect to an award during which the award either remains
subject to forfeiture or is not transferable by the participant,
all restricted stock is forfeited without payment and reacquired
by Mariner. The Committee may waive in whole or in part any or
all remaining restrictions on such participants restricted
stock, but if such award was intended to qualify as
performance-based compensation, then only upon an event
permitted under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code. Restricted stock is subject to such limitations on
transfer as are necessary to comply with Section 83 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
Unless sooner terminated, no award may be granted under the
Stock Incentive Plan after October 12, 2015. The Board or
the Committee may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or
terminate the Stock Incentive Plan without the consent of any
stockholder, participant, other holder or beneficiary of an
award or any other person. However, no amendment may materially
adversely affect the rights of a participant under an award
without the consent of such participant.
In the event of any distribution, recapitalization,
reorganization, merger, spin-off, split-off, split-up,
consolidation, combination, repurchase, or exchange of shares or
other securities of Mariner or any other relevant corporate
transaction or event or any unusual or nonrecurring transactions
or events affecting Mariner, the Committee may, in its sole
discretion and on such terms and conditions as it deems
appropriate:
|
|
|
|
|
provide for either the termination of any such award in exchange
for cash in the amount that would have been attained upon the
exercise of such award or the replacement of such award with
other rights or property selected by the Committee; |
|
|
|
provide that such award be assumed by the successor or survivor
corporation or its parent or be substituted for by similar
options, rights or awards; or |
|
|
|
make adjustments in the number and type of shares or other
property subject to outstanding awards. |
|
|
|
Stock Incentive Plan Benefits |
Because the granting of awards under the Stock Incentive Plan is
at the discretion of the Committee, it is not now possible to
determine which persons may be granted awards. Also, it is not
now possible to estimate the number of shares of common stock
that may be awarded under the Stock Incentive Plan.
|
|
|
U.S. Federal Tax Consequences |
The following is a general discussion of the current Federal
income tax consequences of awards under the Stock Incentive Plan
to participants who are classified as U.S. residents for
Federal income tax purposes. Different or additional rules may
apply to participants who are subject to income tax in a foreign
165
jurisdiction and/or are subject to state or local income tax in
the United States. Each participant should rely on his or her
own tax advisors regarding federal income tax treatment under
the Stock Incentive Plan.
The grant of restricted stock does not result in taxable income
to the participant. At each vesting event, the participant will
recognize taxable ordinary income equal to the excess of the
fair market value of the shares of common stock that become
vested over the purchase price (if any) paid for such common
stock. However, if a participant makes a timely election under
Section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, the participant
will recognize taxable ordinary income in the taxable year of
the grant equal to the excess of the fair market value of the
shares of common stock underlying the restricted stock award at
the time of the grant over the purchase price (if any) paid for
such common stock. Furthermore, the participant will not
recognize ordinary income on such restricted stock when it
subsequently vests.
In all cases, the participants ordinary income is subject
to applicable withholding taxes. Mariner will be allowed an
income tax deduction in the taxable year the participant
recognizes ordinary income, in an amount equal to such ordinary
income.
The grant of a non-qualified stock option will not result in
taxable income to the participant and Mariner will not be
entitled to an income tax deduction. Upon the exercise of a
non-qualified stock option, a participant will realize ordinary
taxable income on the date of exercise. Such taxable income will
equal the difference between the option price and the fair
market value of the common stock purchased under option on the
date of exercise. Mariner will be entitled to an income tax
deduction equal to the amount included in the participants
ordinary income.
Upon the grant or exercise of an ISO, a participant will not
recognize taxable income and Mariner will not be entitled to an
income tax deduction. However, the exercise of an ISO will
result in an amount being included in the participants
alternative minimum taxable income for the year in which the
exercise occurs equal to the excess of the fair market value of
the common stock purchased under the ISO at the time of exercise
over the option price.
The optionee will recognize taxable income in the year in which
the shares of common stock underlying the ISO are sold or
disposed of. Dispositions are divided into two categories:
qualifying and disqualifying. A qualifying disposition occurs if
the sale or disposition is made more than two years from the
option grant date and more than one year from the exercise date.
If the participant sells or disposes of the shares of common
stock in a qualifying disposition, any gain recognized by the
participant on such sale or disposition will be a long-term
capital gain.
If either of the two holding periods described above are not
satisfied, then a disqualifying disposition will occur. If the
optionee makes a disqualifying disposition of the shares of
common stock that have been acquired through the exercise of the
option, then the optionee will have ordinary taxable income for
the taxable year in which the sale or disposition occurs equal
to the lesser of:
|
|
|
|
|
the excess of the fair market value of such shares on the option
exercise date over the exercise price paid for the
shares, or |
|
|
|
the amount realized on the sale or disposition over the exercise
price paid for the shares. |
If the optionee makes a qualifying disposition, Mariner will not
be entitled to an income tax deduction. However, if the optionee
makes a disqualifying disposition, Mariner will be entitled to
an income tax deduction equal to the amount included in ordinary
income to the participant.
166
The table below includes information regarding stock options
under the Stock Incentive Plan granted in our last fiscal year
to our chief executive officer and our four other most highly
compensated executive officers.
Option Grants in Last Fiscal Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Realizable | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value of Assumed | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Rates of Stock | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price Appreciation for | |
|
|
|
|
% of Total Options | |
|
|
|
|
|
Option Term (a) | |
|
|
No. of Securities | |
|
Granted to Employees | |
|
Exercise | |
|
Expiration | |
|
| |
Name |
|
Underlying Options | |
|
in Fiscal Year | |
|
Price | |
|
Date | |
|
5%($) | |
|
10%($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
24.7 |
% |
|
$ |
14.00 |
|
|
|
3/11/2015 |
|
|
$ |
1,760,905 |
|
|
$ |
4,462,479 |
|
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
102,000 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
14.00 |
|
|
|
3/11/2015 |
|
|
|
898,062 |
|
|
|
2,275,864 |
|
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
74,000 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
14.00 |
|
|
|
3/11/2015 |
|
|
|
651,535 |
|
|
|
1,651,117 |
|
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
14.00 |
|
|
|
3/11/2015 |
|
|
|
352,181 |
|
|
|
892,496 |
|
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
14.00 |
|
|
|
3/11/2015 |
|
|
|
352,181 |
|
|
|
892,496 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
In accordance with SEC rules, these columns show gain that could
accrue for the listed options, assuming that the market price
per share of our common stock appreciates from the date of grant
over a period of 10 years at an annualized rate of 5% and
10%, respectively. If the stock price does not increase above
the exercise price at the time of exercise, the realized value
from these options will be zero. |
167
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN
BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
The following table sets forth information as of
February 7, 2006 with respect to the beneficial ownership
of Mariners common stock by (i) 5% stockholders,
(ii) current directors, (iii) five most highly
compensated executive officers during 2004 and
(iv) executive officers and directors as a group.
Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes to this table, each
of the stockholders named in this table has sole voting and
investment power with respect to the shares indicated as
beneficially owned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent | |
Name of Beneficial Owner |
|
Amount(1) | |
|
of Class | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
5% Stockholder:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMR Corp.(2)
|
|
|
5,002,200 |
|
|
|
14.0 |
% |
SAB Capital Advisors, L.L.C.(3)
|
|
|
2,255,700 |
|
|
|
6.3 |
% |
ACON E&P, LLC(4)
|
|
|
1,895,630 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
% |
Officers and Directors(5):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott D. Josey
|
|
|
680,181 |
|
|
|
1.9 |
% |
Dalton F. Polasek
|
|
|
308,349 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Mike C. van den Bold
|
|
|
226,727 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Rick G. Lester
|
|
|
30,608 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Teresa G. Bushman
|
|
|
137,170 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Bernard Aronson(6)
|
|
|
3,405,207 |
|
|
|
9.6 |
% |
Jonathan Ginns(7)
|
|
|
3,405,207 |
|
|
|
9.6 |
% |
John F. Greene
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John L. Schwager
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive officers and directors as a group (12 persons)
|
|
|
3,699,244 |
|
|
|
10.4 |
% |
|
|
(1) |
Includes grants of restricted stock to executive officers under
our Equity Participation Plan. These shares may be voted, but
not disposed of, prior to vesting. |
|
|
(2) |
Of the amount shown, 1,847,200 shares are held by Fidelity
Contrafund, 1,831,700 shares are held by Fidelity Puritan
Fund: Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund, 527,600 shares are
held by Variable Insurance Products Fund II:
Contra-Fund Portfolio, 516,300 shares are held by
Fidelity Puritan Trust: Fidelity Balanced Fund,
200,000 shares are held by Fidelity Securities Fund:
Fidelity Small Cap Value Fund, 75,000 shares are held by
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund, and
4,400 shares are held by Fidelity Management Trust Company
on behalf of accounts managed by it. Fidelity may be deemed a
beneficial owner of these shares by virtue of its affiliation
with these holders of record. |
|
|
|
(3) |
The address of SAB Capital Advisors, L.L.C. is 712 Fifth Avenue,
42nd Floor, New York, New York 10019. Of the amount shown,
1,098,083 shares are held by SAB Capital Partners, L.P. and
1,157,617 shares are held by SAB Overseas Master Fund, L.P. |
|
|
|
(4) |
The address of ACON E&P, LLC is c/o ACON Investments
LLC, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The shares beneficially owned by
ACON E&P, LLC are held of record by MEI Acquisitions
Holdings, LLC. |
|
|
|
(5) |
The address of each officer and director is c/o Mariner
Energy, Inc., One BriarLake Plaza, Suite 2000, 2000 West Sam
Houston Parkway South, Houston, Texas 77042. |
|
|
|
(6) |
Mr. Aronson may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of
1,895,630 shares and 1,509,577 shares that are beneficially
owned by ACON E&P, LLC and ACON Investments LLC,
respectively. MEI Investment Holdings, LLC is the record holder
of the shares beneficially owned by ACON Investments LLC.
Mr. Aronson is a manager of ACON E&P, LLC and a
managing member of |
|
168
|
|
|
ACON Investments LLC, the managing member of MEI Investment
Holdings, LLC. Mr. Aronson disclaims beneficial ownership
of these shares except to the extent of his pecuniary interest
therein. Mr. Aronsons address is c/o ACON
Investments, LLC, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 700,
Washington, D.C. 20036. |
|
|
(7) |
Mr. Ginns may be deemed to be a beneficial owner of
1,895,630 shares and 1,509,577 shares that are beneficially
owned by ACON E&P, LLC and ACON Investments LLC,
respectively. MEI Investment Holdings, LLC is the record holder
of the shares beneficially owned by ACON Investments LLC.
Mr. Ginns is a managing member of Burns Park Investments
LLC, a manager of ACON E&P, LLC. Mr. Ginns is a
managing member of ACON Investments LLC, the managing member of
MEI Investment Holdings, LLC. Mr. Ginns disclaims
beneficial ownership of these shares except to the extent of his
pecuniary interest therein. Mr. Ginns address is c/o
ACON Investments, LLC, 1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036. |
169
CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES AND MANAGEMENT
In connection with the merger in March 2004, Mariner Energy LLC,
our former indirect parent, entered into management agreements
with each of Carlyle/ Riverstone Energy Partners II, L.P.
(C/R Energy Partners) and
ACON E&P III, LLC (ACON E&P),
pursuant to which C/R Energy Partners and ACON E&P
received aggregate fees in the amount of $2.5 million.
C/R Energy Partners was, and ACON E&P is, an
affiliate of MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, our former sole
stockholder. No additional fees are payable under these
agreements.
Under a C/R Monitoring Agreement with C/R Energy
Partners and under an ACON Monitoring Agreement with
ACON E&P, each dated as of March 2, 2004, we were
obligated to pay monitoring fees in the aggregate amount of 1%
of our annual consolidated EBITDA to C/R Energy Partners
and ACON E&P payable on a calendar quarter basis. Under
the terms of the monitoring agreements, the affiliates provided
financial advisory services in connection with the ongoing
operations of Mariner subsequent to the merger. We accrued
$1.4 million in monitoring fees under these agreements for
2004. The parties terminated these agreements on
February 7, 2005 in return for lump sum cash payments by
Mariner totalling $2.3 million. We intend to engage in
transactions with our affiliates in the future only when the
terms of any such transactions are no less favorable than
transactions that could be obtained from third parties.
We used $166 million of the net proceeds from our sale of
12,750,000 share of common stock in our 2005 private
placement to purchase and retire an equal number of shares of
our common stock shares then held by MEI Acquisitions Holdings,
LLC, our former sole stockholder.
The estimated $1.9 million in expenses related to the
recent private placement included approximately
$0.8 million of expenses incurred by our former sole
stockholder, MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, and its members in
connection with the offering.
We currently have obligations concerning ORRI arrangements with
two of our officers who received assignments of ORRIs in certain
leases acquired by us under a consulting agreement and with
another officer who may be entitled to assignments of ORRIs
under a previously terminated employment agreement, as described
in ManagementOverriding Royalty Arrangements.
SELLING STOCKHOLDERS
This prospectus covers shares currently owned by an affiliate of
our former sole stockholder as well as shares sold in our recent
private equity placement. Some of the shares sold in the private
equity placement were sold directly to accredited
investors as defined by Rule 501(a) under the
Securities Act pursuant to an exemption from registration
provided in Regulation D, Rule 506 under
Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. In addition, we and our
former sole stockholder sold shares to FBR, who acted as initial
purchaser and sole placement agent in the offering. FBR sold the
shares it purchased from us and our sole stockholder in
transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the
Securities Act to persons that it reasonably believed were
qualified institutional buyers, as defined by
Rule 144A under the Securities Act or to
non-U.S. persons
pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act. An
affiliate of our former sole stockholder, the selling
stockholders who purchased shares from us or FBR in the private
equity placement and their transferees, pledgees, donees,
assignees or successors, may from time to time offer and sell
under this prospectus any or all of the shares listed opposite
each of their names below. Some of the shares reflected in the
following table were issued as restricted stock to our employees
pursuant to our Equity Participation Plan.
The following table sets forth information about the number of
shares owned by each selling stockholder that may be offered
from time to time under this prospectus. Certain selling
stockholders may be deemed to be underwriters as
defined in the Securities Act. Any profits realized by the
selling stockholder may be deemed to be underwriting commissions.
The table below has been prepared based upon the information
furnished to us by the selling stockholders as of
January 20, 2006. The selling stockholders identified below
may have sold, transferred or
170
otherwise disposed of some or all of their shares since the date
on which the information in the following table is presented in
transactions exempt from or not subject to the registration
requirements of the Securities Act. Information concerning the
selling stockholders may change from time to time and, if
necessary, we will supplement this prospectus accordingly. We
cannot give an estimate as to the amount of shares of common
stock that will be held by the selling stockholders upon
termination of this offering because the selling stockholders
may offer some or all of their common stock under the offering
contemplated by this prospectus. The total amount of shares that
may be sold hereunder will not exceed the number of shares
offered hereby. Please read Plan of Distribution.
Except as noted below, to our knowledge, none of the selling
stockholders has, or has had within the past three years, any
position, office or other material relationship with us or any
of our predecessors or affiliates, other than their ownership of
shares described below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ACON E&P, LLC(1)
|
|
|
1,895,630 |
|
|
|
5.32 |
% |
ACON Investments LLC(2)
|
|
|
1,509,577 |
|
|
|
4.24 |
% |
Acorn Overseas Securities Co
|
|
|
2,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Alexander, Leslie
|
|
|
570,000 |
|
|
|
1.62 |
% |
Alexandra Global Master Fund, Ltd
|
|
|
300,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Alexis A. Shehata-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,840 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Allied Funding, Inc.
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Alpha US Sub Fund 1, LLC
|
|
|
32,549 |
|
|
|
* |
|
America
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Anima S.G.R.P.A.
|
|
|
112,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Anita L. Rankin Revocable Trust-U/ A DTD 4/28/1995-Anita L.
Rankin, TTEE
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ann K. Miller-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
6,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Anne Marie Romer-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,290 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Anthony L. Kremer Revocable Living Trust-U/ A DTD
1/27/1998-Anthony L. Kremer TTEE
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Anthony L. Kremer-IRA
|
|
|
1,010 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Atlas (QP), LP
|
|
|
5,550 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Atlas Capital ID Fund LP
|
|
|
875 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Atlas Capital (Q.P.), L.P.
|
|
|
50,809 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Atlas Capital Master Fund Ltd.
|
|
|
107,846 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Atlas Master Fund
|
|
|
10,920 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Auto Disposal Systems-401(k)-All Cap Value Account
|
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Auto Disposal Systems-401(k)-Balanced 60 Account
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Auto Disposal Systems-401(k)-Small Cap Value Account
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Aviation Sales Inc.-401(k) Profit Sharing Plan-Rick J. Penwell
TTEE
|
|
|
1,470 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Axia Offshore Partners, LTD
|
|
|
9,315 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Axia Partners Qualified, LP
|
|
|
95,739 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Axia Partners, LP
|
|
|
42,136 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Baker-Hazel Funeral Home, Inc.-401(k) Plan
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Baker-Hazel Funeral Home-Corporate Investment Fund
|
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Basso Fund Ltd.
|
|
|
21,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Basso Multi-Strategy Holding Fund Ltd
|
|
|
78,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Basso Private Opportunities Holding Fund Ltd.
|
|
|
40,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
BBT Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
505,811 |
|
|
|
1.42 |
% |
BBVA
|
|
|
321,429 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Beach, Patrick & Christine JTWROS
|
|
|
6,666 |
|
|
|
* |
|
171
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Bear Stearns Sec. Corp. Cust. FBO Emerson Partners
|
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Bear Stearns Sec. Corp. Cust. FBO J. Steven Emerson IRA R/O II
|
|
|
720,000 |
|
|
|
2.02 |
% |
Bear Stearns Sec. Corp. Cust. FBO J. Steven Emerson Roth IRA
|
|
|
420,000 |
|
|
|
1.18 |
% |
Bear Stearns Sec. Corp. Cust. FBO J. Steven Emerson
|
|
|
186,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Belmont, Francis E
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Bennett Family LLC
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Benny L. & Alexandra P. Tumbleston JT WROS
|
|
|
1,890 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Bermuda Partners, LP
|
|
|
33,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Black Sheep Partners, LLC
|
|
|
30,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
BLT Enterprises, LLLP-Partnership
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Blueprint Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Borman, Casey J.
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Boston Partners Asset Management, LLC
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
1.40 |
% |
Bradley J. Hausfeld-IRA
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Brady Retirement Fund L.P.
|
|
|
27,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Brunswick Master Pension Trust
|
|
|
23,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Calm Waters Partnership
|
|
|
201,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Canyon Capital Balanced Equity Master Fund, Ltd
|
|
|
71,429 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Canyon Value Realization Fund (Cayman) Ltd.
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
1.40 |
% |
Canyon Value Realization Fund L.P.
|
|
|
121,428 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Canyon Value Realization MAC- 18 Ltd
|
|
|
7,143 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Cap Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
185,619 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carmine and Wendy Guerro Living Trust-U/ A DTD 7/31/2000-C
Guerro and W Guerro, TTEES
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carmine Guerro-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,090 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carol D. Shellabarger Green-Revocable Trust DTD
4/21/00-Carol Downing Green TTEE
|
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carol Downing Green-IRA
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Carol V. Hicks-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Castle Rock Fund Ltd
|
|
|
126,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Castlerock Partners II, L.P.
|
|
|
15,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Castlerock Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
392,000 |
|
|
|
1.10 |
% |
Catalyst Fund Offshore Ltd.
|
|
|
6,434 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Caxton International Limited
|
|
|
375,000 |
|
|
|
1.05 |
% |
Ceisel, Charles B
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Chamberlain Investments Ltd.
|
|
|
18,794 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Charles L. & Miriam L. Bechtel-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Cheyne Special Situations Fund LP
|
|
|
757,000 |
|
|
|
2.13 |
% |
Chimermine, Lawrence
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Christine Hausfeld-IRA
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Christopher M. Ruff-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Cindu International Pension Fund
|
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Citi Canyon Ltd
|
|
|
7,143 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Clam Partners, LLC
|
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Clark Manufacturing Co.-Pension Plan DTD 5/16/1998-John A.
Barron TTEE
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Clark Manufacturing Co.-PSP DTD 5/16/98-John A. Barron TTEE
|
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
* |
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Concentrated Alpha Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
185,619 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Congress Ann Hazel-IRA
|
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Cynthia Mollica Barron-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
* |
|
David Keith Ray-IRA
|
|
|
940 |
|
|
|
* |
|
David M. Morad Jr.-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
David R. Kremer Revocable Living Trust-DTD 5/7/1996-David R.
Kremer & Ruth E. Kremer, TTEES
|
|
|
1,230 |
|
|
|
* |
|
DB AG London
|
|
|
53,571 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Deanne W. Joseph-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Deephaven Event Trading Ltd.
|
|
|
1,176,135 |
|
|
|
3.30 |
% |
Deephaven Growth Opportunities Trading Ltd.
|
|
|
481,770 |
|
|
|
1.35 |
% |
Delaware Street Capital Master Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
1,210,750 |
|
|
|
3.40 |
% |
Don A. Keasel and Judith Keasel-JTWROS
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Don Keasel-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
810 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Donald G. Tekamp Revocable Trust-DTD 8/16/2000-Donald G. Tekamp
TTEE
|
|
|
1,460 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Donald L. and Edythe Aukeman-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Donald L. Aukerman-IRA
|
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Donna M. Ruff-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dorothy W. Savage-Kemp-IRA
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dorothy W. Savage-Kemp-TOD
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Douglas & Melissa Marchal-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dr. Donald H. Nguyen & Lynn A. Buffington-JTWROS
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dr. Juan M. Palomar-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Drake Associates, L.P.
|
|
|
53,929 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Edenworld International Ltd.
|
|
|
9,636 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Edison Sources Ltd.
|
|
|
33,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Edward W. Eppley-IRA SEP
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Edythe M. Aukeman-IRA
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Elaine S. Berman Trust-DTD 6/30/95-Elaine S. Berman TTEE
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Elaine S. Berman-Inherited IRA-Beneficiary of Freda Levine
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Elaine S. Berman-SEP-IRA
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Electrical Workers Pension Funds Part A
|
|
|
1,855 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Electrical Workers Pension Funds Part B
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Electrical Workers Pension Funds Part C
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Emerson Electric Company
|
|
|
32,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Emerson Partners
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Emerson, J. Steven
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Emerson, J. Steven IRA R/ O II
|
|
|
740,000 |
|
|
|
2.08 |
% |
Emerson, J. Steven Roth IRA
|
|
|
400,000 |
|
|
|
1.12 |
% |
Empyrean Capital Fund
|
|
|
96,250 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Empyrean Capital Overseas Benefit Plan Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
18,462 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Empyrean Capital Overseas Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
160,288 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Endeavor Asset Management
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ernst Enterprises-Deferred Compensation DTD 05/20/90-fbo Mark
Van de Grift
|
|
|
1,360 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ernst Enterprises-Deferred Compensation Plan DTD 05/20/90-fbo
Terry Killian
|
|
|
1,560 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Evan L. Julber-IRA
|
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Excelsior Value and Restructuring Fund
|
|
|
1,500,000 |
|
|
|
4.21 |
% |
Farallon Capital Institutional Partners II, L.P.
|
|
|
5,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farallon Capital Institutional Partners III, L.P.
|
|
|
6,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farallon Capital Institutional Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
65,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farallon Capital Offshore Investors, Inc.
|
|
|
124,006 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farallon Capital Offshore Investors II, L.P.
|
|
|
61,994 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farallon Capital Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
99,086 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Farvane Limited
|
|
|
2,617 |
|
|
|
* |
|
FBO Marjorie G. Kasch-U/ A/ D 3/21/80-Thomas A. Holton TTEE
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fidelity Contrafund(3)
|
|
|
1,847,200 |
|
|
|
5.19 |
% |
Fidelity Management Trust Company on behalf of accounts
managed by it(4)
|
|
|
4,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fidelity Puritan Trust: Fidelity Balanced Fund(3)
|
|
|
516,300 |
|
|
|
1.45 |
% |
Fidelity Puritan Trust: Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund(3)
|
|
|
1,831,700 |
|
|
|
5.14 |
% |
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund(3)
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fidelity Securities Fund: Fidelity Small Cap Value Fund(3)
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Flagg Street Offshore, LP
|
|
|
103,538 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Flagg Street Partners LP
|
|
|
34,345 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Flagg Street Partners Qualified LP
|
|
|
37,117 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fleet Maritime, Inc.
|
|
|
33,139 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Folksam
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fondo America
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fondo Attivo
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fondo Trading
|
|
|
55,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fort Mason Master, L.P.
|
|
|
188,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Fort Mason Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
11,900 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Framtidsfonden
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gallatin, Ronald
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gary M. Youra, M.D.-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,060 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Geary Partners
|
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
George Hicks-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
* |
|
George & Carol V. Hicks Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gerald Allen-IRA
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gerald E. & Deanne W. Joseph-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gerald J. Allen-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
3,580 |
|
|
|
* |
|
GLG Market Neutral Fund
|
|
|
178,570 |
|
|
|
* |
|
GLG North American Opportunity Fund
|
|
|
850,000 |
|
|
|
2.39 |
% |
Global Capital Ltd.
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
GMI Master Retirement Trust
|
|
|
33,395 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.
|
|
|
317,756 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Goldstein, Robert B. & Candy K
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gracie Capital International
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gracie Capital LP
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Greek, Cathy & Frank
|
|
|
3,900 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gregory A. & Bibi A. Reber-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gregory J. Thomas-IRASEP
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Grelsamer, Philippe
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Gruber & McBaine International
|
|
|
15,140 |
|
|
|
* |
|
174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Guggenheim Portfolio Company LLC
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Guggenheim Portfolio Company XII LLC
|
|
|
35,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
H. Joseph & Rosemary Wood-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Hancock, David H
|
|
|
13,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Harbor Advisors, LLC FBO Butterfield Bermuda General Account
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Harold & Congress Hazel Trust-U/ A DTD
4/21/1991-Congress Ann Hazel, TTEE
|
|
|
740 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Harold A. & Lois M. Ferguson-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,040 |
|
|
|
* |
|
HCM Energy Holdings LLC
|
|
|
78,571 |
|
|
|
* |
|
HFR HE Systematic Master Trust
|
|
|
28,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Highbridge Event Driven/ Relative Value Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
94,957 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Highbridge Event/ Driven/ Relative Value Fund Ltd
|
|
|
662,186 |
|
|
|
1.86 |
% |
Highbridge International LLC
|
|
|
671,428 |
|
|
|
1.89 |
% |
Highland Equity Focus Fund, LP
|
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Highland Equity Fund, LP
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
HSBC Guyerzeller Trust Company
|
|
|
12,630 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Hsien-Ming Meng-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
990 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Idnani, Rajesh
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Institutional Benchmarks Master Fund, Ltd
|
|
|
7,143 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ironman Energy Capital, L.P.
|
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
James R. Goldstein-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jan Munroe Trust
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Janice S. Hamon-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jeannine E. Philpot-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
* |
|
JMG Capital Partners, LP
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
JMG Triton Offshore Fund Ltd
|
|
|
125,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John & Betty Eubel-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
5,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John & Lisa ONeil-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,290 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John A. Barron-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John A. Barron-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John A. Barron-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John B. Maynard Jr.-Irrevocable Trust U/ A DTD
12/12/93-John B. Maynard Sr., TTEE
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John C. & Sarah L. Kunesh-JTWROS
|
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John F. Carroll-IRASEP
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John H. Lienesch-IRA
|
|
|
2,080 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John Hancock Funds II
|
|
|
37,240 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John Hancock Trust
|
|
|
41,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John M. Walsh, Jr.-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
980 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John OMeara-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
John T. Dahm-IRA
|
|
|
1,870 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Johnson, Richard J.
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Johnson Revocable Living Trust
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jon D. and Linda W. Gruber Trust
|
|
|
15,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jon R. Yenor-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
910 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Jon R. Yenor & Caroline L. Breckner-Joint Tenants
|
|
|
1,230 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Joseph D. Maloney-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
810 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Joseph F. & Mary K. Scullion-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Judith Keasel-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Julber, Evan L
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kandythe J. Miller-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kathleen J. Lienesch Family Trust-DTD 2/2/00-Kathleen J.
Lienesch TTEE
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kathleen J. Lienesch-IRA
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kathryn A. Leeper-Revocable Living Trust DTD
06/29/95-Kathryn A. Leeper, TTEE
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Keith L. Aukeman-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kenneth E. Shelton-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kettering Anesthesia Associates-Profit Sharing Plan-FBO David J.
Pappenfus
|
|
|
1,230 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kevin E. Slattery-Trust B DTD 5/17/99-De Ette Rae Hart TTEE
|
|
|
1,270 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Kirby C. Leeper-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
590 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Lagunitas Partners LP
|
|
|
69,760 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Lamb Partners LP
|
|
|
165,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Larry & Marilyn Lehman-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Lawrence J. Harmon Trust A-DTD 1/29/2001-G
Harmon & T Harmon & H Wall TTEES
|
|
|
680 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Leo K. & Katherine H. Wingate-Joing Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
580 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Lester J. & Susan A. Chamock-JTWROS
|
|
|
2,140 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Linda M. Meister-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
LJB Inc. Savings Plan & Trust-U/ A DTD 1/1/1985 FBO T.
Beach-Stephen D. Williams TTEE
|
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Loyola University Employees Retirement Plan Trust
|
|
|
8,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Loyola University of Chicago Endowment Fund
|
|
|
8,450 |
|
|
|
* |
|
MA Deep Event, Ltd.
|
|
|
114,095 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Magnetar Capital Master Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
90,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Margaret S. Adam Revocable TRUST-DTD 4/10/02-Margaret S. Adam,
TTEE
|
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Marily E. Lipson-IRA
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Marilyn E. Lehman-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Martha S. Senklw-Revocable Living Trust DTD 11/02/98-Martha
S. Senkiw, TTEE
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Martin J. Grunder, Jr.-IRASEP
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Marvin E. Nevins-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
920 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Mary Ellen Kremer Living Trust-U/ A DTD 01/27/1998-Mary Ellen
Kremer TTEE
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Mary K. Scullion-IRA
|
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Maureen K. Aukeman-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Maureen K. Aukerman-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Melodee Ruffo-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Metal Trades
|
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Miami Valleo Cardiologists, Inc.-Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust-EBS Small Cap
|
|
|
6,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Miami Valley Cardiologists, Inc.-Profit Sharing Plan Trust-EBS
Equity 100
|
|
|
10,060 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael & Marilyn E. Lipson-JTWROS
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael A. Houser & H. Stephen Wargo-JTWROS
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
* |
|
176
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Michael F. & Renee D. Ciferri-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael G. & Dara L. Bradshaw-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,440 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael G. Lunsford-IRA
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael J. Suttman-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael Lipson-IRA
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Milo Noble-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
3,690 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company
|
|
|
184,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Monte R. Black-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
5,380 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
|
|
|
450,000 |
|
|
|
1.26 |
% |
Mulholland Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
13,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Munder Micro-Cap Equity Fund
|
|
|
144,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Neal L. & Kandythe J. Miller-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Neal L. Miller-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Neelam Idnani Julian
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
|
|
|
1,775,714 |
|
|
|
4.99 |
% |
Ospraie Portfolio Ltd
|
|
|
1,100,000 |
|
|
|
3.09 |
% |
OZ Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
527,464 |
|
|
|
1.48 |
% |
Pam Graeser-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Parsons, Thomas B.
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Passport Master Fund, LP
|
|
|
224,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Passport Master Fund II, LP
|
|
|
176,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Patricia A. Kremer Revocable Trust -DTD 4/29/04-Donald G.
Kremer, TTEE
|
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Patricia Meyer Dorn-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Paul R. & Dina E. Cmkovich-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
4,750 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Paul S. & Cynthia J. Guthrie-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,530 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Paul S. Guthrie-IRA
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Paul W. Nordt III-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Paul W. Nordt III-IRA Rollover401(k)
|
|
|
1,390 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Peck Family Investments, Ltd.
|
|
|
1,090 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Peter & Noreen McInnes-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
8,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Peter D. Senkiw-Revocable Living Trust DTD 11/02/98-Peter
D. Senkiw, TTEE
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Peter R. Newman-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,430 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Philip M. Haisley-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
330 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Precept Capital Master Fund, G.P
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Presidio Partners
|
|
|
127,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Prism Partners I, L.P.
|
|
|
114,782 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Prism Partners II Offshore Fund
|
|
|
42,857 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Prism Partners III Leveraged L.P.
|
|
|
137,738 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Prism Partners IV Leveraged Offshore Fund
|
|
|
160,694 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Producers-Writers Guild of America
|
|
|
11,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Raymond W. Lane-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Raytheon Combined DB/ DC Master Trust
|
|
|
30,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Raytheon Company Combined DB/ DC Master Trust
|
|
|
23,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Raytheon Master Pension Trust
|
|
|
176,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Rebecca A. Nelson-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Renee D. Ciferri-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Richard D. Smith-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Richard H. LeSourd, Jr.-IRASEP
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert A. Riley Beneficiary-Inherited IRA
|
|
|
1,390 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert A. Riley-Revocable Family Trust DTD 5/8/97-Robert A.
Riley TTEE
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert F. Mays Trust-DTD 12/7/95-Robert F. Mays TTEE
|
|
|
1,470 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert N. Sturwold-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert W. Lowry-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
2,020 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ronald Lee Devore MD & Duneen Lynn Devore-JTWROS
|
|
|
270 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Rosemary Winner Wood-IRA
|
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Ruth E. Kremer Revocable Living Trust-DTD 5/7/96-David R.
Kremer & Ruth E. Kremer, TTEES
|
|
|
830 |
|
|
|
* |
|
SAB Capital Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
1,098,083 |
|
|
|
2.98 |
% |
SAB Overseas Master Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
1,157,617 |
|
|
|
3.25 |
% |
Sandra E. Nischwitz-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
1,240 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Savannah International Longshoremens Association Employers
Pension Trust
|
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Seneca Capital International Ltd
|
|
|
446,200 |
|
|
|
1.25 |
% |
Seneca Capital LP
|
|
|
215,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Seneca Capital II LP
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
SF Capital Partners Ltd
|
|
|
224,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Sharon A. Lowry-IRA-Robert W. Lowry, POA
|
|
|
1,560 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Sisters of St. Joseph Carondelet
|
|
|
4,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Slovin, Bruce
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Sniper Fund
|
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Sound Energy Capital Offshore Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
41,900 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Soundpost Partners, LP
|
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Southport Energy Plus Offshore Fund, Inc.
|
|
|
139,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Southport Energy Plus Partners L.P.
|
|
|
318,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Spring Street Partners L.P.
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
SRI Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
22,856 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Stanley J. Katz-IRA
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
* |
|
State Street Research Energy & Natural Resources Hedge
Fund LLC
|
|
|
147,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Steamfitters
|
|
|
1,745 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Steven & Victoria Conover-Joint Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Steven M. Rebecca A. Nelson-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Susan J. Gagnon-Revocable Living Trust UA 8/30/95-Susan J.
Gagnon TTEE
|
|
|
2,100 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Talkot Fund, L.P.
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Tanya P. Hrinyo Pavlina-Revocable Trust DTD 11/21/95-Tanya
P. Hrinyo Pavlina TTEE
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Tetra Capital Partners, LP
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Anderson Family-Revocable Trust, DTD 09/23/02-J.
Kendall & Tamera L. Anderson, TTEES
|
|
|
1,740 |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Catalyst Fund Offshore, Ltd.
|
|
|
3,242 |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Charles T. Walsh Trust-DTD 12/6/2000-Charles T
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walsh TTEE
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Edward W. & Frances L. Eppley-Combined Portfolio
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
The Johnson Irrevocable Living Trust DTD May 1998
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of | |
|
|
Number of Shares of | |
|
Common | |
|
|
Common Stock That | |
|
Stock | |
Selling Stockholder |
|
May Be Sold | |
|
Outstanding | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
The Louis J. Thomas-Irrevocable Trust DTD 12/6/2000-Gregory
J. Thomas, TTEE
|
|
|
530 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Thomas L. Hausfeld-IRA
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Thomas V. & Charlotte E. Moon Family Trust-Joint
Personal Trust
|
|
|
740 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Timothy A. Pazyniak-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
2,830 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Timothy J. and Karen A. Beach-JTWROS
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Tinicum Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
TNM Investments LTD-Partnership
|
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Town of Darien Employee Pension
|
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Town of Darien Police Pension
|
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
|
* |
|
TPG-Axon Partners (Offshore), Ltd
|
|
|
768,783 |
|
|
|
2.16 |
% |
TPG-Axon Partners, LP
|
|
|
495,017 |
|
|
|
1.39 |
% |
Treaty Oak Ironwood
|
|
|
74,295 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Treaty Oak Master Fund
|
|
|
59,235 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Tumbleston-JTWROS
|
|
|
1,890 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Turnberry Asset Management
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
United Capital Management
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
University of Richmond Endowment Fund
|
|
|
10,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
University of Southern California Endowment Fund
|
|
|
23,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Variable Insurance Products Fund II: Contrafund Portfolio(2)
|
|
|
527,600 |
|
|
|
1.48 |
% |
Verizon
|
|
|
122,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Verle McGillivray-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
680 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Victoire Finance et Aestion BV
|
|
|
35,714 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Virginia & Edward ONeil JTWROS
|
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Walter A. Mauck-IRA Rollover
|
|
|
870 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Warren Foundation
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Wildlife Conservation Society
|
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
|
* |
|
William J. Turner Revocable Living Trust-DTD 05/20/98 Schwab
Account-William J. Turner, TTEE
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
* |
|
William U. Warren Fund K
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
York Capital Management, L.P.
|
|
|
119,058 |
|
|
|
* |
|
York Credit Opportunities Fund L.P.
|
|
|
97,046 |
|
|
|
* |
|
York Global Value Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
122,363 |
|
|
|
* |
|
York Investment Limited
|
|
|
528,684 |
|
|
|
1.48 |
% |
York Select Unit Trust
|
|
|
103,376 |
|
|
|
* |
|
York Select, L.P.
|
|
|
124,473 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Yvette Van de Grift-Personal Portfolio
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Zelin, Leonard IRA
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
179
|
|
(1) |
Following our merger in March 2004, but prior to our recent
private equity placement in March 2005, MEI Acquisitions
Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of ACON E&P, LLC, was our sole
stockholder. At the time of the private equity placement, MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC was managed by a board of managers
consisting of four of our directors, Messrs. Ginns,
Aronson, Lapeyre and Leuschen and two of our former directors,
Messrs. Beard and Lancaster. See Certain Transactions
with Affiliates and Management. |
|
|
(2) |
The shares beneficially owned by ACON Investments LLC are held
of record by MEI Investment Holdings, LLC. See Certain
Transactions with Affiliates and Management. |
|
|
|
(3) |
The entity is a registered investment fund (the
Fund) advised by Fidelity Management & Research
Company (FMR Co.), a registered investment adviser
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended. FMR Co.,
82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, a wholly
owned subsidiary of FMR Corp. and an investment adviser
registered under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940, is the beneficial owner of 4,997,800 shares of the
common stock outstanding of the Company as a result of acting as
investment adviser to various investment companies registered
under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. |
|
|
|
|
Edward C. Johnson 3d, FMR Corp., through its control of FMR Co.,
and the Fund each has sole power to dispose of the securities
owned by the Fund. |
|
|
Neither FMR Corp. nor Edward C. Johnson 3d, Chairman of FMR
Corp., has the sole power to vote or direct the voting of the
shares owned directly by the Fund, which power resides with the
Funds Board of Trustees. |
|
|
The Fund is an affiliate of a broker-dealer. The Fund purchased
the shares in the ordinary course of business and, at the time
of the purchase of the shares to be resold, the Fund did not
have any agreements or understandings, directly or indirectly,
with any person to distribute the shares. |
|
|
(4) |
Shares indicated as owned by the entity are owned directly by
various private investment accounts, primarily employee benefit
plans for which Fidelity Management Trust Company
(FMTC) serves as trustee or managing agent. FMTC is
a wholly owned subsidiary of FMR Corp. and a bank as defined in
Section 3(a)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. FMTC is the beneficial owner of 4,400 shares of
the common stock of the Company as a result of its serving as
investment manager of the institutional account(s). |
|
|
|
Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR Corp., through its control of
Fidelity Management Trust Company, each has sole
dispositive power over 4,400 shares and sole power to vote
or to direct the voting of 4,400 shares of common stock
owned by the institutional account(s) as reported above. |
180
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
We are registering the common stock covered by this prospectus
to permit selling stockholders to conduct public secondary
trading of these shares from time to time after the date of this
prospectus. Under the Registration Rights Agreement we entered
into with selling stockholders, we agreed to, among other
things, bear all expenses, other than brokers or
underwriters discounts and commissions, in connection with
the registration and sale of the common stock covered by this
prospectus. We will not receive any of the proceeds of the sale
of the common stock offered by this prospectus. The aggregate
proceeds to the selling stockholders from the sale of the common
stock will be the purchase price of the common stock less any
discounts and commissions. A selling stockholder reserves the
right to accept and, together with their agents, to reject, any
proposed purchases of common stock to be made directly or
through agents.
The common stock offered by this prospectus may be sold from
time to time to purchasers:
|
|
|
|
|
directly by the selling stockholders and their successors, which
includes their donees, pledgees or transferees or their
successors-in-interest, or |
|
|
|
through underwriters, broker-dealers or agents, who may receive
compensation in the form of discounts, commissions or
agents commissions from the selling stockholders or the
purchasers of the common stock. These discounts, concessions or
commissions may be in excess of those customary in the types of
transactions involved. |
The selling stockholders and any underwriters, broker-dealers or
agents who participate in the sale or distribution of the common
stock may be deemed to be underwriters within the
meaning of the Securities Act. The selling stockholders
identified as registered broker-dealers in the selling
stockholders table above (under Selling
Stockholders) are deemed to be underwriters. As a result,
any profits on the sale of the common stock by such selling
stockholders and any discounts, commissions or agents
commissions or concessions received by any such broker-dealer or
agents may be deemed to be underwriting discounts and
commissions under the Securities Act. Selling stockholders who
are deemed to be underwriters within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Securities Act will be subject to
prospectus delivery requirements of the Securities Act.
Underwriters are subject to certain statutory liabilities,
including, but not limited to, Sections 11, 12 and 17 of
the Securities Act.
The common stock may be sold in one or more transactions at:
|
|
|
|
|
fixed prices; |
|
|
|
prevailing market prices at the time of sale; |
|
|
|
prices related to such prevailing market prices; |
|
|
|
varying prices determined at the time of sale; or |
|
|
|
negotiated prices. |
These sales may be effected in one or more transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
on any national securities exchange or quotation on which the
common stock may be listed or quoted at the time of the sale; |
|
|
|
in the over-the-counter
market; |
|
|
|
in transactions other than on such exchanges or services or in
the over-the-counter
market; |
|
|
|
through the writing of options (including the issuance by the
selling stockholders of derivative securities), whether the
options or such other derivative securities are listed on an
options exchange or otherwise; |
|
|
|
through the settlement of short sales; or |
|
|
|
through any combination of the foregoing. |
181
These transactions may include block transactions or crosses.
Crosses are transactions in which the same broker acts as an
agent on both sides of the trade.
In connection with the sales of the common stock, the selling
stockholders may enter into hedging transactions with
broker-dealers or other financial institutions which in turn may:
|
|
|
|
|
engage in short sales of the common stock in the course of
hedging their positions; |
|
|
|
sell the common stock short and deliver the common stock to
close out short positions; |
|
|
|
loan or pledge the common stock to broker-dealers or other
financial institutions that in turn may sell the common stock; |
|
|
|
enter into option or other transactions with broker-dealers or
other financial institutions that require the delivery to the
broker-dealer or other financial institution of the common
stock, which the broker-dealer or other financial institution
may resell under the prospectus; or |
|
|
|
enter into transactions in which a broker-dealer makes purchases
as a principal for resale for its own account or through other
types of transactions. |
To our knowledge, there are currently no plans, arrangements or
understandings between any selling stockholders and any
underwriter, broker-dealer or agent regarding the sale of the
common stock by the selling stockholders.
Our common stock has been approved for listing on the New York
Stock Exchange, subject to the completion of the proposed merger
with Forest Energy Resources, Inc. However, we can give no
assurances as to the development of liquidity or any trading
market for the common stock.
There can be no assurance that any selling stockholder will sell
any or all of the common stock under this prospectus. Further,
we cannot assure you that any such selling stockholder will not
transfer, devise or gift the common stock by other means not
described in this prospectus. In addition, any common stock
covered by this prospectus that qualifies for sale under
Rule 144 or Rule 144A of the Securities Act may be
sold under Rule 144 or Rule 144A rather than under
this prospectus. The common stock covered by this prospectus may
also be sold to
non-U.S. persons
outside the U.S. in accordance with Regulation S under the
Securities Act rather than under this prospectus. The common
stock may be sold in some states only through registered or
licensed brokers or dealers. In addition, in some states the
common stock may not be sold unless it has been registered or
qualified for sale or an exemption from registration or
qualification is available and complied with.
The selling stockholders and any other person participating in
the sale of the common stock will be subject to the Exchange
Act. The Exchange Act rules include, without limitation,
Regulation M, which may limit the timing of purchases and
sales of any of the common stock by the selling stockholders and
any other such person. In addition, Regulation M may
restrict the ability of any person engaged in the distribution
of the common stock to engage in market-making activities with
respect to the particular common stock being distributed. This
may affect the marketability of the common stock and the ability
of any person or entity to engage in market-making activities
with respect to the common stock.
We have agreed to indemnify the selling stockholders against
certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities
Act.
We have agreed to pay substantially all of the expenses
incidental to the registration, offering and sale of the common
stock to the public, including the payment of federal securities
law and state blue sky registration fees, except that we will
not bear any underwriting discounts or commissions or transfer
taxes relating to the sale of shares of our common stock.
182
DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STOCK
The authorized capital stock of Mariner consists of
70 million shares of common stock, par value of $.0001
each, and 20 million shares of preferred stock, par value
of $.0001 each. If the proposed amendment to Mariners
certificate of incorporation is approved by the Mariner
stockholders, the authorized capital stock of Mariner would
consist of 180 million shares of common stock and
20 million shares of preferred stock.
The following summary of the capital stock and certificate of
incorporation and bylaws of Mariner does not purport to be
complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the
provisions of applicable law and to our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws.
Common Stock
There are a total of 35,615,400 shares of our common stock
outstanding, including 2,267,270 shares of restricted stock
issued to employees pursuant to our Equity Participation Plan.
In addition, our board of directors has reserved
2,000,000 shares for issuance upon the exercise of stock
options granted or that may be granted under our Stock Incentive
Plan, approximately 809,000 of which have been granted to
certain of our employees and directors. Pursuant to the proposed
addition of shares to the Stock Incentive Plan, the maximum
number of shares would, if the proposal is approved, be
increased to 6.5 million shares. Holders of our common or
restricted stock are entitled to one vote for each share held on
all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders and do not have
cumulative voting rights. Holders of a majority of the shares of
our common stock entitled to vote in any election of directors
may elect all of the directors standing for election. Except as
otherwise provided in our certificate of incorporation and
bylaws or required by law, all matters to be voted on by our
stockholders must be approved by a majority of the votes
entitled to be cast by all shares of common stock. Our
certificate of incorporation requires approval of 80% of the
shares entitled to vote for the removal of a director or to
adopt, repeal or amend certain provisions in our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws. See Anti-Takeover Effects
of Provisions of Delaware Law, Our Certificate of Incorporation
and Bylaws.
Holders of our common stock are entitled to receive
proportionately any dividends if and when such dividends are
declared by our board of directors, subject to any preferential
dividend rights of outstanding preferred stock. Upon
liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our company, the
holders of our common stock are entitled to receive ratably our
net assets available after the payment of all debts and other
liabilities and subject to the prior rights of any outstanding
preferred stock. Holders of our common stock have no preemptive,
subscription, redemption or conversion rights. The rights,
preferences and privileges of holders of our common stock are
subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the
holders of shares of any series of preferred stock that we may
designate and issue in the future.
Liability and Indemnification of Officers and Directors
Our certificate of incorporation provides that our directors
will not be personally liable to us or our stockholders for
monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director,
except for liability (1) for any breach of a
directors duty of loyalty to us or our stockholders,
(2) for acts or omissions not in good faith or which
involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law,
(3) under Section 174 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, or (4) for any transaction from which the
director derives an improper personal benefit. If the Delaware
General Corporation Law is amended to authorize the further
elimination or limitation of directors liability, then the
liability of our directors will automatically be limited to the
fullest extent provided by law. Our certificate of incorporation
and bylaws also contain provisions to indemnify our directors
and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware
General Corporation Law. These provisions may have the practical
effect in certain cases of eliminating the ability of
stockholders to collect monetary damages from our directors and
officers. We believe that these contractual agreements and the
provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws are
necessary to attract and retain qualified persons as directors
and officers.
183
Preferred Stock
Our certificate of incorporation authorizes the issuance of up
to 20 million shares of preferred stock and no preferred
shares are outstanding. The preferred stock may carry such
relative rights, preferences and designations as may be
determined by our board of directors in its sole discretion upon
the issuance of any shares of preferred stock. The shares of
preferred stock could be issued from time to time by the board
of directors in its sole discretion (without further approval or
authorization by the stockholders), in one or more series, each
of which series could have any particular distinctive
designations as well as relative rights and preferences as
determined by the board of directors. The existence of
authorized but unissued shares of preferred stock could have
anti-takeover effects because we could issue preferred stock
with special dividend or voting rights that could discourage
potential bidders.
Approval by the stockholders of the authorization of the
preferred stock gave the board of directors the ability, without
stockholder approval, to issue these shares with rights and
preferences determined by the board of directors in the future.
As a result, Mariner may issue shares of preferred stock that
have dividend, voting and other rights superior to those of the
common stock, or that convert into shares of common stock,
without the approval of the holders of common stock. This could
result in the dilution of the voting rights, ownership and
liquidation value of current stockholders.
Anti-Takeover Effects of Provisions of Delaware Law, Our
Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws
Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain the
following additional provisions, some of which are intended to
enhance the likelihood of continuity and stability in the
composition of our board of directors and in the policies
formulated by our board of directors. In addition, some
provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, if
applicable to us, may hinder or delay an attempted takeover
without prior approval of our board of directors. Provisions of
the Delaware General Corporation Law and of our certificate of
incorporation and bylaws could discourage attempts to acquire us
or remove incumbent management even if some or a majority of our
stockholders believe this action is in their best interest.
These provisions could, therefore, prevent stockholders from
receiving a premium over the market price for the shares of
common stock they hold.
Our certificate of incorporation provides that our board of
directors will be divided into three classes of directors, with
the classes to be as nearly equal in number as possible. As a
result, approximately one-third of our board of directors will
be elected each year. The classification of directors will have
the effect of making it more difficult for stockholders to
change the composition of our board of directors. Our
certificate of incorporation and bylaws provide that the number
of directors will be fixed from time to time exclusively
pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board of directors.
|
|
|
Filling Board of Directors Vacancies; Removal |
Our certificate of incorporation provides that vacancies and
newly created directorships resulting from any increase in the
authorized number of directors may be filled by the affirmative
vote of a majority of our directors then in office, though less
than a quorum. Each director will hold office until his or her
successor is elected and qualified, or until the directors
earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal from office.
Any director may resign at any time upon written notice to us.
Our certificate of incorporation provides, in accordance with
Delaware General Corporation Law, that the stockholders may
remove directors only by a super-majority vote and for cause. We
believe that the removal of directors by the stockholders only
for cause, together with the classification of the board of
directors, will promote continuity and stability in our
management and policies and that this continuity and stability
will facilitate long-range planning.
|
|
|
No Stockholder Action by Written Consent |
Our certificate of incorporation precludes stockholders from
initiating or effecting any action by written consent and
thereby taking actions opposed by the board of directors.
184
Our bylaws provide that special meetings of our stockholders may
be called at any time only by the board of directors acting
pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board and not the
stockholders.
|
|
|
Advance Notice Requirements for Stockholder Proposals and
Director Nominations |
Our bylaws provide that stockholders seeking to bring business
before or to nominate candidates for election as directors at an
annual meeting of stockholders must provide timely notice of
their proposal in writing to the corporate secretary. With
respect to the nomination of directors, to be timely, a
stockholders notice must be delivered to or mailed and
received at our principal executive offices (i) with
respect to an election of directors to be held at the annual
meeting of stockholders, not later than 120 days prior to
the anniversary date of the proxy statement for the immediately
preceding annual meeting of the stockholders and (ii) with
respect to an election of directors to be held at a special
meeting of stockholders, not later than the close of business on
the 10th day following the day on which such notice of the
date of the special meeting was first mailed to Mariners
stockholders or public disclosure of the date of the special
meeting was first made, whichever first occurs. With respect to
other business to be brought before a meeting of stockholders,
to be timely, a stockholders notice must be delivered to
or mailed and received at our principal executive offices not
less than 120 days prior to the anniversary date of the
proxy statement for the immediately preceding annual meeting of
the stockholders. Our bylaws also specify requirements as to the
form and content of a stockholders notice. These
provisions may preclude stockholders from bringing matters
before an annual meeting of stockholders or from making
nominations for directors at an annual meeting of stockholders
or may discourage or defer a potential acquirer from conducting
a solicitation of proxies to elect its own slate of directors or
otherwise attempting to obtain control of us.
The Delaware General Corporation Law provides that stockholders
are not entitled to the right to cumulate votes in the election
of directors unless our certificate of incorporation provides
otherwise. Under cumulative voting, a majority stockholder
holding a sufficient percentage of a class of shares may be able
to ensure the election of one or more directors. Our certificate
of incorporation expressly precludes cumulative voting.
|
|
|
Authorized but Unissued Shares |
Our certificate of incorporation provides that the authorized
but unissued shares of preferred stock are available for future
issuance without stockholder approval and does not preclude the
future issuance without stockholder approval of the authorized
but unissued shares of our common stock. These additional shares
may be utilized for a variety of corporate purposes, including
future public offerings to raise additional capital, corporate
acquisitions and employee benefit plans. The existence of
authorized but unissued shares of common stock and preferred
stock could make it more difficult or discourage an attempt to
obtain control of Mariner by means of a proxy contest, tender
offer, merger or otherwise.
|
|
|
Delaware Business Opportunity Statute |
As permitted by Section 122(17) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, our certificate of incorporation provides that
Mariner renounces any interest or expectancy in any business
opportunity or transaction in which any of our original
institutional investors or their affiliates participate or seek
to participate. Nothing contained in our certificate of
incorporation, however, is intended to change any obligation or
duty that a director may have with respect to confidential
information of Mariner or prohibit Mariner from pursuing any
corporate opportunity.
|
|
|
Amendments to our Certificate of Incorporation and
Bylaws |
Pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law and our
certificate of incorporation, certain anti-takeover provisions
of our certificate of incorporation may not be repealed or
amended, in whole or in part, without the approval of at least
80% of the outstanding stock entitled to vote.
185
Our certificate of incorporation permits our board of directors
to adopt, amend and repeal our bylaws. Our certificate of
incorporation also provides that our bylaws can be amended by
the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 80% of the
voting power of the outstanding shares of our common stock.
|
|
|
Delaware Anti-Takeover Statute |
We are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, an anti-takeover law. In general, this section
prevents certain Delaware companies under certain circumstances,
from engaging in a business combination with
(1) a stockholder who owns 15% or more of our outstanding
voting stock (otherwise known as an interested
stockholder); (2) an affiliate of an interested
stockholder; or (3) an associate of an interested
stockholder, for three years following the date that the
stockholder became an interested stockholder. A
business combination includes a merger or sale of
10% or more of our assets.
Transfer Agent and Registrar
Our transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is The
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company.
186
REGISTRATION RIGHTS
We entered into a registration rights agreement in connection
with our private equity placement in March 2005. In the
registration rights agreement we agreed, for the benefit of FBR,
the purchasers of our common stock in the private equity
placement, MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC and holders of the
common stock issued under our Equity Participation Plan or Stock
Incentive Plan, that we will, at our expense:
|
|
|
|
|
file with the SEC (which occurs pursuant to the filing of the
shelf registration statement of which this prospectus is a
part), within 210 days after the closing date of the
private equity placement, a registration statement (a
shelf registration statement); |
|
|
|
use our commercially reasonable efforts to cause the shelf
registration statement to become effective under the Securities
Act as soon as practicable after the filing; |
|
|
|
continuously maintain the effectiveness of the shelf
registration statement under the Securities Act until the first
to occur of: |
|
|
|
|
|
the sale of all of the shares of common stock covered by the
shelf registration statement pursuant to a registration
statement; |
|
|
|
the sale, transfer or other disposition of all of the shares of
common stock covered by the shelf registration statement or
pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act; |
|
|
|
such time as all of the shares of our common stock sold in this
offering and covered by the shelf registration statement and not
held by affiliates of us are, in the opinion of our counsel,
eligible for sale pursuant to Rule 144(k) (or any successor
or analogous rule) under the Securities Act; |
|
|
|
the shares have been sold to us or any of our
subsidiaries; or |
|
|
|
the second anniversary of the initial effective date of the
shelf registration statement. |
We have filed the registration statement of which this
prospectus is a part to satisfy our obligations under the
registration rights agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we will be permitted, under
limited circumstances, to suspend the use, from time to time, of
the shelf registration statement of which this is a part (and
therefore suspend sales under the registration statement) for
certain periods, referred to as blackout periods,
if, among other things, any of the following occurs:
|
|
|
|
|
the representative of the underwriters of an underwritten
offering of primary shares by us has advised us that the sale of
shares of our common stock under the shelf registration
statement would have a material adverse effect on our initial
public offering; |
|
|
|
a majority of our board of directors, in good faith, determines
that (1) the offer or sale of any shares of our common
stock would materially impede, delay or interfere with any
proposed financing, offer or sale of securities, acquisition,
merger, tender offer, business combination, corporate
reorganization, consolidation or other significant transaction
involving us; (2) after the advice of counsel, the sale of
the shares covered by the shelf registration statement would
require disclosure of non-public material information not
otherwise required to be disclosed under applicable law; or
(3) either (x) we have a bona fide business purpose
for preserving the confidentiality of the proposed transaction,
(y) disclosure would have a material adverse effect on us
or our ability to consummate the proposed transaction, or
(z) the proposed transaction renders us unable to comply
with SEC requirements; or |
|
|
|
a majority of our board of directors, in good faith, determines,
that we are required by law, rule or regulation to supplement
the shelf registration statement or file a post-effective
amendment to the shelf registration statement in order to
incorporate information into the shelf registration statement
for the purpose of (1) including in the shelf registration
statement any prospectus required under Section 10(a)(3) of
the Securities Act; (2) reflecting in the prospectus
included in the shelf registration statement any facts or events
arising after the effective date of the shelf registration
statement (or the most-recent post-effective amendment) that,
individually or in the aggregate, |
187
|
|
|
|
|
represents a fundamental change in the information set forth in
the prospectus; or (3) including in the prospectus included
in the shelf registration statement any material information
with respect to the plan of distribution not disclosed in the
shelf registration statement or any material change to such
information. |
The cumulative blackout periods in any 12 month period
commencing on the closing of the private equity placement may
not exceed an aggregate of 90 days and furthermore may not
exceed 60 days in any
90-day period, except
as a result of a review of any post-effective amendment by the
SEC prior to declaring it effective; provided we have used all
commercially reasonable efforts to cause such post-effective
amendment to be declared effective.
In addition to this limited ability to suspend use of the shelf
registration statement, until we are eligible to incorporate by
reference into the registration statement our periodic and
current reports, which will not occur until at least one year
following the end of the month in which the registration
statement of which this prospectus is a part is declared
effective, we will be required to amend or supplement the shelf
registration statement to include our quarterly and annual
financial information and other developments material to us.
Therefore, sales under the shelf registration statement will be
suspended until the amendment or supplement, as the case may be,
is filed and effective.
A holder that sells our common stock pursuant to the shelf
registration statement will be required to be named as a selling
stockholder in this prospectus, as it may be amended or
supplemented from time to time, and to deliver a prospectus to
purchasers, will be subject to certain of the civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act in connection with such
sales and will be bound by the provisions of the registration
rights agreement that are applicable to such holder (including
certain indemnification rights and obligations). In addition,
each holder of our common stock must deliver information to be
used in connection with the shelf registration statement in
order to have such holders shares of our common stock
included in the shelf registration statement.
Each holder will be deemed to have agreed that, upon receipt of
notice of the occurrence of any event which makes a statement in
the prospectus which is a part of the shelf registration
statement untrue in any material respect or which requires the
making of any changes in such prospectus in order to make the
statements therein not misleading, or of certain other events
specified in the registration rights agreement, such holder will
suspend the sale of our common stock pursuant to such prospectus
until we have amended or supplemented such prospectus to correct
such misstatement or omission and have furnished copies of such
amended or supplemented prospectus to such holder or we have
given notice that the sale of the common stock may be resumed.
We have agreed to use our commercially reasonable efforts to
satisfy the criteria for listing and list or include (if we meet
the criteria for listing on such exchange or market) our common
stock on the New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange or
The Nasdaq National Market (as soon as practicable, including
seeking to cure in our listing or inclusion application any
deficiencies cited by the exchange or market), and thereafter
maintain the listing on such exchange.
188
EXPERTS
The consolidated financial statements of Mariner Energy, Inc. as
of December 31, 2004 (Post-2004 Merger), December 31,
2003 (Pre-2004 Merger)
and for the period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-2004 Merger), for
the period from March 3, 2004 through December 31,
2004 (Post-2004
Merger), and for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2003 included in this prospectus, have been
audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent
registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption in 2003 of
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations and the merger in 2004 of the Mariners
parent) included in this prospectus, and has been so included in
reliance upon the report of such firm given upon their authority
as experts in accounting and auditing.
The statements of revenues and direct operating expenses of the
Forest Gulf of Mexico operations for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004 have been included
herein in reliance upon the report of KPMG LLP, independent
registered public accounting firm, appearing elsewhere in this
prospectus, and upon the authority of such firm as experts in
accounting and auditing.
The information included in this prospectus regarding estimated
quantities of proved reserves, the future net revenues from
those reserves and their present value is based, in part, on
estimates of the proved reserves and present values of proved
reserves of Mariner as of December 31, 2002, 2003 and 2004
and prepared by or derived from estimates prepared by Ryder
Scott Company, L.P., independent petroleum engineers. Their
report is included in this offering as Annex A. These
estimates are included in this prospectus in reliance upon the
authority of the firm as experts in these matters.
LEGAL MATTERS
The validity of the shares of Mariner common stock offered
pursuant to this prospectus will be passed upon by Baker Botts
L.L.P.
189
GLOSSARY OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS TERMS
The following is a description of the meanings of some of the
oil and gas industry terms used in this prospectus. The
definitions of proved developed reserves, proved reserves and
proved undeveloped reserves have been abbreviated from the
applicable definitions contained in
Rule 4-10(a)(2-4)
of Regulation S-X.
The entire definitions of those terms can be viewed on the
website at
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/regsx.htm#gas.
3-D seismic.
(Three-Dimensional Seismic Data) Geophysical data that depicts
the subsurface strata in three dimensions.
3-D seismic data
typically provides a more detailed and accurate interpretation
of the subsurface strata than two dimensional seismic data.
Appraisal well. A well drilled several spacing locations
away from a producing well to determine the boundaries or extent
of a productive formation and to establish the existence of
additional reserves.
bbl. One stock tank barrel, or 42 U.S. gallons
liquid volume, of crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons.
Bcf. Billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Bcfe. Billion cubic feet equivalent, determined using the
ratio of six Mcf of natural gas to one bbl of crude oil,
condensate or natural gas liquids.
Block. A block depicted on the Outer Continental Shelf
Leasing and Official Protraction Diagrams issued by the
U.S. Minerals Management Service or a similar depiction on
official protraction or similar diagrams issued by a state
bordering on the Gulf of Mexico.
Btu or British Thermal Unit. The quantity of heat
required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one
degree Fahrenheit.
Completion. The installation of permanent equipment for
the production of oil or natural gas, or in the case of a dry
hole, the reporting of abandonment to the appropriate agency.
Condensate. Liquid hydrocarbons associated with the
production of a primarily natural gas reserve.
Deep shelf well. A well drilled on the outer continental
shelf to subsurface depths greater than 15,000 feet.
Deepwater. Depths greater than 1,300 feet (the
approximate depth of deepwater designation for royalty purposes
by the U.S. Minerals Management Service).
Developed acreage. The number of acres that are allocated
or assignable to productive wells or wells capable of production.
Development well. A well drilled within the proved
boundaries of an oil or natural gas reservoir with the intention
of completing the stratigraphic horizon known to be productive.
Dry hole. A well found to be incapable of producing
hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities such that proceeds from
the sale of such production exceed production expenses and taxes.
Dry hole costs. Costs incurred in drilling a well,
assuming a well is not successful, including plugging and
abandonment costs.
Exploitation. Ordinarily considered to be a form of
development within a known reservoir.
Exploratory well. A well drilled to find and produce oil
or gas reserves not classified as proved, to find a new
reservoir in a field previously found to be productive of oil or
gas in another reservoir or to extend a known reservoir.
Farm-in or farm-out. An agreement under which the owner
of a working interest in an oil or gas lease assigns the working
interest or a portion of the working interest to another party
who desires to drill on the leased acreage. Generally, the
assignee is required to drill one or more wells in order to earn
its
190
interest in the acreage. The assignor usually retains a royalty
or reversionary interest in the lease. The interest received by
an assignee is a farm-in while the interest
transferred by the assignor is a
farm-out.
Field. An area consisting of either a single reservoir or
multiple reservoirs, all grouped on or related to the same
individual geological structural feature and/or stratigraphic
condition.
Gross acres or gross wells. The total acres or wells, as
the case may be, in which a working interest is owned.
Infill well. A well drilled between known producing wells
to better exploit the reservoir.
Lease operating expenses. The expenses of lifting oil or
gas from a producing formation to the surface, and the
transportation and marketing thereof, constituting part of the
current operating expenses of a working interest, and also
including labor, superintendence, supplies, repairs, short-lived
assets, maintenance, allocated overhead costs, ad valorem taxes
and other expenses incidental to production, but not including
lease acquisition or drilling or completion expenses.
Mbbls. Thousand barrels of crude oil or other liquid
hydrocarbons.
Mcf. Thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
Mcfe. Thousand cubic feet equivalent, determined using
the ratio of six Mcf of natural gas to one bbl of crude oil,
condensate or natural gas liquids.
MMBls. Million barrels of crude oil or other liquid
hydrocarbons.
MMBtu. Million British Thermal Units.
MMcf. Million cubic feet of natural gas.
MMcfe. Million cubic feet equivalent, determined using
the ratio of six Mcf of natural gas to one bbl of crude oil,
condensate or natural gas liquids.
Net acres or net wells. The sum of the fractional working
interests owned in gross acres or wells, as the case may be.
Net revenue interest. An interest in all oil and natural
gas produced and saved from, or attributable to, a particular
property, net of all royalties, overriding royalties, net
profits interests, carried interests, reversionary interests and
any other burdens to which the persons interest is subject.
Payout. Generally refers to the recovery by the incurring
party to an agreement of its costs of drilling, completing,
equipping and operating a well before another partys
participation in the benefits of the well commences or is
increased to a new level.
PV10 or present value of estimated future net revenues.
An estimate of the present value of the estimated future net
revenues from proved oil and gas reserves at a date indicated
after deducting estimated production and ad valorem taxes,
future capital costs and operating expenses, but before
deducting any estimates of federal income taxes. The estimated
future net revenues are discounted at an annual rate of 10%, in
accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commissions
practice, to determine their present value. The
present value is shown to indicate the effect of time on the
value of the revenue stream and should not be construed as being
the fair market value of the properties. Estimates of future net
revenues are made using oil and natural gas prices and operating
costs at the date indicated and held constant for the life of
the reserves.
Productive well. A well that is found to be capable of
producing hydrocarbons in sufficient quantities such that
proceeds from the sale of such production exceed production
expenses and taxes.
Prospect. A specific geographic area which, based on
supporting geological, geophysical or other data and also
preliminary economic analysis using reasonably anticipated
prices and costs, is deemed to have potential for the discovery
of commercial hydrocarbons.
191
Proved developed non-producing reserves. Proved developed
reserves expected to be recovered from zones behind casing in
existing wells.
Proved developed producing reserves. Proved developed
reserves that are expected to be recovered from completion
intervals currently open in existing wells and capable of
production to market.
Proved developed reserves. Proved reserves that can be
expected to be recovered from existing wells with existing
equipment and operating methods. This definition of proved
developed reserves has been abbreviated from the applicable
definitions contained in Rule 4-10(a)(2-4) of
Regulation S-X.
The entire definition of this term can be viewed on the website
at
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/regsx.htm#gas.
Proved reserves. The estimated quantities of crude oil,
natural gas and natural gas liquids that geological and
engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be
recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing
economic and operating conditions. This definition of proved
reserves has been abbreviated from the applicable definitions
contained in Rule 4-10(a)(2-4) of
Regulation S-X.
The entire definition of this term can be viewed on the website
at
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/regsx.htm#gas.
Proved undeveloped reserves. Proved reserves that are
expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage or
from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is
required for recompletion. This definition of proved undeveloped
reserves has been abbreviated from the applicable definitions
contained in Rule 4-10(a)(2-4) of
Regulation S-X.
The entire definition of this term can be viewed on the website
at
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/regsx.htm#gas.
Reservoir. A porous and permeable underground formation
containing a natural accumulation of producible oil and/or gas
that is confined by impermeable rock or water barriers and is
individual and separate from other reservoirs.
Shelf. Areas in the Gulf of Mexico with depths less than
1,300 feet. Our shelf area and operations also includes a
small amount of properties and operations in the onshore and bay
areas of the Gulf Coast.
Subsea tieback. A method of completing a productive well
by connecting its wellhead equipment located on the sea floor by
means of control umbilical and flow lines to an existing
production platform located in the vicinity.
Subsea trees. Wellhead equipment installed on the ocean
floor.
Undeveloped acreage. Lease acreage on which wells have
not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the
production of commercial quantities of oil or gas regardless of
whether or not such acreage contains proved reserves.
Working interest. The operating interest that gives the
owner the right to drill, produce and conduct operating
activities on the property and receive a share of production.
192
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-8 |
|
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-37 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-38 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-39 |
|
F-1
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Stockholder
Mariner Energy, Inc.
Houston, Texas
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Mariner
Energy, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31,
2004 (Post-merger) and December 31, 2003 (Pre-merger) and
the related statements of operations, stockholders equity
and comprehensive income and cash flows for the period from
January 1, 2004 through March 2, 2004 (Pre-merger),
for the period from March 3, 2004 through December 31,
2004 (Post merger), and for each of the two years in the period
ended December 31, 2003 (Pre-merger). These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits 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. The Company is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal
control over financial reporting. Our audits included
consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a
basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit also 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, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Mariner Energy,
Inc. as of December 31, 2004 (Post-merger) and
December 31, 2003 (Pre-merger), and the results of its
operations and cash flows for the period from January 1,
2004 through March 2, 2004 (Pre-merger), for the period
from March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004
(Post-merger), and for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2003 (Pre-merger) in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
The Company changed its method of accounting for asset
retirement obligations in 2003. This change is discussed in
Note 1 to the financial statements.
As described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, on March 2, 2004, Mariner Energy LLC, the
Companys parent company, merged with an affiliate of the
private equity funds Carlyle/ Riverstone Global Energy and Power
Fund II, L.P. and ACON Investments LLC.
|
|
|
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
|
Houston, Texas
May 11, 2005
F-2
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands except | |
|
|
|
|
share data) | |
Current Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
4,564 |
|
|
$ |
2,541 |
|
|
|
$ |
60,174 |
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
621 |
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
50,259 |
|
|
|
52,734 |
|
|
|
|
33,272 |
|
|
Deferred tax asset
|
|
|
30,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
18,732 |
|
|
|
10,471 |
|
|
|
|
9,014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
104,035 |
|
|
|
65,746 |
|
|
|
|
103,081 |
|
Property and Equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and gas properties, full cost method:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved
|
|
|
446,868 |
|
|
|
319,553 |
|
|
|
|
599,762 |
|
|
|
Unproved, not subject to amortization
|
|
|
31,126 |
|
|
|
36,245 |
|
|
|
|
36,619 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
477,994 |
|
|
|
355,798 |
|
|
|
|
636,381 |
|
|
Other property and equipment
|
|
|
10,074 |
|
|
|
960 |
|
|
|
|
5,651 |
|
|
Accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(94,810 |
) |
|
|
(52,985 |
) |
|
|
|
(434,160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property and equipment, net
|
|
|
393,258 |
|
|
|
303,773 |
|
|
|
|
207,872 |
|
Deferred Tax Asset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Assets, Net of Amortization
|
|
|
4,916 |
|
|
|
3,471 |
|
|
|
|
1,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
|
$ |
502,209 |
|
|
$ |
376,019 |
|
|
|
$ |
312,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
14,573 |
|
|
$ |
2,526 |
|
|
|
$ |
28,640 |
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
88,993 |
|
|
|
81,831 |
|
|
|
|
35,486 |
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liability
|
|
|
76,902 |
|
|
|
16,976 |
|
|
|
|
2,464 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
180,609 |
|
|
|
101,412 |
|
|
|
|
66,590 |
|
Long-Term Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment liability
|
|
|
26,314 |
|
|
|
19,268 |
|
|
|
|
15,027 |
|
|
Taxes payable to parent company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,664 |
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
6,468 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,769 |
|
|
Derivative liability
|
|
|
28,221 |
|
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
|
1,897 |
|
|
Bank debt
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
105,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note payable
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term liabilities
|
|
|
143,003 |
|
|
|
140,700 |
|
|
|
|
27,357 |
|
Stockholders Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $.0001 par value; 70,000,000 shares
authorized, issued and outstanding, 35,615,400, 29,748,130 and
29,748,130 shares at September 30, 2005,
December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Additional paid-in-capital
|
|
|
171,667 |
|
|
|
91,917 |
|
|
|
|
227,318 |
|
|
Unearned compensation
|
|
|
(14,548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive (loss)
|
|
|
(67,708 |
) |
|
|
(11,630 |
) |
|
|
|
(4,360 |
) |
|
Accumulated retained earnings (deficit)
|
|
|
89,182 |
|
|
|
53,619 |
|
|
|
|
(4,802 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
178,597 |
|
|
|
133,907 |
|
|
|
|
218,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
$ |
502,209 |
|
|
$ |
376,019 |
|
|
|
$ |
312,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements
F-3
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands except per share data) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil sales
|
|
$ |
53,579 |
|
|
$ |
44,576 |
|
|
$ |
63,498 |
|
|
|
$ |
12,709 |
|
|
$ |
37,992 |
|
|
$ |
38,792 |
|
|
Gas sales
|
|
|
94,913 |
|
|
|
77,950 |
|
|
|
110,925 |
|
|
|
|
27,055 |
|
|
|
104,551 |
|
|
|
119,436 |
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
2,753 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
151,245 |
|
|
|
122,526 |
|
|
|
174,423 |
|
|
|
|
39,764 |
|
|
|
142,543 |
|
|
|
158,228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expense
|
|
|
20,170 |
|
|
|
15,073 |
|
|
|
21,363 |
|
|
|
|
4,121 |
|
|
|
24,719 |
|
|
|
26,076 |
|
|
Transportation expense
|
|
|
1,697 |
|
|
|
3,744 |
|
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
|
1,070 |
|
|
|
6,252 |
|
|
|
10,480 |
|
|
General and administrative expense
|
|
|
26,726 |
|
|
|
6,174 |
|
|
|
7,641 |
|
|
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
8,098 |
|
|
|
7,716 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
43,457 |
|
|
|
37,464 |
|
|
|
54,281 |
|
|
|
|
10,630 |
|
|
|
48,339 |
|
|
|
70,821 |
|
|
Derivative settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of Enron-related receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,234 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
92,548 |
|
|
|
63,412 |
|
|
|
86,201 |
|
|
|
|
16,952 |
|
|
|
90,630 |
|
|
|
118,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME
|
|
|
58,697 |
|
|
|
59,114 |
|
|
|
88,222 |
|
|
|
|
22,812 |
|
|
|
51,913 |
|
|
|
39,901 |
|
Interest:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
696 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
Expense, net of amounts capitalized
|
|
|
(5,416 |
) |
|
|
(4,381 |
) |
|
|
(6,045 |
) |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(6,981 |
) |
|
|
(10,298 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before taxes
|
|
|
53,977 |
|
|
|
54,901 |
|
|
|
82,402 |
|
|
|
|
22,898 |
|
|
|
45,688 |
|
|
|
29,993 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(18,414 |
) |
|
|
(19,221 |
) |
|
|
(28,783 |
) |
|
|
|
(8,072 |
) |
|
|
(9,387 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting
method, net of tax effects
|
|
|
35,563 |
|
|
|
35,680 |
|
|
|
53,619 |
|
|
|
|
14,826 |
|
|
|
36,301 |
|
|
|
29,993 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME
|
|
$ |
35,563 |
|
|
|
35,680 |
|
|
$ |
53,619 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,826 |
|
|
$ |
38,244 |
|
|
$ |
29,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per sharebasic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting
method, net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per sharebasic
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.29 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per sharediluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting
method, net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per sharediluted
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.29 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstandingbasic
|
|
|
32,438,240 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
Weighted average shares outstandingdiluted
|
|
|
33,312,831 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements
F-4
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY AND COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
Additional | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Retained | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
Paid-In | |
|
Unearned | |
|
Comprehensive | |
|
Earnings | |
|
Stockholders | |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Capital | |
|
Compensation | |
|
Income (Loss) | |
|
(Deficit) | |
|
Equity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2001
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
227,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
25,803 |
|
|
$ |
(73,039 |
) |
|
$ |
180,083 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,993 |
|
|
|
29,993 |
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,105 |
) |
|
Hedge settlements reclassified to income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,987 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2002
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
227,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(14,177 |
) |
|
$ |
(43,046 |
) |
|
$ |
170,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,244 |
|
|
|
38,244 |
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,280 |
|
|
Hedge settlements reclassified to income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,463 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,463 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
227,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(4,360 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,802 |
) |
|
$ |
218,157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger Net Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,826 |
|
|
|
14,826 |
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,312 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,312 |
) |
|
Hedge settlements reclassified to income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(745 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(745 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Merger Balance at March 2, 2004
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
227,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(12,417 |
) |
|
$ |
10,024 |
|
|
$ |
224,926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(166,432 |
) |
|
|
(166,432 |
) |
|
Merger adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(135,401 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,417 |
|
|
|
156,408 |
|
|
|
33,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 3, 2004
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
91,917 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
91,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,619 |
|
|
|
53,619 |
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative hedging instrumentsnet
of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,171 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32,171 |
) |
|
Hedge settlements reclassified to incomenet of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,541 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,989 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
91,917 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(11,630 |
) |
|
$ |
53,619 |
|
|
$ |
133,907 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
Additional | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
Retained | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
Paid-In | |
|
Unearned | |
|
Comprehensive | |
|
Earnings | |
|
Stockholders | |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Capital | |
|
Compensation | |
|
Income (Loss) | |
|
(Deficit) | |
|
Equity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
|
Common shares issuedprivate equity offering (unaudited)
|
|
|
3,600 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
44,532 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44,534 |
|
|
Common shares issuedrestricted stock (unaudited)
|
|
|
2,267 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
31,741 |
|
|
|
(31,742 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of unearned compensationnet of income taxes
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,194 |
|
|
Stock compensation expense stock optionsnet of
income taxes (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
420 |
|
Contributed capitalMariner Energy, LLC and Mariner
Holdings, Inc. (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,057 |
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,563 |
|
|
|
35,563 |
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of derivative hedging instrumentsnet
of income taxes (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(79,479 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(79,479 |
) |
|
Hedge settlements reclassified to incomenet of income
taxes (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss) (unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,515 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at September 30, 2005 (unaudited)
|
|
|
35,615 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
171,667 |
|
|
$ |
(14,548 |
) |
|
$ |
(67,708 |
) |
|
$ |
89,182 |
|
|
$ |
178,597 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements
F-6
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
Ended | |
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
Operating Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
35,563 |
|
|
$ |
35,680 |
|
|
$ |
53,619 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,826 |
|
|
$ |
38,244 |
|
|
$ |
29,993 |
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax
|
|
|
15,862 |
|
|
|
17,601 |
|
|
|
27,162 |
|
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
44,321 |
|
|
|
37,964 |
|
|
|
55,067 |
|
|
|
|
10,630 |
|
|
|
48,414 |
|
|
|
70,588 |
|
|
Stock compensation expense
|
|
|
17,614 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedge activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,030 |
) |
|
|
(23,200 |
) |
|
Impairment of Enron-related receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,234 |
|
|
Impairment of production equipment held for use
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on sale of fixed assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,988 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
2,476 |
|
|
|
7,707 |
|
|
|
(10,615 |
) |
|
|
|
(8,847 |
) |
|
|
(3,599 |
) |
|
|
4,449 |
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
2,100 |
|
|
|
(965 |
) |
|
|
|
551 |
|
|
|
(2,257 |
) |
|
|
3,249 |
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
(629 |
) |
|
|
(636 |
) |
|
|
321 |
|
|
|
|
(963 |
) |
|
|
1,485 |
|
|
|
344 |
|
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,800 |
) |
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
14,574 |
|
|
|
(15,195 |
) |
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
19,251 |
|
|
|
3,261 |
|
|
|
9,697 |
|
|
|
|
(3,974 |
) |
|
|
1,208 |
|
|
|
(13,256 |
) |
|
|
Taxes payable to parent company and deferred income tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
135,374 |
|
|
|
96,834 |
|
|
|
135,863 |
|
|
|
|
20,296 |
|
|
|
103,483 |
|
|
|
60,275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to oil and gas properties
|
|
|
(132,988 |
) |
|
|
(85,699 |
) |
|
|
(133,425 |
) |
|
|
|
(15,264 |
) |
|
|
(83,228 |
) |
|
|
(105,360 |
) |
|
Proceeds from property conveyances
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121,625 |
|
|
|
52,329 |
|
|
Additions to other property and equipment
|
|
|
(9,114 |
) |
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(738 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by investing
activities
|
|
|
(142,084 |
) |
|
|
(85,868 |
) |
|
|
(133,597 |
) |
|
|
|
(15,342 |
) |
|
|
38,347 |
|
|
|
(53,769 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financing Activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial borrowings from revolving credit facility, net of fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131,579 |
|
|
|
131,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of subordinated notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of term note
|
|
|
(6,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit facility borrowings (repayments), net
|
|
|
(30,000 |
) |
|
|
(40,000 |
) |
|
|
(30,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from private equity offering
|
|
|
44,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred offering costs
|
|
|
(2,680 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital contribution from affiliates
|
|
|
2,879 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend to Mariner Energy LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(166,431 |
) |
|
|
(166,432 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by financing
activities
|
|
|
8,733 |
|
|
|
(74,852 |
) |
|
|
(64,853 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
|
2,023 |
|
|
|
(63,886 |
) |
|
|
(62,587 |
) |
|
|
|
4,954 |
|
|
|
41,830 |
|
|
|
6,506 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period
|
|
|
2,541 |
|
|
|
65,128 |
|
|
|
65,128 |
|
|
|
|
60,174 |
|
|
|
18,344 |
|
|
|
11,838 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period
|
|
$ |
4,564 |
|
|
$ |
1,242 |
|
|
$ |
2,541 |
|
|
|
$ |
65,128 |
|
|
$ |
60,174 |
|
|
$ |
18,344 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements
F-7
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
|
|
1. |
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
Operations Mariner Energy, Inc. (the
Company) is an independent oil and gas exploration,
development and production company with principal operations in
the Gulf of Mexico, both shelf and deepwater, and the Permian
Basin in West Texas.
Unaudited Interim Financial Statements The
accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements as of
September 30, 2005 and for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and the period from March 3, 2004
through September 30, 2004 have been prepared in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States for interim financial information and with
Article 10 of
Regulation S-X.
Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and
footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States for complete financial statements. In the
opinion of management, all material adjustments (consisting only
of normal and recurring adjustments) necessary to present a fair
statement of our financial position and results of operations
for the interim periods included herein have been made, and the
disclosures contained herein are adequate to make the
information presented not misleading. Quarterly results are not
necessarily indicative of expected annual results because of the
impact of commodity price fluctuations and other factors.
Organization On March 2, 2004, Mariner Energy
LLC, the parent company of Mariner Energy, Inc. (the
Company), merged with a subsidiary of MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of the private equity
funds Carlyle/ Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund II,
L.P. and ACON Investments LLC (the Merger) (See
Note 2). Prior to the Merger, Joint Energy Development
Investments Limited Partnership (JEDI), which is an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron Corp.
(Enron), owned approximately 96% of the common stock
of Mariner Energy LLC (see Note 3). In the Merger, all the
shares of common stock in Mariner Energy LLC were converted into
the right to receive cash and certain other consideration. As a
result, JEDI no longer owns any interest in Mariner Energy LLC,
and the Company is no longer affiliated with JEDI or Enron.
Simultaneously with the Merger, the Company obtained a revolving
line of credit with initial advances of $135 million from a
group of banks. The loan proceeds and an additional
$31.2 million of Company funds distributed to Mariner
Energy LLC were used to pay a portion of the gross Merger
consideration (which included repayment of $197.6 million
of Mariner Energy LLC debt outstanding at the time of the
Merger) and estimated transaction costs and expenses associated
with the Merger and bank financing. The Company also issued a
$10 million note and assigned a fully reserved receivable
valued at $1.9 million to Joint Energy Development
Investments Limited Partnership (JEDI), an Enron
Corp. affiliate and the majority owner of Mariner Energy LLC
prior to the Merger, as part of JEDIs Merger
consideration. In addition, pursuant to the Merger agreement,
JEDI agreed to indemnify the Company from certain liabilities
and the Company agreed to pay additional Merger consideration
contingent upon the outcome of a certain five well drilling
program that was completed in the second quarter of 2004. In
September 2004, the Company paid approximately $161,000 as
additional Merger consideration related to the five well
drilling program, and the Company believes it has fully
discharged its obligations thereunder.
F-8
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The sources and uses of funds related to the Merger were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. bank loan proceeds
|
|
$ |
135.0 |
|
Note payable issued by Mariner Energy, Inc. to former parent
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
Equity from new owners
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Distributions from Mariner Energy, Inc.
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
Assignment by Mariner Energy, Inc. of receivables
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
278.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of former parent debt obligation
|
|
$ |
197.6 |
|
Merger consideration to stockholders and warrant holders
|
|
|
73.5 |
|
Acquisition costs and other expenses
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
278.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of the change in control, accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States requires the Merger and
the resulting acquisition of Mariner Energy LLC by MEI
Acquisitions Holdings, LLC to be accounted for as a purchase
transaction in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 141, Business Combinations. Staff
Accounting bulletin No. 54 (SAB 54)
requires the application of push down accounting in
situations where the ownership of an entity has changed, meaning
that the post-transaction financial statements of the Company
reflect the new basis of accounting. Accordingly, the financial
statements as of December 31, 2004 reflect the
Companys fair value basis resulting from the acquisition
that has been pushed down to the Company. The aggregate purchase
price has been allocated to the underlying assets and
liabilities based upon the respective estimated fair values at
March 2, 2004 (date of Merger). The allocation of the
purchase price has been finalized. Carryover basis accounting
applies for tax purposes. All financial information presented
prior to March 2, 2004 represents the basis of accounting
used by the pre-Merger entity. The period January 1, 2004
through March 2, 2004 is referred to as 2004 Pre-Merger and the
period March 3, 2004 through December 31, 2004 is referred to as
2004 Post-Merger.
F-9
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following table summarizes the estimated fair values of the
assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the March 2,
2004 acquisition:
ALLOCATION OF PURCHASE PRICE TO MARINER ENERGY, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 2, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Oil and natural gas properties proved
|
|
$ |
203.5 |
|
Oil and natural gas properties unproved
|
|
|
25.2 |
|
Other property and equipment and other assets
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
Current assets
|
|
|
83.2 |
|
Deferred tax asset(1)
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
|
|
(62.2 |
) |
Long-Term Liability
|
|
|
(14.7 |
) |
Fair value of oil and natural gas derivatives
|
|
|
(12.4 |
) |
Debt
|
|
|
(145.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Allocation
|
|
$ |
92.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Represents deferred income taxes recorded at the date of the
Merger due to differences between the book basis and the tax
basis of assets. For book purposes, we had a
step-up in basis
related to purchase accounting while our existing tax basis
carried over. |
The following reflects the unaudited pro forma results of
operations as though the Merger had been consummated at
January 1, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twelve Months | |
|
|
Ending | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(in millions) | |
Revenues and other income
|
|
$ |
214.2 |
|
Income before taxes and change in accounting method
|
|
|
103.0 |
|
Net income
|
|
|
67.0 |
|
On February 10, 2005, in anticipation of the Companys
private placement of 31,452,500 shares of common stock (the
Private Equity Offering), Mariner Holdings, Inc.
(the direct parent of Mariner Energy, Inc.) and Mariner Energy
LLC (the direct parent of Mariner Holdings, Inc.) were merged
into Mariner Energy, Inc. and ceased to exist. The mergers of
Mariner Holdings, Inc. and Mariner Energy LLC into the Company
had no operational or financial impact on the Company; however,
intercompany receivables of $0.2 million and
$2.9 million in cash held by the affiliates were
transferred to the Company in February 2005 and accounted
for as additional
paid-in capital.
Net Income Per Share Basic earnings per share is
calculated by dividing net income by the weighted average number
of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. No
dilution for any potentially dilutive securities is included.
Fully diluted earnings per share assumes the conversion of all
potentially dilutive securities and is calculated by dividing
net income by the sum of the weighted average number of shares
of common stock outstanding plus all potentially dilutive
securities.
F-10
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
Nine Months | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
Years Ended | |
|
|
Ended | |
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
September 30, | |
|
September 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
35,563 |
|
|
$ |
35,680 |
|
|
$ |
53,619 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,826 |
|
|
$ |
36,301 |
|
|
$ |
29,993 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
35,563 |
|
|
$ |
35,680 |
|
|
$ |
53,619 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,826 |
|
|
$ |
38,244 |
|
|
$ |
29,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
32,438 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
Add dilutive securities: Restricted shares
|
|
|
875 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total weighted average shares outstanding and dilutive securities
|
|
|
33,313 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
29,748 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per sharebasic
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.29 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per share diluted
|
|
$ |
1.07 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
|
$ |
.50 |
|
|
$ |
1.29 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective March 3, 2005, we effected a stock split
increasing our authorized shares from 2,000,000 to 70,000,000
and our outstanding shares from 1,380 to 29,748,130. We also
changed the stated par value of our stock from $1 to
$.0001 per share. The accompanying financial and earnings
per share information has been restated utilizing the post-split
shares. Effective with our merger on March 2, 2004, all
company stock option plans and associated outstanding stock
options were canceled.
For the periods presented prior to 2005, Mariner Energy, Inc.
had no outstanding stock options so the basic and diluted
earnings per share were the same. In March 2005, 2,267,270
restricted stock awards were granted under the Equity
Participation Plan and 787,360 stock options were granted under
the Stock Incentive Plan. During the second and third quarters
of 2005, an additional 21,640 stock options were granted under
the Stock Incentive Plan for a total of 809,000 stock options
outstanding as of September 30, 2005. Outstanding
restricted stock and unexercised stock options diluted earnings
by $0.03 per share for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005.
Cash and Cash Equivalents All short-term, highly
liquid investments that have an original maturity date of three
months or less are considered cash equivalents.
F-11
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Receivables Substantially all of the Companys
receivables arise from sales of oil or natural gas, or from
reimbursable expenses billed to the other participants in oil
and gas wells for which the Company serves as operator.
Oil and Gas Properties Oil and gas properties are
accounted for using the full-cost method of accounting. All
direct costs and certain indirect costs associated with the
acquisition, exploration and development of oil and gas
properties are capitalized. Amortization of oil and gas
properties is provided using the
unit-of-production
method based on estimated proved oil and gas reserves. No gains
or losses are recognized upon the sale or disposition of oil and
gas properties unless the sale or disposition represents a
significant quantity of oil and gas reserves, which would have a
significant impact on the depreciation, depletion and
amortization rate. The net carrying value of proved oil and gas
properties is limited to an estimate of the future net revenues
(discounted at 10%) from proved oil and gas reserves based on
period-end prices and costs plus the lower of cost or estimated
fair value of unproved properties.
Under full cost accounting rules, total capitalized costs are
limited to a ceiling equal to the present value of future net
revenues, discounted at 10% per annum, plus the lower of
cost or fair value of unproved properties less income tax
effects (the ceiling limitation). We perform a
quarterly ceiling test to evaluate whether the net book value of
our full cost pool exceeds the ceiling limitation. If
capitalized costs (net of accumulated depreciation, depletion
and amortization) less related deferred taxes are greater than
the discounted future net revenues or ceiling limitation, a
write-down or impairment of the full cost pool is required. A
write-down of the carrying value of the full cost pool is a
non-cash charge that reduces earnings and impacts
stockholders equity in the period of occurrence and
typically results in lower depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense in future periods. Once incurred, a
write-down is not reversible at a later date.
The ceiling test is calculated using natural gas and oil prices
in effect as of the balance sheet date and adjusted for
basis or location differential, held constant over
the life of the reserves. We use derivative financial
instruments that qualify for cash flow hedge accounting under
SFAS 133 to hedge against the volatility of natural gas
prices, and in accordance with SEC guidelines, we include
estimated future cash flows from our hedging program in our
ceiling test calculation. In addition, subsequent to the
adoption of SFAS 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement
Obligations, the future cash outflows associated with
settling asset retirement obligations are not included in the
computation of the discounted present value of future net
revenues for the purposes of the ceiling test calculation.
Unproved Properties The costs associated with
unevaluated properties and properties under development are not
initially included in the full cost amortization base and relate
to unproved leasehold acreage, seismic data, wells and
production facilities in progress and wells pending
determination together with interest costs capitalized for these
projects. Unevaluated leasehold costs are transferred to the
amortization base once determination has been made or upon
expiration of a lease. Geological and geophysical costs,
including 3-D seismic data costs, are included in the full cost
amortization base as incurred when such costs cannot be
associated with specific unevaluated properties for which we own
a direct interest. Seismic data costs are associated with
specific unevaluated properties if the seismic data is acquired
for the purpose of evaluating acreage or trends covered by a
leasehold interest owned by us. We make this determination based
on an analysis of leasehold and seismic maps and discussions
with our Chief Exploration Officer. Geological and geophysical
costs included in unproved properties are transferred to the
full cost amortization base along with the associated leasehold
costs on a specific project basis.
F-12
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Costs associated with wells in progress and wells pending
determination are transferred to the amortization base once a
determination is made whether or not proved reserves can be
assigned to the property. Costs of dry holes are transferred to
the amortization base immediately upon determination that the
well is unsuccessful. All items included in our unevaluated
property balance are assessed on a quarterly basis for possible
impairment or reduction in value. We estimate these costs will
be evaluated within a three-year period.
Other Property and EquipmentDepreciation of other
property and equipment is provided on a straight-line basis over
their estimated useful lives, which range from three to
twenty-two years.
Prepaid Expenses and OtherPrepaid expenses and
other includes $3.6 million of oil and gas lease and well
equipment held in inventory at December 31, 2004. In 2004
and the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we reduced the
carrying cost of our inventory by $957,000 and $498,000,
respectively, to account for a reduction in the estimated value,
primarily related to subsea trees held in inventory.
Other AssetsOther assets as of September 30,
2005 were primarily comprised of $1.7 million of
amortizable bank fees and $3.0 million of prepaid seismic
costs. Other assets as of December 31, 2004 were primarily
comprised of $2.5 million of amortizable bank fees and
various deposits held by third parties. Other assets as of
December 31, 2003 were primarily comprised of a $977,000
receivable from Mariner Energy LLC and various deposits held by
third parties. Accumulated amortization as of September 30,
2005, December 31, 2004 and 2003 was $1.8 million,
$0.9 million and $6.6 million, respectively.
Production CostsAll costs relating to production
activities, including workover costs incurred to maintain
production, are charged to expense as incurred.
General and Administrative Costs and ExpensesUnder
the full cost method of accounting, a portion of our general and
administrative expenses that are attributable to our
acquisition, exploration and development activities are
capitalized as part of our full cost pool. These capitalized
costs include salaries, employee benefits, costs of consulting
services and other costs directly identified with acquisition
exploration and development activities. We capitalized general
and administrative costs related to our acquisition, exploration
and development activities, during 2004, 2003 and 2002, of
$6.9 million, $6.6 million and $9.5 million,
respectively.
We receive reimbursement for administrative and overhead
expenses incurred on behalf of other working interest owners on
properties we operate. These reimbursements totaling
$4.4 million, $1.8 million and $2.8 million for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively, were allocated as reductions to general and
administrative expenses incurred. Generally, we do not receive
any reimbursements or fees in excess of the costs incurred;
however, if we did, we would credit the excess to the full cost
pool to be recognized through lower cost amortization as
production occurs.
Income TaxesThe Companys taxable income is
included in a consolidated United States income tax return with
Mariner Energy LLC. The intercompany tax allocation policy
provides that each member of the consolidated group compute a
provision for income taxes on a separate return basis. The
Company records its income taxes using an asset and liability
approach which results in the recognition of deferred tax assets
and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of
temporary differences between the book carrying amounts and the
tax bases of assets and liabilities. Valuation allowances are
established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the
amount more likely than not to be recovered.
F-13
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Capitalized Interest CostsThe Company capitalizes
interest based on the cost of major development projects which
are excluded from current depreciation, depletion, and
amortization calculations. Capitalized interest costs were
approximately $-0- and $434,000 for 2004
Pre-merger and 2004
Post-merger,
respectively, and $727,000, and $1,022,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Accrual for Future Abandonment CostsStatement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,
addresses accounting and reporting for obligations associated
with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets and the
associated asset retirement costs. SFAS No. 143 was
adopted on January 1, 2003. SFAS No. 143 requires
that the fair value of a liability for an assets
retirement obligation be recorded in the period in which it is
incurred and the corresponding cost capitalized by increasing
the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. The
liability is accreted to its then present value each period, and
the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the
related asset. If the liability is settled for an amount other
than the recorded amount, a gain or loss is recognized.
The adoption of SFAS 143 resulted in a January 1, 2003
cumulative effect adjustment to record (i) an
$11.3 million increase in the carrying values of proved
properties, and (ii) a $4.5 million increase in
current abandonment liabilities. The net impact of these items
was to record a pre-tax gain of $3.0 million as a
cumulative effect adjustment of a change in accounting principle
in the Companys statements of operations upon adoption on
January 1, 2003.
F-14
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following roll forward is provided as a reconciliation of
the beginning and ending aggregate carrying amounts of the asset
retirement obligation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Abandonment liability as of January 1, 2003 (Pre-Merger)
|
|
$ |
15.7 |
|
Liabilities incurred
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
Claims settled
|
|
|
(3.9 |
) |
Accretion expense
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment liability as of December 31, 2003 (Pre-Merger)
|
|
$ |
15.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities Incurred
|
|
|
|
|
Claims Settled
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
Accretion Expense
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment Liability as of March 2, 2004 (Pre-merger)
|
|
$ |
13.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment Liability as of March 3, 2004 (Post-merger)
|
|
$ |
13.7 |
|
Liabilities Incurred
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
Claims Settled
|
|
|
(2.7 |
) |
Accretion Expense
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment Liability as of December 31, 2004
(Post-merger)(1)
|
|
$ |
24.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities Incurred (unaudited)
|
|
|
9.4 |
|
Claims Settled (unaudited)
|
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
Accretion Expense (unaudited)
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment Liability as of September 30, 2005
(Post-merger) (unaudited)(2)
|
|
$ |
33.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes $4.7 million classified as a current accrued
liability at December 31, 2004. |
|
(2) |
Includes $6.8 million classified as a current accrued
liability at September 30, 2005. |
Hedging ProgramThe Company utilizes derivative
instruments in the form of natural gas and crude oil price swap
agreements and costless collar arrangements in order to manage
price risk associated with future crude oil and natural gas
production and fixed-price crude oil and natural gas purchase
and sale commitments. Such agreements are accounted for as
hedges using the deferral method of accounting. Gains and losses
resulting from these transactions, recorded at market value, are
deferred and recorded in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
(AOCI) as appropriate, until recognized as operating
income in the Companys Statement of Operations as the
physical production hedged by the contracts is delivered.
The net cash flows related to any recognized gains or losses
associated with these hedges are reported as oil and gas
revenues and presented in cash flows from operations. If the
hedge is terminated prior to expected maturity, gains or losses
are deferred and included in income in the same period as the
physical production hedged by the contracts is delivered.
F-15
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The conditions to be met for a derivative instrument to qualify
as a cash flow hedge are the following: (i) the item to be
hedged exposes the Company to price risk; (ii) the
derivative reduces the risk exposure and is designated as a
hedge at the time the derivative contract is entered into; and
(iii) at the inception of the hedge and throughout the
hedge period there is a high correlation of changes in the
market value of the derivative instrument and the fair value of
the underlying item being hedged.
When the designated item associated with a derivative instrument
matures, is sold, extinguished or terminated, derivative gains
or losses are recognized as part of the gain or loss on sale or
settlement of the underlying item. When a derivative instrument
is associated with an anticipated transaction that is no longer
expected to occur or if correlation no longer exists, the gain
or loss on the derivative is recognized in income to the extent
the future results have not been offset by the effects of price
or interest rate changes on the hedged item since the inception
of the hedge.
Revenue RecognitionWe use the entitlements method
of accounting for the recognition of natural gas and oil
revenues. Under this method of accounting, income is recorded
based on our net revenue interest in production or nominated
deliveries. We incur production gas volume imbalances in the
ordinary course of business. Net deliveries in excess of
entitled amounts are recorded as liabilities, while net under
deliveries are reflected as assets. Imbalances are reduced
either by subsequent recoupment of over-and-under deliveries or
by cash settlement, as required by applicable contracts.
Production imbalances are
marked-to-market at the
end of each month at the lowest of (i) the price in effect
at the time of production; (ii) the current market price;
or (iii) the contract price, if a contract is in hand.
Oil and gas volumes sold are not significantly different from
the Companys share of production.
Financial InstrumentsThe Companys financial
instruments consist of cash and cash equivalents, receivables,
payables and outstanding debt. The carrying amount of the
Companys other instruments noted above approximate fair
value due to the short-term nature of these investments. The
carrying amount of our
long-term debt
approximates fair value as the interest rates are generally
indexed to current market rates.
Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial
StatementsThe 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 amount
of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual
results could differ from these estimates.
Major CustomersDuring the twelve months ended
December 31, 2004, sales of oil and gas to three
purchasers, including an Enron affiliate, accounted for 27%, 18%
and 12% of total revenues. During the year ended
December 31, 2003, sales of oil and gas to three
purchasers, including an Enron affiliate, accounted for 34%, 19%
and 14% of total revenues. During the year ended
December 31, 2002, sales of oil and gas to three
purchasers, including an Enron affiliate, accounted for 42%, 14%
and 9% of total revenues. Management believes that the loss of
any of these purchasers would not have a material impact on the
Companys financial condition or results of operations.
Stock OptionsThe Company (as allowed by
SFAS No. 123 Accounting for Stock Based
Compensation as amended by SFAS No. 148
Accounting for Stock-Based CompensationTransition
and Disclosure) has historically applied APB Opinion
No. 25 Accounting for Stock Issued to
F-16
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Employees for its grants made pursuant to its employee
stock option plans. The Company applies APB Opinion 25 and
related interpretations in accounting for the Stock Option Plan.
Accordingly, no compensation cost has been recognized for the
Stock Option Plan. Had compensation cost for the Stock Option
Plan been determined based on the fair value at the grant date
for awards under the Stock Option Plan consistent with the
method of SFAS No. 123, the Companys net income
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 would
not have changed. Effective January 1, 2005, we adopted the
fair value expense recognition provisions of SFAS 123(R).
Using the modified retrospective application, the Company would
be required to give effect to the fair-value based method of
accounting for awards granted, modified, or settled in cash in
fiscal years beginning after December 15, 1994 on a basis
consistent with the pro forma disclosures required for those
periods by Statement 123, as amended by FASB Statement
No. 14 Accounting for Stock Based
CompensationTransition and Disclosure. Since the
Company had no employee stock options plans in effect at
January 1, 2005, adoption of this method is expected to
have no impact on historical information presented by the
Company.
As a result of the adoption of the above described
SFAS No. 123(R), we recorded compensation expense for
the fair value of restricted stock that was granted pursuant to
our Equity Participation Plan (see Management of
MarinerEquity Participation Plan) and for
subsequent grants of stock options or restricted stock made
pursuant to the Mariner Energy, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (see
Management of MarinerStock Incentive
Plan). We recorded compensation expense for the
restricted stock grants equal to their fair value at the time of
the grant, amortized pro rata over the restricted period.
General and administrative expense for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 includes $17.2 million of
compensation expense related to restricted stock granted in 2005
and $0.4 million of compensation expense related to stock
options outstanding as of September 30, 2005. For the
comparable period in 2004, we recorded no stock compensation
expense related to either restricted stock or stock options.
Recent Accounting PronouncementsIn May 2003, the
FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 150 Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments
with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity, or
SFAS No. 150. SFAS No. 150 establishes
standards on how a company classifies and measures certain
financial instruments with characteristics of both liabilities
and equity. The statement requires that the Company classify as
liabilities the fair value of all mandatorily redeemable
financial instruments that had previously been recorded as
equity or elsewhere in the consolidated financial statements.
This statement is effective for financial instruments entered
into or modified after May 31, 2003, and is otherwise
effective for all existing financial instruments beginning in
the third quarter of 2003. SFAS No. 150 did not impact
the Company.
On September 2, 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FAS 142-2,
Application of FASB Statement No. 142, Goodwill
and Other Intangible Assets, to Oil and Gas Producing
Entities, (FSP
FAS 142-2)
addressing whether the scope exception within Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets
(SFAS 142) includes the balance sheet
classification and disclosures for drilling and mineral rights
of oil and gas producing properties. The FASB staff concluded
that the accounting framework for oil and gas entities is based
on the level of established reserves, not whether an asset is
tangible or intangible, and thus the scope exception extended to
the balance sheet classification and disclosure provisions for
such assets.
On September 28, 2004, the SEC released Staff Accounting
Bulletin (SAB) 106 regarding the application of
SFAS 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations
(AROs), by oil and gas
F-17
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
producing companies following the full cost accounting method.
Pursuant to SAB 106, oil and gas producing companies that
have adopted SFAS 143 should exclude the future cash
outflows associated with settling AROs (ARO liabilities) from
the computation of the present value of estimated future net
revenues for the purposes of the full cost ceiling calculation.
In addition, estimated dismantlement and abandonment costs, net
of estimated salvage values, that have been capitalized (ARO
assets) should be included in the amortization base for
computing depreciation, depletion and amortization expense.
Disclosures are required to include discussion of how a
companys ceiling test and depreciation, depletion and
amortization calculations are impacted by the adoption of
SFAS 143. SAB 106 is effective prospectively as of the
beginning of the first fiscal quarter beginning after
October 4, 2004. Since our adoption of SFAS 143 on
January 1, 2003, we have calculated the ceiling test and
our depreciation, depletion and amortization expense in
accordance with the interpretations set forth in SAB 106;
therefore, the adoption SAB 106 had no effect on our
financial statements.
On December 16, 2004, the FASB issued Statement 153,
Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets, an amendment of APB
Opinion No. 29, to clarify the accounting for nonmonetary
exchanges of similar productive assets. SFAS 153 eliminates
the exception from the fair value measurement for nonmonetary
exchanges of similar productive assets and replaces it with a
general exception for exchanges of nonmonetary assets that do
not have commercial substance. The statement will be applied
prospectively and is effective for nonmonetary asset exchanges
occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005.
We do not have any nonmonetary transactions for any period
presented to which this statement would apply. We do not expect
the adoption of SFAS 153 to have a material impact on our
financial statements.
|
|
2. |
Related Party Transactions |
Organization and Ownership of the CompanyUntil
February 10, 2005, the Company was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mariner Holdings, Inc., which was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mariner Energy LLC. From April 1, 1996, until
October 1998, Mariner Holdings, Inc. was a majority-owned
subsidiary of JEDI, an affiliate of Enron. In October 1998, JEDI
and other stockholders of Mariner Holdings, Inc. exchanged all
of their common shares of Mariner Holdings, Inc. for an
equivalent ownership percentage in Mariner Energy LLC. From
October 1998 until the Merger, Mariner Energy LLC was a
majority-owned subsidiary of JEDI.
During the period of JEDIs ownership of the Company,
Mariner Energy LLC and the Company entered into various
financing and operating transactions, such as oil and gas sale
transactions, commodity price hedge transactions, and financial
transactions with affiliates of Enron. Below is a summary of key
transactions between the Company or Mariner Energy LLC and
Enron-affiliated entities.
On February 10, 2005, in anticipation of the Private Equity
Offering, Mariner Holdings, Inc. (the direct parent of Mariner
Energy, Inc.) and Mariner Energy LLC (the direct parent of
Mariner Holdings, Inc.) were merged into Mariner Energy, Inc.
and ceased to exist. The mergers of Mariner Holdings, Inc. and
Mariner Energy LLC into the Company had no operational or
financial impact on the Company.
Enron Affiliate Term LoanIn March 2000, Mariner
Energy LLC established an unsecured term loan with Enron North
America Corp. (ENA), an affiliate of Enron, to repay
amounts outstanding under various affiliate credit facilities at
Mariner Energy LLC and the Company and provide additional
F-18
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
working capital. The loan bore interest at 15%, which interest
accrued and was added to the loan principal. In conjunction with
the loan, warrants were issued to ENA providing the right to
purchase up to 900,000 common shares of Mariner Energy LLC for
$0.01 per share. The loan and warrants were subsequently
assigned by ENA to another Enron affiliate. In connection with
the Merger, the loan balance, which was approximately
$192.8 million as of December 31, 2003, was repaid in
full, and the warrants were exercised and the holders received
their pro rata portion of the Merger consideration.
Oil and Gas Production Sales to Enron
AffiliatesDuring the three years ending
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, sales of oil and gas
production to Enron affiliates were $62.6 million,
$32.6 million and $56.4 million, respectively. These
sales were generally made on one to three month contracts. At
the time Enron filed its petition for bankruptcy protection in
December 2001, the Company immediately ceased selling its
physical production to Enron Upstream Company, LLC, an Enron
affiliate; however, it continued to sell its production to
Bridgeline Gas Marketing, LLC, another Enron affiliate. No
default in payment by Bridgeline has occurred. As of
December 31, 2001, after Enron filed for bankruptcy
protection, the Company had an outstanding receivable of
$3.0 million from ENA Upstream related to sales of
production. This amount was not paid as scheduled. In 2001, we
fully allowed for its uncollectability and reduced the
outstanding receivable to $-0-. The Company submitted a proof of
claim to the bankruptcy court presiding over the Enron
bankruptcy for amounts owed to it by ENA Upstream. As part of
the Merger consideration, the Company assigned this and another
receivable to JEDI at an agreed value of approximately
$1.9 million.
Price Risk Management ActivitiesThe Company engages
in price risk management activities from time to time. These
activities are intended to manage its exposure to fluctuations
in commodity prices for natural gas and crude oil. The Company
primarily utilizes price swaps as a means to manage such risk.
Prior to the Enron bankruptcy, all of the Companys hedging
contracts were with ENA. As a result of ENAs bankruptcy,
the November 2001 through April 30, 2002 settlements for
oil and gas were not paid when due. On May 14, 2002, the
Company elected under its ISDA Master Agreement with ENA to
terminate all open hedge contracts. The effect of this
termination was to fix the nominal value on all remaining
contracts on May 14, 2002. Subsequent to this termination,
the value of all oil and natural gas unpaid hedge contracts was
$7.7 million. In accordance with Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 133
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, as amended by SFAS No. 137 and
No. 138, the Company de-designated its contracts effective
December 2, 2001 and recognized all market value changes
subsequent to such
de-designation in its
earnings. The value recorded up to the time of
de-designation and
included in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income
(AOCI), was reclassified out of AOCI and into
earnings as the original corresponding production, as hedged by
the contracts was produced. As of December 31, 2003,
approximately $25.8 million was reclassified to earnings.
F-19
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following table sets forth the results of hedging
transactions during the periods indicated that were made with
ENA (all amounts shown are non-cash items):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Natural gas quantity hedged (MMbtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,650,000 |
|
Increase (decrease) in natural gas sales (thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,603 |
|
Crude oil quantity hedged (MBbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in crude oil sales (thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental ENA Affiliate Dataprovided below is
supplemental balance sheet and income statement information for
affiliate entities reflecting net balances, net of any
allowances:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 |
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(amount in millions) | |
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Party Receivable:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Asset
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Settled Hedge Receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and Gas Receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation Contract
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
Service Agreement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
Stockholders Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
.001 |
|
|
Additional Paid in Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
227.3 |
|
|
Accumulated other Comprehensive Income
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
227.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 |
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
Income Statement Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and Gas Sales
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
32.6 |
|
General and Administrative Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
Transportation Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
Unrealized gain and other non-cash derivative instrument
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger Related Party Transactions |
In connection with the Merger, Mariner Energy LLC entered into
management agreements with two affiliates of MEI Acquisitions
Holdings, LLC, the Companys post-Merger parent company.
These agreements provided for the payment by Mariner Energy LLC
of an aggregate of $2.5 million to the affiliates in
connection with the provision of management services. Such
payments have been made.
F-20
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Mariner Energy LLC also entered into monitoring agreements with
two affiliates of MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC, providing for
the payment by Mariner Energy LLC of an aggregate of one percent
of its annual EBITDA to the affiliates in connection with
certain monitoring activities. Under the terms of the monitoring
agreements, the affiliates provided financial advisory services
in connection with the ongoing operations of Mariner subsequent
to the Merger.
Effective February 7, 2005, these contracts were terminated
in consideration of lump sum cash payments by Mariner totalling
$2.3 million. The Company recorded the termination payments
as general and administrative expenses for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005.
In April 2002, the Company sold 50% of its working interest in
its Falcon discovery and surrounding blocks, located in East
Breaks Block 579 in the western Gulf of Mexico, for
$48.8 million. After the sale, the Company had a 25%
working interest in the discovery and surrounding blocks. No
gain or loss was recognized as a result of this sale, as the
sale did not significantly affect the Companys depletion
rate.
In March 2003, the Company sold its remaining 25% working
interest in its Falcon and Harrier discoveries and surrounding
blocks, located in East Breaks area in the western Gulf of
Mexico, for $121.6 million. The Company retained a
41/4 percent
overriding royalty interest on seven
non-producing blocks.
The proceeds from the sale were used for debt reduction, capital
expenditures, and other corporate purposes. At March 31,
2003, the Falcon and Harrier projects had approximately
44 Bcfe assigned as proven oil and gas reserves to the
Companys interest. No gain or loss was recognized as a
result of this sale, as the sale did not significantly affect
the Companys depletion rate.
101/2% Senior
Subordinated NotesOn August 14, 1996, the Company
sold $100 million principal amount of
101/2% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2006 (the Notes). The Notes
bore interest at
101/2%
payable semiannually in arrears on February 1 and August 1
of each year and were unsecured obligations of the Company. On
August 1, 2003, the Company repaid the Notes at par value.
Bank Credit FacilityOn March 2, 2004,
simultaneously with the closing of the Merger, the Company
obtained a revolving line of credit with initial advances of
$135 million from a group of seven banks (since reduced to
six banks) led by Union Bank of California, N.A. and BNP
Paribas. Proceeds of these advances were used to pay a portion
of the Merger consideration (which included repayment of the
debt of Mariner Energy LLC) and transaction costs and expenses
associated with the Merger. The bank credit facility provides up
to $150 million of revolving borrowing capacity, subject to
a borrowing base, and a $25 million term loan. The initial
advance was made in two tranches: a $110 million
Tranche A and a $25 million Tranche B.
The Tranche A revolving note matures on March 2, 2007.
The borrowing capacity under the Tranche A note is subject
to a borrowing base initially set at $110 million. The
borrowing base initially is subject to redetermination by the
lenders quarterly. After the Tranche B note is repaid,
provided that at least $10 million of unused availability
exists under Tranche A, the borrowing base will be
redetermined semi-annually. The borrowing base is based upon the
evaluation by the lenders of the Companys oil and gas
reserves and other factors. Any increase in the borrowing base
requires the consent of all lenders. On
F-21
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
August 5, 2005, the lenders agreed to increase the
borrowing base to $170 million. On January 20, 2006,
the lenders agreed to increase the borrowing base to
$185 million.
Borrowings under the Tranche A note bear interest, at the
option of the Company, at a rate of (i) LIBOR plus 2.00% to
2.75% depending upon utilization, or (ii) the greater of
(a) the Federal Funds Rate plus 0.50% or (b) the
Reference Rate (prime rate), plus 0.00% to 0.50% depending upon
utilization.
Borrowings under the Tranche B note bear interest at a rate
equal to the greater of (a) the Federal Funds Rate plus
0.50% or (b) the Reference Rate, plus 3.00%. In July 2004
(prior to its December 2, 2004 maturity date) the
outstanding Tranche B note was converted to a
Tranche A note, and all subsequent advances under the
credit facility are Tranche A advances. Once repaid, the
Tranche B advances may not be reborrowed.
Substantially all of the Companys assets, other than the
assets securing the term Promissory Note issued to JEDI, are
pledged to secure the bank credit facility. In addition, the
Companys parent entities, Mariner Energy LLC and Mariner
Holdings, Inc., have guaranteed the Companys obligations
under the bank credit facility. The Company must pay a
commitment fee of 0.25% to 0.50% per year on the unused
availability under the bank credit facility, depending upon
utilization.
The bank credit facility contains various restrictive covenants
and other usual and customary terms and conditions of a
revolving bank credit facility, including limitations on the
payment of cash dividends and other restricted payments,
limitations on the incurrence of additional debt, prohibitions
on the sale of assets, and requirements for hedging a portion of
the Companys oil and natural gas production. Financial
covenants require the Company to, among other things:
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) current assets (excluding cash posted as collateral to
secure hedging obligations) plus unused availability under the
credit facility to (b) current liabilities (excluding the
current portion of debt and the current portion of hedge
liabilities) of not less than (i) 0.75 to 1.00 until
June 30, 2004 and (ii) 1.00 to 1.00 thereafter;
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation,
amortization and depletion) to (b) the sum of interest
expense and maintenance capital expenditures for the period and
20% (on an annualized basis) of outstanding Tranche A
advances, of not less than 1.20 to 1.00; and
maintain a ratio, as of the last day of each fiscal quarter, of
(a) total debt to (b) EBITDA of not greater than 1.75
to 1.00 prior to the issuance by the Company of bonds as
described in the credit agreement and 3.00 to 1.00 thereafter.
The bank credit facility also contains customary events of
default, including the occurrence of a change of control or
default in the payment or performance of any other indebtedness
equal to or exceeding $2.0 million.
As of December 31, 2004, $105.0 million was
outstanding under the bank credit facility, and the weighted
average interest rate was 5.20%. The borrowing base under the
bank credit facility is $135 million at December 31,
2004.
F-22
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
As of September 30, 2005, $75.0 million was
outstanding under the bank credit facility, and the weighted
average interest rate was 5.84%. Net proceeds of approximately
$39.0 million generated by the private placement in
March 2005 were used to repay existing bank debt.
|
|
|
JEDI Term Promissory Note |
As part of the Merger consideration payable to JEDI, the Company
issued a term Promissory Note to JEDI in the amount of
$10 million. The note matures on March 2, 2006, and
bears interest, payable in kind at our option, at a rate of
10% per annum until March 2, 2005, and 12% per
annum thereafter unless paid in cash in which event the rate
remains 10% per annum. We chose to pay interest in cash
rather than in kind. The JEDI note is secured by a lien on three
of the Companys non-proven, non-producing properties
located in the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.
The Company can offset against the note the amount of certain
claims for indemnification that can be asserted against JEDI
under the terms of the Merger agreement. The JEDI term
Promissory Note contains customary events of default, including
the occurrence of an event of default under the Companys
bank credit facility.
In March 2005, the Company repaid $6.0 million of the note
utilizing proceeds from the private placement in March 2005.
Cash paid for interest was -0- million and $5.4 million for
2004 Pre-Merger and 2004 Post-Merger, respectively, and
$4.0 million and $6.2 million for the years ending
December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Stock Option PlanDuring June 1996, Mariner
Holdings, Inc. established the Mariner Holdings, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan (as amended, the Stock Option Plan)
providing for the granting of stock options to key employees and
consultants. In connection with the Merger, all outstanding
options were cancelled in accordance with the Stock Option Plan.
No payments were due to the holders of the options.
The exercise price of options granted under the Stock Option
Plan could not be less than the fair market value of the shares
at the date of grant. The maximum number of common shares of
Mariner Holdings, Inc. that could be issued under the Stock
Option Plan was 142,800. In May 1998, the Stock Option Plan was
amended to increase the number of eligible shares to be issued
to 202,800. In September 1998, concurrent with the exchange of
each common share of Mariner Holdings for twelve common shares
of Mariner Energy LLC, the Stock Option Plan was amended to make
Mariner Energy LLC the Stock Option Plan sponsor. The maximum
number of shares of common shares that could have been issued
under the Stock Option Plan was correspondingly increased to
2,433,600.
During the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002, no options were granted under the Stock Option Plan. No
options were exercised, but 212,882 options were canceled during
the three-year period ended December 30, 2003. At
December 31, 2003, options to
purchase 437,940 shares were outstanding and
exercisable. The exercise price for the outstanding options was
$14.58 per share. The options would have expired in various
months between 2008 through 2010. In connection with the Merger,
F-23
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
all outstanding options were cancelled in accordance with the
Stock Option Plan and no payments were due to the holders of the
options.
For the three years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and
2002, Mainer Energy, Inc. had no outstanding stock options.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we granted
2,267,270 shares of restricted stock and options to
purchase 809,000 shares of stock. We also issued
3.6 million shares of common stock in March 2005 in
connection with our private placement offering. We recorded
compensation expense of $17.2 million in the nine months
ended September 30, 2005 related to the restricted stock,
and in the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we
recorded $0.4 million of compensation expense related to
stock options outstanding as of September 30, 2005. For the
comparable period in 2004, we recorded no stock compensation
expense related to either restricted stock or stock options.
|
|
6. |
Employee Benefit And Royalty Plans |
Employee Capital Accumulation PlanThe Company
provides all full-time employees (who are at least 18 years
of age) participation in the Employee Capital Accumulation Plan
(the Plan) which is comprised of a contributory
401(k) savings plan and a discretionary profit sharing plan.
Under the 401(k) feature, the Company, at its sole discretion,
may contribute an employer-matching contribution equal to a
percentage not to exceed 50% of each eligible participants
matched salary reduction contribution as defined by the Plan.
Under the discretionary profit sharing contribution feature of
the Plan, the Companys contribution, if any, must be
determined annually and must be 4% of the lesser of the
Companys operating income or total employee compensation
and shall be allocated to each eligible participant pro rata to
his or her compensation. During the years ended 2004, 2003 and
2002, the Company contributed $193,521, $159,241 and $190,792,
respectively, to the Plan related to the discretionary feature.
Currently there are no plans to terminate the Plan.
Overriding Royalty InterestsPursuant to agreements,
certain employees and consultants of the Company are entitled to
receive, as incentive compensation, overriding royalty interests
(Overriding Royalty Interests) in certain oil and
gas prospects acquired by the Company. Such Overriding Royalty
Interests entitle the holder to receive a specified percentage
of the gross proceeds from the future sale of oil and gas (less
production taxes), if any, applicable to the prospects. Cash
payments made by the Company to current employees and
consultants with respect to Overriding Royalty Interests were
$.2 million and $2.5 million for 2004 Pre-Merger and
2004 Post-Merger, respectively, and for the two years ended
December 31, 2003 and 2002 were $2.0 and $1.2 million,
respectively.
|
|
7. |
Commitments And Contingencies |
Minimum Future Lease PaymentsThe Company leases
certain office facilities and other equipment under long-term
operating lease arrangements. Minimum rental obligations under
the Companys operating leases in effect at
December 31, 2004 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
561 |
|
2006
|
|
|
446 |
|
2007
|
|
|
148 |
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
F-24
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Rental expense, before capitalization, was approximately $78,000
and $486,000 for 2004 Pre-Merger and 2004 Post-Merger,
respectively, and $569,000 and $1,723,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Hedging ProgramThe energy markets have historically
been very volatile, and there can be no assurance that oil and
gas prices will not be subject to wide fluctuations in the
future. In an effort to reduce the effects of the volatility of
the price of oil and natural gas on the Companys
operations, management has elected to hedge oil and natural gas
prices from time to time through the use of commodity price swap
agreements and costless collars. While the use of these hedging
arrangements limits the downside risk of adverse price
movements, it also limits future gains from favorable movements.
As of September 30, 2005, the Company had the following
fixed price swaps outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
|
|
Fixed | |
|
Fair Value | |
Fixed Price Swaps |
|
Quantity | |
|
Price | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
138,000 |
|
|
$ |
25.22 |
|
|
$ |
(5.7 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
140,160 |
|
|
|
29.56 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMbtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
1,352,400, |
|
|
|
5.00 |
|
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
1,827,547 |
|
|
|
5.53 |
|
|
|
(13.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(36.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of September 30, 2005, the Company had the following
costless collars outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
Costless Collars |
|
Quantity | |
|
Floor | |
|
Cap | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
57,960 |
|
|
$ |
35.60 |
|
|
$ |
44.77 |
|
|
$ |
(1.2 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
251,850 |
|
|
|
32.65 |
|
|
|
41.52 |
|
|
|
(6.2 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
202,575 |
|
|
|
31.27 |
|
|
|
39.83 |
|
|
|
(4.8 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMbtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,189,600 |
|
|
|
6.01 |
|
|
|
8.02 |
|
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
7,347,450 |
|
|
|
5.78 |
|
|
|
7.85 |
|
|
|
(29.1 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
5,310,750 |
|
|
|
5.49 |
|
|
|
7.22 |
|
|
|
(14.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(68.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-25
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The Company has not entered into any hedge transactions
subsequent to September 30, 2005.
As of December 31, 2004, the Company had the following
fixed price swaps outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Fixed | |
|
Fair Value | |
Fixed Price Swaps |
|
Quantity | |
|
Price | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
606,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.15 |
|
|
$ |
(10.0 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
140,160 |
|
|
|
29.56 |
|
|
|
(1.5 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMbtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
8,670,159 |
|
|
|
5.41 |
|
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
1,827,547 |
|
|
|
5.53 |
|
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(20.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004, the Company had the following
costless collars outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value | |
Costless Collars |
|
Quantity | |
|
Floor | |
|
Cap | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions) | |
Crude Oil (Bbls)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
229,950 |
|
|
$ |
35.60 |
|
|
$ |
44.77 |
|
|
$ |
(0.4 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
251,850 |
|
|
|
32.65 |
|
|
|
41.52 |
|
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
202,575 |
|
|
|
31.27 |
|
|
|
39.83 |
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
Natural Gas (MMbtus)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2,847,000 |
|
|
|
5.73 |
|
|
|
7.80 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
January 1December 31, 2006
|
|
|
3,514,950 |
|
|
|
5.37 |
|
|
|
7.35 |
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
|
January 1December 31, 2007
|
|
|
1,806,750 |
|
|
|
5.08 |
|
|
|
6.26 |
|
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has reviewed the financial strength of its
counterparties and believes the credit risk associated with
these swaps and costless collars to be minimal.
F-26
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following table sets forth the results of hedging
transactions during the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1 | |
|
|
|
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Natural Gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity hedged (MMbtu)
|
|
|
16,723,063 |
|
|
|
2,100,000 |
|
|
|
25,520,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Natural Gas Sales (in thousands)
|
|
$ |
(12,223 |
) |
|
$ |
1,431 |
|
|
$ |
(27,097 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Crude Oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quantity hedged (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,375 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
730 |
|
|
|
353 |
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Crude Oil Sales (in thousands)
|
|
$ |
(16,221 |
) |
|
$ |
(686 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,969 |
) |
|
$ |
(762 |
) |
The Companys hedge transactions resulted in a
$.7 million gain for 2004 Pre-Merger and a
$28.4 million loss for 2004 Post-Merger. $7.9 million
of the Post-Merger loss relates to the hedge liability recorded
at the merger date. In addition, in 2003 the Company recorded
$3.2 million of expense related to the settlement of
derivatives that were not accounted for as hedges.
Other CommitmentsIn the ordinary course of
business, the Company enters into long-term commitments to
purchase seismic data. The minimum annual payments under these
contracts are $2.0 and $1.0 million in 2005 and 2006,
respectively.
Deepwater RigIn February 2000, the Company and
Noble Drilling Corporation entered into an agreement whereby the
Company committed to using a Noble deepwater rig for a minimum
of 660 days over a five-year period. The Company assigned
to Noble working interests in seven of the Companys
deepwater exploration prospects and agreed to pay Nobles
share of certain costs of drilling the initial test well on the
prospects. As of December 31, 2003, the Company had no
further obligation under the agreement for the use of the rig
and had drilled five of the seven prospects. Subsequent to year
end 2003, the Company and Noble Drilling Corporation agreed to
exchange Nobles interest in one of the two remaining
undrilled prospects for an interest in another prospect drilled
in the first quarter of 2004 and exchange Nobles carried
working interest in the other remaining undrilled prospect for a
larger un-carried working interest in the prospect, and the
Company agreed to use one of two Noble drilling rigs for an
aggregate of 75 days. Mariner has no further obligations
under this agreement.
MMS AppealMariner operates numerous properties in
the Gulf of Mexico. Two of such properties were leased from the
Mineral Management Service subject to the 1996 Royalty Relief
Act. This Act relieved the obligation to pay royalties on
certain leases until a designated volume is produced. These
leases contained language that limited royalty relief if
commodity prices exceeded predetermined levels. For the years
2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, commodity prices exceeded the
predetermined levels. The Company believes the MMS did not have
the authority to set pricing limits in these leases and has
filed an administrative appeal with the MMS regarding this
matter and withheld payment of royalties on the leases. The
Company has recorded a liability for 100% of the exposure on
this matter which on September 30, 2005 was
$14.6 million. In April 2005, the MMS denied the
administrative appeal. On
F-27
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
October 3, 2005, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas seeking judicial review of the
dismissal of our appeal by the Board of Land Appeals.
Flowline CommitmentThe Company entered into a firm
transportation contract with MEGS LLC at a rate of
$0.26 per Mmbtu to transport the Companys share of
133 Bcf of natural gas through the MEGS flowline from the
Companys Mississippi Canyon 718 well from the
commencement of production through March 2009. The
Companys working interest in the well at December 31,
2003 was 51%. The remaining volume commitment is
14,707,107 mmbtu or $3.8 million net to the Company.
Pursuant to the contract, the Company must deliver minimum
quantities through the flowline or be subject to minimum monthly
payment requirements. Subsequent to year end 2003, the Company
and the other 49% working interest owner in the well entered
into an agreement to acquire the flowline for approximately
$1.9 million net to the Company. The acquisition also
extinguished a $2.3 million minimum throughput liability.
Insurance MattersIn September 2004, the Company
incurred damage from Hurricane Ivan that affected its
Mississippi Canyon 66 (Ochre) and Mississippi
Canyon 357 fields. Production from Mississippi
Canyon 357 was shut-in until March 2005, when necessary
repairs were completed and production recommenced. Production
from Ochre is currently shut-in awaiting rerouting of umbilical
and flow lines to another host platform. Prior to Hurricane
Ivan, this field was producing at a net rate of approximately
6.5 MMcfe per day. Production from Ochre is expected to
recommence in the first quarter of 2006. In addition, a
semi-submersible rig on location at the Companys Viosca
Knoll 917 (Swordfish) field was blown off location by the
hurricane and incurred damage. Until we are able to complete all
the repair work and submit costs to the insurance underwriters
for review, the full extent of our insurance recovery and the
resulting net cost to the Company is unknown. We expect the net
cost to the Company to be at least equal to the amount of our
annual deductible of $1.25 million plus the single
occurrence deductible of $.375 million.
In August 2005 and September 2005, Mariner incurred damage from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita that affected several of its
offshore fields. Hurricane Katrina caused minor damage to our
owned platforms and facilities. Production that was shut-in by
the hurricane was recommenced within three weeks of the
hurricane, with the exception of two minor non-operated fields.
However, Hurricane Katrina inflicted damage to host facilities
for our Pluto, Rigel and Ochre projects that is expected to
delay start-up of these
projects until 2006. Hurricane Rita caused minor damage to our
owned platforms and some damage to certain host facilities of
our development projects. Production shut-in as a result of
Hurricane Rita fully recommenced within three weeks of the
hurricane, with the exception of one minor field. We cannot
estimate a range of loss arising from the hurricanes until we
are able to more completely assess the impacts on our properties
and the properties of our operational partners. Until we are
able to complete all the repair work and submit costs to our
insurance underwriters for review, the full extent of our
insurance recovery and the resulting net cost to us for
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be unknown. For the insurance
period ending September 30, 2005, we carried a
$3.0 million annual deductible and a $.375 million
single occurrence deductible.
LitigationThe Company, in the ordinary course of
business, is a claimant and/or a defendant in various legal
proceedings, including proceedings as to which the Company has
insurance coverage. The Company does not consider its exposure
in these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, to be
material.
F-28
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The components of the federal income tax provision are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1 | |
|
Year Ending | |
|
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
March 2, | |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
$ | |
|
$ | |
|
$ | |
|
$ | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
28,783 |
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
28,783 |
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth a reconciliation of the statutory
federal income tax with the income tax provision (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
January 1 | |
|
Year Ending December 31, | |
|
|
through | |
|
through | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
March 2, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
$ | |
|
% | |
|
$ | |
|
% | |
|
$ | |
|
% | |
|
$ | |
|
% | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Income before income taxes including change in accounting in 2003
|
|
|
82,402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,676 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit) computed at statutory rates
|
|
|
28,841 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
8,014 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
17,037 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
10,498 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,090 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(11,507 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,009 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax Expense
|
|
|
28,783 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal income taxes of $1.6 million were paid by the
Company for the 2004 Post-Merger period for alternative minimum
tax liability, and no federal income taxes were paid by the
Company in the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002. An
income tax benefit of $1,045,000 was included as a reduction in
Change in Accounting Principle for the adoption of
SFAS No. 143 in 2003. The increase in federal income
tax expense for 2003 is a direct result of the Company utilizing
100% of its stand alone entity net operating losses.
The Companys deferred tax position reflects the net tax
effects of the temporary differences between the carrying
amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting
purposes and the amounts used for
F-29
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
income tax reporting. Significant components of the deferred tax
assets and liabilities are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Deferred Tax Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss carry forwards
|
|
$ |
15,639 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Alternative minimum Tax Credit
|
|
|
1,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Differences between book and tax basis of receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
676 |
|
|
Other comprehensive income-derivative instruments
|
|
|
6,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(5,909 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net deferred tax assets
|
|
|
17,598 |
|
|
|
676 |
|
Deferred Tax Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Differences between book and tax basis of properties
|
|
|
(14,569 |
) |
|
|
(5,445 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net deferred asset (liability)
|
|
$ |
3,029 |
|
|
$ |
(4,769 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. |
Oil and Gas Producing Activities and Capitalized Costs
(Unaudited) |
The results of operations from the Companys oil and gas
producing activities were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Oil and gas sales
|
|
$ |
214,187 |
|
|
$ |
142,543 |
|
|
$ |
158,228 |
|
Lease operating costs
|
|
|
(25,484 |
) |
|
|
(24,719 |
) |
|
|
(26,076 |
) |
Transportation
|
|
|
(3,029 |
) |
|
|
(6,252 |
) |
|
|
(10,480 |
) |
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(64,911 |
) |
|
|
(48,339 |
) |
|
|
(70,821 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations
|
|
$ |
120,763 |
|
|
$ |
63,233 |
|
|
$ |
50,851 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes the Companys capitalized
costs of oil and gas properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Unevaluated properties, not subject to amortization
|
|
$ |
36,245 |
|
|
$ |
36,619 |
|
|
$ |
44,630 |
|
Properties subject to amortization
|
|
|
319,553 |
|
|
|
599,762 |
|
|
|
620,949 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized costs
|
|
|
355,798 |
|
|
|
636,381 |
|
|
|
665,579 |
|
Accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(52,680 |
) |
|
|
(429,323 |
) |
|
|
(379,543 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net capitalized costs
|
|
$ |
303,118 |
|
|
$ |
207,058 |
|
|
$ |
286,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-30
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
Costs incurred in property acquisition, exploration and
development activities were as follows (in thousands, except per
equivalent mcf amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Property acquisition costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unproved properties
|
|
$ |
4,844 |
|
|
$ |
4,746 |
|
|
$ |
14,813 |
|
Exploration costs
|
|
|
43,022 |
|
|
|
26,823 |
|
|
|
25,545 |
|
Development costs
|
|
|
100,823 |
|
|
|
51,659 |
|
|
|
65,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs incurred
|
|
|
148,689 |
|
|
$ |
83,228 |
|
|
$ |
105,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization rate per equivalent Mcf
before impairment
|
|
$ |
1.73 |
|
|
$ |
1.45 |
|
|
$ |
1.78 |
|
The Company capitalizes internal costs associated with
exploration activities in progress. These capitalized costs were
approximately $7,334,000, $7,360,000 and $10,508,000 for the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
The following table summarizes costs related to unevaluated
properties which have been excluded from amounts subject to
amortization at December 31, 2004. Two relatively
significant projects were included in unproved properties with
balances of $8.0 million and $5.3 million at
December 31, 2004. These projects are expected to be
evaluated within the next twelve months. The Company regularly
evaluates these costs to determine whether impairment has
occurred. The majority of these costs are expected to be
evaluated and included in the amortization base within three
years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period Incurred | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
|
Total at | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
Prior | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Unproved leasehold acquisition and geological and geophysical
costs
|
|
$ |
4,354 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
10,251 |
|
|
$ |
7,324 |
|
|
$ |
22,005 |
|
Unevaluated exploration and development costs
|
|
|
8,955 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(209 |
) |
|
|
5,150 |
|
|
|
13,845 |
|
Capitalized interest
|
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
13,576 |
|
|
$ |
143 |
|
|
$ |
10,052 |
|
|
$ |
12,474 |
|
|
$ |
36,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the excluded costs at December 31, 2004 relate to
activities in the Gulf of Mexico.
F-31
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
|
|
10. |
Supplemental Oil and Gas Reserve and Standardized Measure
Information (Unaudited) |
Estimated proved net recoverable reserves as shown below include
only those quantities that are expected to be commercially
recoverable at prices and costs in effect at the balance sheet
dates under existing regulatory practices and with conventional
equipment and operating methods. Proved developed reserves
represent only those reserves expected to be recovered through
existing wells. Proved undeveloped reserves include those
reserves expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled
acreage or from existing wells on which a relatively major
expenditure is required for recompletion. Also included in the
Companys proved undeveloped reserves as of
December 31, 2004 were reserves expected to be recovered
from wells for which certain drilling and completion operations
had occurred as of that date, but for which significant future
capital expenditures were required to bring the wells into
commercial production.
Reserve estimates are inherently imprecise and may change as
additional information becomes available. Furthermore, estimates
of oil and gas reserves, of necessity, are projections based on
engineering data, and there are uncertainties inherent in the
interpretation of such data as well as in the projection of
future rates of production and the timing of development
expenditures. Reserve engineering is a subjective process of
estimating underground accumulations of oil and natural gas that
cannot be measured exactly, and the accuracy of any reserve
estimate is a function of the quality of available data and of
engineering and geological interpretation and judgment.
Accordingly, estimates of the economically recoverable
quantities of oil and natural gas attributable to any particular
group of properties, classifications of such reserves based on
risk of recovery and estimates of the future net cash flows
expected therefrom prepared by different engineers or by the
same engineers at different times may vary substantially. There
also can be no assurance that the reserves set forth herein will
ultimately be produced or that the proved undeveloped reserves
set forth herein will be developed within the periods
anticipated. It is likely that variances from the estimates will
be material. In addition, the estimates of future net revenues
from proved reserves of the Company and the present value
thereof are based upon certain assumptions about future
production levels, prices and costs that may not be correct when
judged against actual subsequent experience. The Company
emphasizes with respect to the estimates prepared by independent
petroleum engineers that the discounted future net cash flows
should not be construed as representative of the fair market
value of the proved reserves owned by the Company since
discounted future net cash flows are based upon projected cash
flows which do not provide for changes in oil and natural gas
prices from those in effect on the date indicated or for
escalation of expenses and capital costs subsequent to such
date. The meaningfulness of such estimates is highly dependent
upon the accuracy of the assumptions upon which they are based.
Actual results will differ, and are likely to differ materially,
from the results estimated.
F-32
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF PROVED RESERVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
Oil | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
December 31, 2001
|
|
|
10,101 |
|
|
|
176,461 |
|
|
|
237,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
541 |
|
|
|
5,523 |
|
|
|
8,769 |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other additions
|
|
|
2,108 |
|
|
|
18,791 |
|
|
|
31,439 |
|
|
Sale of reserves in place
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(35,088 |
) |
|
|
(35,298 |
) |
|
Production
|
|
|
(1,697 |
) |
|
|
(29,632 |
) |
|
|
(39,814 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
11,018 |
|
|
|
136,055 |
|
|
|
202,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
(3,076 |
) |
|
|
2,324 |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other additions
|
|
|
2,795 |
|
|
|
62,609 |
|
|
|
79,379 |
|
|
Sale of reserves in place
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(44,233 |
) |
|
|
(44,437 |
) |
|
Production
|
|
|
(1,600 |
) |
|
|
(23,771 |
) |
|
|
(33,371 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
13,079 |
|
|
|
127,584 |
|
|
|
206,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
1,249 |
|
|
|
19,797 |
|
|
|
27,291 |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other additions
|
|
|
2,225 |
|
|
|
28,334 |
|
|
|
41,684 |
|
|
Sale of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(2,298 |
) |
|
|
(23,782 |
) |
|
|
(37,570 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
14,255 |
|
|
|
151,933 |
|
|
|
237,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF PROVED DEVELOPED RESERVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
Oil | |
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Equivalent | |
|
|
(Mbbl) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
3,609 |
|
|
|
64,586 |
|
|
|
86,240 |
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
5,951 |
|
|
|
60,881 |
|
|
|
96,587 |
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
6,339 |
|
|
|
71,361 |
|
|
|
109,395 |
|
F-33
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following is a summary of a Standardized Measure of
discounted net future cash flows related to the Companys
proved oil and gas reserves. The information presented is based
on a valuation of proved reserves using discounted cash flows
based on year-end prices, costs and economic conditions and a
10% discount rate. The additions to proved reserves from new
discoveries and extensions could vary significantly from year to
year. Additionally, the impact of changes to reflect current
prices and costs of reserves proved in prior years could also be
significant. Accordingly, the information presented below should
not be viewed as an estimate of the fair value of the
Companys oil and gas properties, nor should it be
considered indicative of any trends.
STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF DISCOUNTED FUTURE NET CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
Future cash inflows
|
|
$ |
1,601,240 |
|
|
$ |
1,182,509 |
|
|
$ |
992,700 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(308,190 |
) |
|
|
(196,695 |
) |
|
|
(154,661 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(193,689 |
) |
|
|
(138,694 |
) |
|
|
(110,474 |
) |
Future income taxes
|
|
|
(285,701 |
) |
|
|
(183,199 |
) |
|
|
(72,648 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
813,660 |
|
|
|
663,921 |
|
|
|
654,917 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount of future net cash flows at 10% per annum
|
|
|
(319,278 |
) |
|
|
(245,762 |
) |
|
|
(191,345 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
494,382 |
|
|
$ |
418,159 |
|
|
$ |
463,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During recent years, there have been significant fluctuations in
the prices paid for crude oil in the world markets and in the
United States, including the posted prices paid by purchasers of
the Companys crude oil. The NYMEX prices of oil and gas at
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, used in the above table,
were $43.45, $32.52 and $31.20 per Bbl, respectively, and
$6.15, $5.96 and $4.74 per Mmbtu, respectively, and do not
include the effect of hedging contracts in place at period end.
F-34
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
The following are the principal sources of change in the
Standardized Measure of discounted future net cash flows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Sales and transfers of oil and gas produced, net of production
costs
|
|
$ |
(185,673 |
) |
|
$ |
(111,572 |
) |
|
$ |
(125,610 |
) |
Net changes in prices and production costs
|
|
|
27,767 |
|
|
|
27,403 |
|
|
|
331,085 |
|
Extensions and discoveries, net of future development and
production costs
|
|
|
102,905 |
|
|
|
180,237 |
|
|
|
50,085 |
|
Development costs during period and net change in development
costs
|
|
|
44,417 |
|
|
|
31,709 |
|
|
|
28,474 |
|
Revision of previous quantity estimates
|
|
|
89,814 |
|
|
|
6,276 |
|
|
|
7,480 |
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(138,016 |
) |
|
|
(25,887 |
) |
Net change in income taxes
|
|
|
(27,634 |
) |
|
|
(63,962 |
) |
|
|
(51,423 |
) |
Accretion of discount before income taxes
|
|
|
41,816 |
|
|
|
51,500 |
|
|
|
29,488 |
|
Changes in production rates (timing) and other
|
|
|
(17,189 |
) |
|
|
(28,988 |
) |
|
|
(12,148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change
|
|
$ |
76,223 |
|
|
$ |
(45,413 |
) |
|
$ |
231,544 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-35
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
For the Nine Month Period Ended September 30, 2005
(Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through September 30,
2004 (Unaudited),
for the Period from March 3, 2004 through
December 31, 2004
(Post-Merger),
for the Period from January 1, 2004 through
March 2, 2004
(Pre-Merger),
and For the Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002
|
|
11. |
Unaudited Quarterly Financial Information |
The following table presents Mariners unaudited quarterly
financial information for 2004 and 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Merger | |
|
|
Pre-Merger | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
Period from | |
|
|
|
|
2004 Quarter Ended | |
|
March 3, 2004 | |
|
|
January 1, 2004 | |
|
2003 Quarter Ended | |
|
|
| |
|
through | |
|
|
through | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
March 31, 2004 | |
|
|
March 2, 2004 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
March 31 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands, except per share data) | |
Total revenues
|
|
$ |
51,897 |
|
|
$ |
50,202 |
|
|
$ |
51,086 |
|
|
$ |
21,238 |
|
|
|
$ |
39,764 |
|
|
$ |
33,231 |
|
|
$ |
29,002 |
|
|
$ |
35,099 |
|
|
$ |
45,211 |
|
Operating income
|
|
$ |
29,108 |
|
|
$ |
24,403 |
|
|
$ |
25,045 |
|
|
$ |
9,666 |
|
|
|
$ |
22,812 |
|
|
$ |
14,474 |
|
|
$ |
4,428 |
|
|
$ |
9,681 |
|
|
$ |
23,330 |
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
$ |
27,501 |
|
|
$ |
22,804 |
|
|
$ |
23,071 |
|
|
$ |
9,026 |
|
|
|
$ |
22,898 |
|
|
$ |
14,453 |
|
|
$ |
2,758 |
|
|
$ |
7,583 |
|
|
$ |
20,894 |
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
9,562 |
|
|
|
8,498 |
|
|
|
7,630 |
|
|
|
3,093 |
|
|
|
|
8,072 |
|
|
|
10,432 |
|
|
|
(1,045 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
|
17,939 |
|
|
|
14,306 |
|
|
|
15,441 |
|
|
|
5,933 |
|
|
|
|
14,826 |
|
|
|
4,021 |
|
|
|
3,803 |
|
|
|
7,583 |
|
|
|
20,894 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,045 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
$ |
17,939 |
|
|
$ |
14,306 |
|
|
$ |
15,441 |
|
|
$ |
5,933 |
|
|
|
$ |
14,826 |
|
|
$ |
4,021 |
|
|
$ |
2,758 |
|
|
$ |
7,583 |
|
|
$ |
23,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per sharebasic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.70 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per sharebasic
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.09 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income per sharediluted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of change in accounting method,
net of tax effects
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.70 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting method, net of tax
effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per sharediluted
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
|
$ |
0.52 |
|
|
$ |
0.20 |
|
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.09 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstandingbasic
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
Weighted average shares outstandingdiluted
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
|
|
29,748,130 |
|
F-36
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors
Forest Oil Corporation:
We have audited the statements of revenues and direct operating
expenses of the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations (as defined in
note 1) for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2004 (Historical Statements). These
Historical Statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the Historical Statements are free of
material misstatement. Our audits include consideration of
internal control over financial reporting as a basis for
designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion
on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the Historical Statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall presentation of the Historical Statements. We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.
The accompanying statements were prepared for purposes of
complying with the rules and regulations of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and for inclusion in the registration
statement on
Form S-4 of
Mariner Energy, Inc. The presentation is not intended to be a
complete presentation of the revenues and expenses of the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations.
In our opinion, the Historical Statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the revenues and
direct operating expenses described in note 1 of the Forest
Gulf of Mexico operations for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
Denver, Colorado
October 12, 2005
F-37
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND DIRECT OPERATING EXPENSES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, | |
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
Oil and natural gas revenues
|
|
$ |
326,722 |
|
|
$ |
324,426 |
|
|
$ |
453,139 |
|
|
$ |
342,019 |
|
|
$ |
228,896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease operating expenses
|
|
|
57,431 |
|
|
|
63,022 |
|
|
|
80,079 |
|
|
|
45,716 |
|
|
|
52,076 |
|
|
Transportation
|
|
|
2,484 |
|
|
|
1,424 |
|
|
|
2,175 |
|
|
|
2,652 |
|
|
|
3,855 |
|
|
Production taxes
|
|
|
1,948 |
|
|
|
1,243 |
|
|
|
1,548 |
|
|
|
1,521 |
|
|
|
947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total direct operating expenses
|
|
|
61,863 |
|
|
|
65,689 |
|
|
|
83,802 |
|
|
|
49,889 |
|
|
|
56,878 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues in excess of direct operating expenses
|
|
$ |
264,859 |
|
|
$ |
258,737 |
|
|
$ |
369,337 |
|
|
$ |
292,130 |
|
|
$ |
172,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses.
F-38
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
NOTES TO STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND DIRECT OPERATING
EXPENSES
For the Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
and for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 and
2004
(Information as of and for the nine months ended September
30, 2005 and 2004 is unaudited)
The accompanying historical statements of revenues and direct
operating expenses (the historical statements) are
presented using accrual basis, and represent the revenues and
direct operating expenses attributable to Forest Oil
Corporations (Forest Oil) interests in certain
producing oil and gas properties located offshore in the Gulf of
Mexico (the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations). The
historical statements were prepared from the historical
accounting records of Forest Oil. The historical statements
include only oil and natural gas revenues and direct lease
operating and production expenses, including transportation and
production taxes. The historical statements do not include
Federal and state income taxes, interest expenses, depletion,
depreciation and amortization, accretion, or general and
administrative expenses. Oil and gas revenues include gains or
losses on derivative instruments designated as hedges of oil and
gas production from these properties.
Complete financial statements, including a balance sheet, are
not presented as the oil and gas properties were not operated as
a separate business unit within Forest Oil. Accordingly, it is
not practicable to identify all assets and liabilities, or the
indirect operating costs applicable to these oil and gas
properties. As such, the historical statements of oil and gas
revenues and direct operating expenses have been presented in
lieu of the financial statements prescribed by Rule 3-05 of
Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-X.
|
|
2. |
DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS |
In order to reduce the impact of fluctuations in oil and gas
prices, or to protect the economics of property acquisitions,
from time to time Forest Oil entered into derivative instruments
designed to hedge future production from its oil and gas
properties, including future production from the properties
constituting the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations. Forest Oil
entered into derivative instruments, including commodity swaps,
collars, and other financial instruments with counterparties
who, in general, are participants in Forest Oils credit
facilities. These arrangements, which are based on prices
available in the financial markets at the time the contracts are
entered into, are settled in cash and do not require physical
deliveries.
Net losses related to hedging activities of $57.1 million
and $40.9 million were recognized for the years ended
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and net gains of
$8.4 million were recognized for the year ended
December 31, 2002. Net losses related to hedging activities
of $83.8 million and $34.1 million were recognized for
the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively. Gains and losses recognized on hedging activities
are included in oil and natural gas revenues in the statements
of revenues and direct operating expenses.
|
|
3. |
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROVED OIL AND GAS
RESERVES (UNAUDITED) |
Supplemental oil and natural gas reserve information related to
the Forest Gulf of Mexico operations is presented in accordance
with the requirements of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 69, Disclosures about Oil and Gas
Producing Activities (FAS 69). There are
numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of
proved reserves and in projecting the future rates of production
and timing of development expenditures.
F-39
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
NOTES TO STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND DIRECT OPERATING
EXPENSES (Continued)
For the Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
and for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 and
2004
(Information as of and for the nine months ended September
30, 2005 and 2004 is unaudited)
|
|
|
Estimated Proved Reserves |
Proved oil and gas reserves are the estimated quantities of
crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids that geological
and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be
recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing
economic and operating conditions; i.e., prices and costs as of
the date the estimate is made.
Prices include consideration of changes in existing prices
provided only by contractual arrangement, but not on escalations
based on future conditions. Purchases of reserves in place
represent volumes recorded on the closing dates of the
acquisitions for financial accounting purposes.
Proved developed oil and gas reserves are reserves that can be
expected to be recovered through existing wells with existing
equipment and operating methods. Additional oil and gas expected
to be obtained through the application of fluid injection or
other improved recovery techniques for supplementing the natural
forces and mechanisms of primary recovery are included as
proved developed reserves only after testing by a
pilot project or after the operation of an installed program has
confirmed through production response that increased recovery
will be achieved.
An analysis of the estimated changes in quantities of proved
natural gas reserves attributed to the Forest Gulf of Mexico
operations for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002 is shown below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquids | |
|
Gas | |
|
Total | |
|
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance at January 1, 2002
|
|
|
12,767 |
|
|
|
296,497 |
|
|
|
373,099 |
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(280 |
) |
|
|
12,671 |
|
|
|
10,991 |
|
Extensions and discoveries
|
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
5,557 |
|
|
|
8,443 |
|
Production
|
|
|
(1,980 |
) |
|
|
(50,566 |
) |
|
|
(62,446 |
) |
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,009 |
|
|
|
2,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2002
|
|
|
10,988 |
|
|
|
266,168 |
|
|
|
332,096 |
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(2,492 |
) |
|
|
(14,565 |
) |
|
|
(29,517 |
) |
Extensions and discoveries
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
23,714 |
|
|
|
25,856 |
|
Production
|
|
|
(2,145 |
) |
|
|
(58,785 |
) |
|
|
(71,655 |
) |
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
4,649 |
|
|
|
78,815 |
|
|
|
106,709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
11,357 |
|
|
|
295,347 |
|
|
|
363,489 |
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
1,693 |
|
|
|
(2,860 |
) |
|
|
7,298 |
|
Extensions and discoveries
|
|
|
630 |
|
|
|
14,449 |
|
|
|
18,229 |
|
Production
|
|
|
(3,230 |
) |
|
|
(61,684 |
) |
|
|
(81,064 |
) |
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
24,556 |
|
|
|
31,756 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
11,650 |
|
|
|
269,808 |
|
|
|
339,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved developed reserves at:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
7,644 |
|
|
|
208,904 |
|
|
|
254,768 |
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
7,920 |
|
|
|
205,334 |
|
|
|
252,854 |
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
9,471 |
|
|
|
201,759 |
|
|
|
258,585 |
|
F-40
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
NOTES TO STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND DIRECT OPERATING
EXPENSES (Continued)
For the Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
and for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 and
2004
(Information as of and for the nine months ended September
30, 2005 and 2004 is unaudited)
|
|
|
Standardized Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash
Flows |
Future oil and gas sales and production and development costs
have been estimated using prices and costs in effect at the end
of the years indicated. The weighted average prices used for the
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 calculations were $43.45,
$32.55 and $31.23 per barrel of oil and $6.15, $5.97 and
$4.60 per Mcf of gas, respectively. Future cash inflows
were reduced by estimated future development, abandonment and
production costs based on period-end costs. Future income tax
expenses are estimated using the statutory federal rate of 35%.
No deductions were made for general overhead, depletion,
depreciation, and amortization, or any indirect costs. All cash
flow amounts are discounted at 10%.
Changes in the demand for oil and natural gas, inflation, and
other factors make such estimates inherently imprecise and
subject to substantial revision. This table should not be
construed to be an estimate of the current market value of the
companys proved reserves.
The estimated standardized measure of discounted future net cash
flows relating to proved reserves at December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002 is shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
Future cash inflows
|
|
$ |
2,155,217 |
|
|
|
2,105,447 |
|
|
|
1,539,033 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(272,020 |
) |
|
|
(272,335 |
) |
|
|
(237,876 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(357,592 |
) |
|
|
(372,139 |
) |
|
|
(213,020 |
) |
Future income taxes
|
|
|
(412,477 |
) |
|
|
(360,707 |
) |
|
|
(257,647 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
1,113,128 |
|
|
|
1,100,266 |
|
|
|
830,490 |
|
10% annual discount
|
|
|
(187,291 |
) |
|
|
(150,845 |
) |
|
|
(182,450 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
relating to proved reserves
|
|
$ |
925,837 |
|
|
|
949,421 |
|
|
|
648,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-41
FOREST GULF OF MEXICO OPERATIONS
NOTES TO STATEMENTS OF REVENUES AND DIRECT OPERATING
EXPENSES (Continued)
For the Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
and for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 and
2004
(Information as of and for the nine months ended September
30, 2005 and 2004 is unaudited)
An analysis of the sources of changes in the standardized
measure of discounted future net cash flows relating to proved
reserves on the pricing basis described above for the years
ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 is shown below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(in thousands) | |
Balance, beginning of period
|
|
$ |
949,421 |
|
|
|
648,040 |
|
|
|
434,955 |
|
Increase (decrease) in discounted future net cash flows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of oil and gas, net of production costs
|
|
|
(426,405 |
) |
|
|
(333,029 |
) |
|
|
(163,604 |
) |
|
Net changes in prices and future production costs
|
|
|
11,628 |
|
|
|
345,947 |
|
|
|
373,243 |
|
|
Net changes in future development costs
|
|
|
9,615 |
|
|
|
(82,874 |
) |
|
|
(43,636 |
) |
|
Extensions, discoveries and improved recovery
|
|
|
88,999 |
|
|
|
98,561 |
|
|
|
24,292 |
|
|
Previously estimated development costs incurred during the period
|
|
|
70,027 |
|
|
|
74,690 |
|
|
|
70,833 |
|
|
Revisions of previous quantity estimates
|
|
|
28,701 |
|
|
|
(104,674 |
) |
|
|
31,446 |
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
100,681 |
|
|
|
307,686 |
|
|
|
3,741 |
|
|
Accretion of discount
|
|
|
121,720 |
|
|
|
82,808 |
|
|
|
48,343 |
|
Net change in income taxes
|
|
|
(28,550 |
) |
|
|
(87,734 |
) |
|
|
(131,573 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period
|
|
$ |
925,837 |
|
|
|
949,421 |
|
|
|
648,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-42
Annex A
MARINER ENERGY, INC.
Estimated
Future Reserves and Income
Attributable to Certain
Leasehold and Royalty Interests
(SEC Parameters)
As of
December 31, 2004
January 28, 2005
Mariner Energy, Inc.
2101 CityWest Blvd., Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77042-3020
Gentlemen:
At your request, we have prepared an estimate of the reserves,
future production, and cash flow attributable to certain
leasehold and royalty interests of Mariner Energy, Inc.
(Mariner) as of December 31, 2004. The subject properties
are located in the states of Mississippi and Texas and in the
federal waters offshore Louisiana and Texas. The cash flow data
were estimated using the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) guidelines for future price and cost parameters.
The estimated reserves and future cash flow amounts presented in
this report are related to hydrocarbon prices. December 2004
hydrocarbon prices were used in the preparation of this report
as required by SEC guidelines; however, actual future prices may
vary significantly from December 2004 prices. Therefore, volumes
of reserves actually recovered and amounts of income actually
received may differ significantly from the estimated quantities
presented in this report. The results of this study are
summarized below.
SEC PARAMETERS
Estimated Net Reserves and Cash Flow Data
Certain Leasehold and Royalty Interests of
Mariner Energy, Inc.
As of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Developed | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
Producing | |
|
Non-Producing | |
|
Undeveloped | |
|
Proved | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Remaining Reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil/ CondensateBarrels
|
|
|
6,171,886 |
|
|
|
167,142 |
|
|
|
7,916,458 |
|
|
|
14,255,486 |
|
|
|
GasMMCF
|
|
|
57,788 |
|
|
|
13,573 |
|
|
|
80,572 |
|
|
|
151,933 |
|
Cash Flow Data (M$)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Gross Revenue
|
|
$ |
621,366.9 |
|
|
$ |
91,410.3 |
|
|
$ |
836,425.2 |
|
|
$ |
1,549,202.4 |
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
143,343.3 |
|
|
|
27,769.0 |
|
|
|
278,728.5 |
|
|
|
449,840.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Net Cash Flow
|
|
$ |
478,023.6 |
|
|
$ |
63,641.3 |
|
|
$ |
557,696.7 |
|
|
$ |
1,099,361.6 |
|
|
(Before Taxes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present Value @ 10%
|
|
$ |
281,479.0 |
|
|
$ |
53,887.8 |
|
|
$ |
332,608.3 |
|
|
$ |
667,975.1 |
|
|
(PV10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquid hydrocarbons are expressed in standard 42 gallon barrels.
All gas volumes are sales gas expressed in millions of cubic
feet (MMCF) at the official temperature and pressure bases
of the areas in which the gas reserves are located.
A-1
Mariner Energy, Inc.
January 28, 2005
Page 2
The estimates of the reserves, future production, and cash flow
attributable to properties in this report were prepared using
the economic software package Aries for Windows, a copyrighted
program of Landmark. The program was used solely at the request
of Mariner. Ryder Scott has found this program to be generally
acceptable, but notes that certain summaries and calculations
may vary due to rounding and may not exactly match the sum of
the properties being summarized. Furthermore, one line economic
summaries may vary slightly from the more detailed cash flow
projections of the same properties, also due to rounding. The
rounding differences are not material.
The future gross revenue is after the deduction of production
taxes. The deductions are comprised of the normal direct costs
of operating the wells, ad valorem taxes, recompletion costs,
development costs, and certain abandonment costs net of salvage.
The future net cash flow is before the deduction of state and
federal income taxes and general administrative overhead, and
has not been adjusted for outstanding loans that may exist nor
does it include any adjustment for cash on hand or undistributed
income. Gas reserves account for approximately 63 percent
and liquid hydrocarbons account for approximately
37 percent of total future gross revenue from proved
reserves.
The present value shown above was calculated using a discount
rate of 10 percent per annum compounded monthly. Future
cash flow was discounted at four other discount rates which were
also compounded monthly. These results are shown on each
estimated projection of future production and cash flow
presented in a later section of this report and in summary form
as follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present Value | |
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
(M$) | |
|
|
| |
Discount Rate | |
|
Total | |
Percent | |
|
Proved | |
| |
|
| |
|
5 |
|
|
$ |
815,643.4 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
$ |
575,781.8 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
$ |
511,036.7 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
$ |
462,061.6 |
|
The results shown above are presented for your information and
should not be construed as our estimate of fair market value.
Reserves Included in This Report
The proved reserves included herein conform to the
definition as set forth in the Securities and Exchange
Commissions
Regulation S-X
Part 210.4-10(a)
as clarified by subsequent Commission Staff Accounting
Bulletins. The definitions of proved reserves are included under
the tab Petroleum Reserves Definitions in this
report.
Because of the direct relationship between volumes of proved
undeveloped reserves and development plans, we include in the
proved undeveloped category only reserves assigned to
undeveloped locations that we have been assured will definitely
be drilled.
The proved developed non-producing reserves included herein are
comprised of the behind pipe and shut in categories. The various
reserve status categories are defined under the tab
Petroleum Reserves Definitions in this report.
A-2
Mariner Energy, Inc.
January 28, 2005
Page 3
Estimates of Reserves
In general, the reserves included herein were estimated by
performance methods or the volumetric method; however, other
methods were used in certain cases where characteristics of the
data indicated such other methods were more appropriate in our
opinion. The reserves estimated by the performance method
utilized extrapolations of various historical data in those
cases where such data were definitive. Reserves were estimated
by the volumetric method in those cases where there were
inadequate historical performance data to establish a definitive
trend or where the use of production performance data as a basis
for the reserve estimates was considered to be inappropriate.
The reserves included in this report are estimates only and
should not be construed as being exact quantities. They may or
may not be actually recovered, and if recovered, the revenues
therefrom and the actual costs related thereto could be more or
less than the estimated amounts. Moreover, estimates of reserves
may increase or decrease as a result of future operations.
Future Production Rates
Initial production rates are based on the current producing
rates for those wells now on production. Test data and other
related information were used to estimate the anticipated
initial production rates for those wells or locations which are
not currently producing. If no production decline trend has been
established, future production rates were held constant, or
adjusted for the effects of curtailment where appropriate, until
a decline in ability to produce was anticipated. An estimated
rate of decline was then applied to depletion of the reserves.
If a decline trend has been established, this trend was used as
the basis for estimating future production rates. For reserves
not yet on production, sales were estimated to commence at an
anticipated date furnished by Mariner.
The future production rates from wells now on production may be
more or less than estimated because of changes in market demand
or allowables set by regulatory bodies. Wells or locations which
are not currently producing may start producing earlier or later
than anticipated in our estimates of their future production
rates.
Hydrocarbon Prices
Mariner furnished us with hydrocarbon prices of $43.45 per
barrel for oil and $6.149 per MMBTU for gas in effect at
December 31, 2004. In accordance with FASB Statement
No. 69, December 31, 2004 market prices were
determined using the daily oil price or daily gas sales price
(spot price) adjusted for oilfield or gas gathering
hub and wellhead price differences (e.g. grade, transportation,
gravity, sulfur and BS&W) as appropriate. Also in accordance
with SEC and FASB specifications, changes in market prices
subsequent to December 31, 2004 were not considered in this
report.
Costs
Operating costs were supplied by Mariner. We did not review
these costs and make no assurances of their accuracy.
Development costs were furnished to us by Mariner and are based
on authorizations for expenditure for the proposed work or
actual costs for similar projects. The estimated net cost of
abandonment after salvage was included for the offshore
properties where abandonment costs net of salvage were
significant. At the request of Mariner, their estimate of zero
abandonment costs after salvage value for onshore properties was
used in this report. Ryder Scott has not performed a detailed
study of the abandonment costs or the salvage value and makes no
warranty for Mariners estimates.
A-3
Mariner Energy, Inc.
January 28, 2005
Page 4
Current costs were held constant throughout the life of the
properties.
Reversion Interests
Mariner furnished us with the dates of interest reversions on
all of the applicable properties. We did not verify these dates
and make no assurances of their accuracy. We used these dates
presented by Mariner in our evaluations.
Royalty Relief
Mariner has also furnished us with the ownership interests in
the subject properties and we used these without independent
verification. In the deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, it
is not uncommon for the Mineral Management Service (MMS) to
grant leases which are subject to Federal royalty relief. This
relief is commonly suspended when a certain amount of
hydrocarbons are recovered from the lease or when product prices
rise above a predetermined amount. Mariner states the lease they
signed with the MMS for Mississippi Canyon block 296 allows
for royalty relief without regard to hydrocarbon prices.
General
Table A presents a one line summary of proved reserve and
cash flow for each of the subject properties which are ranked
according to their present value discounted at 10 percent
per year. Table B presents a one line summary of gross and
net reserves and cash flow data for each of the subject
properties. Table C presents a one line summary of initial
basic data for each of the subject properties. Tables 1
through 653 present our estimated projection of production and
cash flow by years beginning January 1, 2005, by state,
field, and lease or well.
While it may reasonably be anticipated that the future prices
received for the sale of production and the operating costs and
other costs relating to such production may also increase or
decrease from existing levels, such changes were, in accordance
with rules adopted by the SEC, omitted from consideration in
making this evaluation.
The estimates of reserves presented herein were based upon a
detailed study of the properties in which Mariner owns an
interest; however, we have not made any field examination of the
properties. No consideration was given in this report to
potential environmental liabilities which may exist nor were any
costs included for potential liability to restore and clean up
damages, if any, caused by past operating practices. Mariner has
informed us that they have furnished us all of the accounts,
records, geological and engineering data, and reports and other
data required for this investigation. The ownership interests,
prices, and other factual data furnished by Mariner were
accepted without independent verification. The estimates
presented in this report are based on data available through
December 2004.
Mariner has assured us of their intent and ability to proceed
with the development activities included in this report, and
that they are not aware of any legal, regulatory or political
obstacles that would significantly alter their plans.
Neither we nor any of our employees have any interest in the
subject properties and neither the employment to make this study
nor the compensation is contingent on our estimates of reserves
and future income for the subject properties.
A-4
Mariner Energy, Inc.
January 28, 2005
Page 5
This report was prepared for the exclusive use and sole benefit
of Mariner Energy, Inc. The data, work papers, and maps used in
this report are available for examination by authorized parties
in our offices. Please contact us if we can be of further
service.
|
|
|
Very truly yours, |
|
|
RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P. |
|
|
|
|
|
Timothy J. Torres, P.E. |
|
Vice President |
TJT/pl
A-5
PETROLEUM RESERVES DEFINITIONS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
INTRODUCTION
Reserves are those quantities of petroleum which are anticipated
to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a
given date forward. All reserve estimates involve some degree of
uncertainty. The uncertainty depends chiefly on the amount of
reliable geologic and engineering data available at the time of
the estimate and the interpretation of these data. The relative
degree of uncertainty may be conveyed by placing reserves into
one of two principal classifications, either proved or unproved.
Unproved reserves are less certain to be recovered than proved
reserves and may be further sub-classified as probable and
possible reserves to denote progressively increasing uncertainty
in their recoverability. It should be noted that Securities and
Exchange Commission
Regulation S-K
prohibits the disclosure of estimated quantities of probable or
possible reserves of oil and gas and any estimated value thereof
in any documents publicly filed with the Commission.
Reserves estimates will generally be revised as additional
geologic or engineering data become available or as economic
conditions change. Reserves do not include quantities of
petroleum being held in inventory, and may be reduced for usage
or processing losses if required for financial reporting.
Reserves may be attributed to either natural energy or improved
recovery methods. Improved recovery methods include all methods
for supplementing natural energy or altering natural forces in
the reservoir to increase ultimate recovery. Examples of such
methods are pressure maintenance, cycling, waterflooding,
thermal methods, chemical flooding, and the use of miscible and
immiscible displacement fluids. Other improved recovery methods
may be developed in the future as petroleum technology continues
to evolve.
PROVED RESERVES (SEC DEFINITIONS)
Securities and Exchange Commission
Regulation S-X
Rule 4-10
paragraph (a) defines proved reserves as follows:
Proved oil and gas reserves. Proved oil and gas reserves
are the estimated quantities of crude oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids which geological and engineering data
demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in
future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and
operating conditions, i.e., prices and costs as of the date the
estimate is made. Prices include consideration of changes in
existing prices provided only by contractual arrangements, but
not on escalations based upon future conditions.
|
|
|
(i) Reservoirs are considered proved if economic
producibility is supported by either actual production or
conclusive formation test. The area of a reservoir considered
proved includes: |
|
|
|
(A) that portion delineated by drilling and defined by
gas-oil and/or oil-water contacts, if any; and |
|
|
(B) the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but
which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the
basis of available geological and engineering data. In the
absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known
structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proved
limit of the reservoir. |
|
|
|
(ii) Reserves which can be produced economically through
application of improved recovery techniques (such as fluid
injection) are included in the proved classification
when successful testing by a pilot project, or the operation of
an installed program in the reservoir, provides support for the
engineering analysis on which the project or program was based. |
A-6
PETROLEUM RESERVES DEFINITIONS
Page 2
|
|
|
(iii) Estimates of proved reserves do not include the
following: |
|
|
|
(A) oil that may become available from known reservoirs but
is classified separately as indicated additional
reserves; |
|
|
(B) crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, the
recovery of which is subject to reasonable doubt because of
uncertainty as to geology, reservoir characteristics, or
economic factors; |
|
|
(C) crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, that
may occur in undrilled prospects; and |
|
|
(D) crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, that
may be recovered from oil shales, coal, gilsonite and other such
sources. |
Proved developed oil and gas reserves. Proved developed
oil and gas reserves are reserves that can be expected to be
recovered through existing wells with existing equipment and
operating methods. Additional oil and gas expected to be
obtained through the application of fluid injection or other
improved recovery techniques for supplementing the natural
forces and mechanisms of primary recovery should be included as
proved developed reserves only after testing by a
pilot project or after the operation of an installed program has
confirmed through production response that increased recovery
will be achieved.
Proved undeveloped reserves. Proved undeveloped oil and
gas reserves are reserves that are expected to be recovered from
new wells on undrilled acreage, or from existing wells where a
relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion.
Reserves on undrilled acreage shall be limited to those drilling
units offsetting productive units that are reasonably certain of
production when drilled. Proved reserves for other undrilled
units can be claimed only where it can be demonstrated with
certainty that there is continuity of production from the
existing productive formation. Under no circumstances should
estimates for proved undeveloped reserves be attributable to any
acreage for which an application of fluid injection or other
improved recovery technique is contemplated, unless such
techniques have been proved effective by actual tests in the
area and in the same reservoir.
Certain Staff Accounting Bulletins published subsequent to the
promulgation of
Regulation S-X
have dealt with matters relating to the application of financial
accounting and disclosure rules for oil and gas producing
activities. In particular, the following interpretations
extracted from Staff Accounting Bulletins set forth the
Commission staffs view on specific questions pertaining to
proved oil and gas reserves.
Economic producibility of estimated proved reserves can be
supported to the satisfaction of the Office of Engineering if
geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable
certainty that those reserves can be recovered in future years
under existing economic and operating conditions. The relative
importance of the many pieces of geological and engineering data
which should be evaluated when classifying reserves cannot be
identified in advance. In certain instances, proved reserves may
be assigned to reservoirs on the basis of a combination of
electrical and other type logs and core analyses which indicate
the reservoirs are analogous to similar reservoirs in the same
field which are producing or have demonstrated the ability to
produce on a formation test. (extracted from SAB-35)
In determining whether proved undeveloped reserves
encompass acreage on which fluid injection (or other
improved recovery technique) is contemplated, is it appropriate
to distinguish between (i) fluid injection used for
pressure maintenance during the early life of a field and
(ii) fluid injection used to effect secondary recovery when
a field is in the late stages of depletion? ... The Office of
Engineering believes that the distinction identified in the
above question may be appropriate in a few limited
circumstances, such as in the case of certain fields in the
North Sea. The staff will review estimates of
A-7
PETROLEUM RESERVES DEFINITIONS
Page 3
proved reserves attributable to fluid injection in the light of
the strength of the evidence presented by the registrant in
support of a contention that enhanced recovery will be achieved.
(extracted from SAB-35)
Companies should report reserves of natural gas liquids which
are net to their leasehold interest, i.e., that portion
recovered in a processing plant and allocated to the leasehold
interest. It may be appropriate in the case of natural gas
liquids not clearly attributable to leasehold interests
ownership to follow instruction (b) of Item 2(b)(3) of
Regulation S-K and
report such reserves separately and describe the nature of the
ownership. (extracted from SAB-35)
The staff believes that since coalbed methane gas can be
recovered from coal in its natural and original location, it
should be included in proved reserves, provided that it complies
in all other respects with the definition of proved oil and gas
reserves as specified in Rule 4-10(a)(2) including the
requirement that methane production be economical at current
prices, costs, (net of the tax credit) and existing operating
conditions. (extracted from SAB-85)
Statements in Staff Accounting Bulletins are not rules or
interpretations of the Commission nor are they published as
bearing the Commissions official approval; they represent
interpretations and practices followed by the Division of
Corporation Finance and the Office of the Chief Accountant in
administering the disclosure requirements of the Federal
securities laws.
SUB-CATEGORIZATION OF DEVELOPED RESERVES (SPE/ WPC
DEFINITIONS)
In accordance with guidelines adopted by the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and the World Petroleum Congress
(WPC), developed reserves may be sub-categorized as producing or
non-producing.
Producing. Reserves sub-categorized as producing are
expected to be recovered from completion intervals which are
open and producing at the time of the estimate. Improved
recovery reserves are considered producing only after the
improved recovery project is in operation.
Non-Producing. Reserves sub-categorized as non-producing
include shut-in and behind pipe reserves. Shut-in reserves are
expected to be recovered from (1) completion intervals
which are open at the time of the estimate but which have not
started producing, (2) wells which were shut-in awaiting
pipeline connections or as a result of a market interruption, or
(3) wells not capable of production for mechanical reasons.
Behind pipe reserves are expected to be recovered from zones in
existing wells, which will require additional completion work or
future recompletion prior to the start of production.
A-8
33,348,130 Shares
of
Common Stock
Prospectus
,
2006
Until (25 days
after the commencement of this offering), all dealers that
effect transactions in our common stock, whether or not
participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a
prospectus.
PART II
INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
|
|
Item 13. |
Other Expenses of Issuance and Distribution. |
The following table sets forth estimates of all expenses payable
by the registrant in connection with the sale of common stock
being registered. The selling stockholders will not bear any
portion of such expenses. All the amounts shown are estimates
except for the registration fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEC registration fee
|
|
$ |
56,000 |
|
NASD filing fee
|
|
|
50,000 |
|
Listing fee
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
Legal fees and expenses
|
|
|
970,000 |
|
Printer fees
|
|
|
247,000 |
|
Transfer agent fees
|
|
|
18,000 |
|
Blue sky fees and expenses
|
|
|
19,000 |
|
Accounting fees and expenses
|
|
|
365,000 |
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
170,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,900,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 14. |
Indemnification of Officers and Directors. |
Our second amended and restated certificate of incorporation
provides that a director will not be liable to the corporation
or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary
duty as a director, except for liability (1) for any breach
of the directors duty of loyalty to the corporation or its
stockholders, (2) for acts or omissions not in good faith
or which involved intentional misconduct or a knowing violation
of the law, (3) under section 174 of the Delaware
General Corporate Law (DGCL) for unlawful payment of
dividends or improper redemption of stock or (4) for any
transaction from which the director derived an improper personal
benefit. In addition, if the DGCL is amended to authorize the
further elimination or limitation of the liability of directors,
then the liability of a director of the corporation, in addition
to the limitation on personal liability provided for in our
charter, will be limited to the fullest extent permitted by the
amended DGCL. Our bylaws provide that the corporation will
indemnify, and advance expenses to, any officer or director to
the fullest extent authorized by the DGCL.
Section 145 of the DGCL provides that a corporation may
indemnify directors and officers as well as other employees and
individuals against expenses, including attorneys fees,
judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement in connection
with specified actions, suits and proceedings whether civil,
criminal, administrative, or investigative, other than a
derivative action by or in the right of the corporation, if they
acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably believed to
be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation
and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, had no
reasonable cause to believe their conduct was unlawful. A
similar standard is applicable in the case of derivative
actions, except that indemnification extends only to expenses,
including attorneys fees, incurred in connection with the
defense or settlement of such action and the statute requires
court approval before there can be any indemnification where the
person seeking indemnification has been found liable to the
corporation. The statute provides that it is not exclusive of
other indemnification that may be granted by a
corporations charter, bylaws, disinterested director vote,
stockholder vote, agreement, or otherwise.
Our charter also contains indemnification rights for our
directors and our officers. Specifically, the charter provides
that we shall indemnify our officers and directors to the
fullest extent authorized by the DGCL. Further, we may maintain
insurance on behalf of our officers and directors against
expense, liability or loss asserted incurred by them in their
capacities as officers and directors.
II-1
We have obtained directors and officers insurance to
cover our directors, officers and some of our employees for
certain liabilities.
We have entered into written indemnification agreements with our
directors and executive officers. Under these agreement, if an
officer or director makes a claim of indemnification to us,
either a majority of the independent directors or independent
legal counsel selected by the independent directors must review
the relevant facts and make a determination whether the officer
or director has met the standards of conduct under Delaware law
that would permit (under Delaware law) and require (under the
indemnification agreement) us to indemnify the officer or
director.
The registration rights agreement and purchase/placement agent
agreement we entered into in connection with our earlier
financings provide for the indemnification by the investors in
those financings of our officers and directors for certain
liabilities.
|
|
Item 15. |
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities. |
In the last three years, we have sold and issued the following
unregistered securities:
|
|
|
1. On March 11, 2005, we issued 16,350,000 shares
of our common stock in consideration of $212,877,000 before
expenses to qualified institutional buyers,
non-U.S. persons
and accredited investors in transactions exempt from
registration under Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. We
paid Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc., who acted
as placement agent in this transaction, $16,023,000 in discounts
and placement fees. A selling stockholder in the offering paid
an additional $10,035,200 in discounts and placement fees to
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc. |
|
|
2. On March 11, 2005, we issued 2,267,270 shares
of restricted common stock to employees pursuant to our Equity
Participation Plan. The issuance of these shares was exempt from
the registration requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to
Rule 701. |
|
|
3. We issued 787,360, 1,200, 5,400 and 5,000 options to
purchase our common stock to employees pursuant to our Stock
Incentive Plan on March 11, 2005, May 16, 2005,
July 18, 2005 and July 25, 2005, respectively. The
issue of those options was exempt from the registration
requirements of the Securities Act pursuant to Rule 701. |
|
|
4. On March 2, 2004, we issued 29,748,130 shares
of our common stock in connection with a merger of our former
parent, Mariner Energy LLC, into MEI Acquisitions Holdings, LLC.
The issue of those shares was exempt from the registration
requirements of the Securities Act under Section 4(2) of
the Securities Act. |
|
|
Item 16. |
Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules. |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Document |
|
|
|
|
2 |
.1* |
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of September 9, 2005
among Forest Oil Corporation, SML Wellhead Corporation, Mariner
Energy, Inc. and MEI Sub, Inc. |
|
2 |
.2 |
|
Letter Agreement dated as of February 3, 2006 among Forest
Oil Corporation, Forest Energy Resources, Inc., Mariner Energy,
Inc., and MEI Sub, Inc. amending the transaction agreements. |
|
3 |
.1* |
|
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Mariner Energy, Inc. |
|
3 |
.2* |
|
Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of Mariner Energy, Inc. |
|
4 |
.1* |
|
Registration Rights Agreement among Mariner Energy, Inc. and
each of the investors identified therein, dated March 11,
2005. |
|
4 |
.2* |
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate. |
|
5 |
.1* |
|
Opinion of Baker Botts L.L.P. regarding legality of securities
being issued. |
|
8 |
.1* |
|
Form of opinion of Baker Botts L.L.P. regarding tax matters. |
|
10 |
.1* |
|
Credit Agreement by and among Mariner Energy Inc. and the
Lenders party thereto, dated March 2, 2004. |
II-2
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Document |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.2* |
|
Amendment No. 1 and Assignment Agreement among Mariner
Energy, Inc., Mariner Holdings, Inc. and Mariner Energy LLC, the
Union Bank of California, N.A. and the Lenders party thereto,
dated July 14, 2004. |
|
10 |
.3* |
|
Waiver and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc., Mariner Holdings,
Inc., Mariner Energy LLC, the Union Bank of California, N.A. and
the Lenders party thereto, dated December 29, 2004. |
|
10 |
.4* |
|
Amendment No. 2 and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc.,
Mariner Holdings, Inc., Mariner Energy LLC, the Union Bank of
California, N.A., and the Lenders party thereto, dated
February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.5* |
|
Amendment No. 3 and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc.,
Mariner LP LLC, Mariner Energy Texas LP, the Union Bank of
California, N.A., and the Lenders party thereto, dated
March 3, 2005. |
|
10 |
.6* |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement between Mariner Energy, Inc.
and each of its directors and officers. |
|
10 |
.7* |
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan,
effective as of March 11, 2005. |
|
10 |
.8* |
|
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, Mariner Energy,
Inc. Stock Incentive Plan for employees without employment
agreements. |
|
10 |
.9* |
|
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, Mariner Energy,
Inc. Stock Incentive Plan for employees with employment
agreements. |
|
10 |
.10* |
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity Participation Plan, effective
March 11, 2005. |
|
10 |
.11* |
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity
Participation Plan for employees with employment agreements. |
|
10 |
.12* |
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity
Participation Plan for employees without employment agreements. |
|
10 |
.13* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Scott D. Josey, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.14* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Dalton F. Polasek, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.15* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Michiel C. van den Bold, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.16* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Judd Hansen, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.17* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Teresa Bushman, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.18* |
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement for certain
employees of Mariner Energy, Inc. or Mariner Energy
Resources, Inc. who formerly held unvested options issued by
Forest Oil Corporation. |
|
10 |
.19* |
|
Amendment No. 6, Waiver and Agreement among Mariner Energy,
Inc., Mariner LP LLC, Mariner Energy Texas LP, the Union Bank of
California, N.A. and the lenders party thereto, dated
January 20, 2006. |
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Ricky G. Lester, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
21* |
|
|
List of subsidiaries. |
|
23 |
.1 |
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
|
23 |
.2 |
|
Consent of KPMG LLP. |
II-3
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Document |
|
|
|
|
23 |
.3* |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
23 |
.4* |
|
Consent of Baker Botts L.L.P. (included in Exhibit 5.1). |
|
24 |
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on page II-6). |
Item 17. Undertakings.
(a) The undersigned registrant hereby undertakes:
|
|
|
(1) To file, during any period in which offers or sales are
being made, a post-effective amendment to this registration
statement: |
|
|
|
(i) To include any prospectus required by
Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended; |
|
|
(ii) To reflect in the prospectus any facts or events
arising after the effective date of the registration statement
(or the most recent post-effective amendment thereof) which,
individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change
in the information set forth in the registration
statement; and |
|
|
(iii) To include any material information with respect to
the plan of distribution not previously disclosed in the
registration statement or any material change to such
information in the registration statement; |
|
|
|
(2) That, for the purpose of determining any liability
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, each such
post-effective amendment that contains a form of prospectus
shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to
the securities offered therein, and the offering of such
securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial bona
fide offering thereof. |
|
|
(3) To remove from registration by means of a
post-effective amendment any of the securities being registered
which remain unsold at the termination of the offering. |
(b) Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, may be permitted
to directors, officers, and controlling persons of the
registrant pursuant to the provisions described in Item 14
or otherwise, the registrant has been advised that in the
opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission, such
indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Act
and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the event that a claim for
indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment
by the registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director,
officer, or controlling person of the registrant in the
successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is
asserted by such director, officer, or controlling person in
connection with the securities being registered, the registrant
will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been
settled by controlling precedent, submit to a court of
appropriate jurisdiction the question of whether such
indemnification by it is against public policy as expressed in
the Act and will be governed by the final adjudication of such
issue.
II-4
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, the registrant has duly caused this registration
statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Houston, State of
Texas, on February 8, 2006.
|
|
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. |
|
|
By: /s/
Scott
D. Josey
|
|
Name: Scott D. Josey |
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
|
|
|
*
Scott D. Josey |
|
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
/s/ Rick G. Lester
Rick G. Lester |
|
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
*
Bernard Aronson |
|
Director |
|
*
Jonathan Ginns |
|
Director |
|
*By: |
|
/s/ Rick G. Lester
Attorney-in-fact |
|
|
II-5
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this
registration statement has been signed by the following persons
in the capacities indicated on February 8, 2006. Each
person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints
Rick G. Lester and Teresa G. Bushman, and each of them
individually, his or her true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and
agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign any and all amendments (including
post-effective amendments) to this registration statement under
the Securities Act of 1933, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith,
with the SEC, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to
be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and
agents or any of them, or their or his or her substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
|
|
|
/s/ John F. Greene
John F. Greene |
|
Director |
|
/s/ John L. Schwager
John L. Schwager |
|
Director |
II-6
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Document |
|
|
|
|
2 |
.1* |
|
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of September 9, 2005
among Forest Oil Corporation, SML Wellhead Corporation, Mariner
Energy, Inc. and MEI Sub, Inc. |
|
2 |
.2 |
|
Letter Agreement dated as of February 3, 2006 among Forest
Oil Corporation, Forest Energy Resources, Inc., Mariner Energy,
Inc., and MEI Sub, Inc. amending the transaction agreements. |
|
3 |
.1* |
|
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
Mariner Energy, Inc. |
|
3 |
.2* |
|
Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of Mariner Energy, Inc. |
|
4 |
.1* |
|
Registration Rights Agreement among Mariner Energy, Inc. and
each of the investors identified therein, dated March 11,
2005. |
|
4 |
.2* |
|
Specimen Common Stock Certificate. |
|
5 |
.1* |
|
Opinion of Baker Botts L.L.P. regarding legality of securities
being issued. |
|
8 |
.1* |
|
Form of opinion of Baker Botts L.L.P. regarding tax matters. |
|
10 |
.1* |
|
Credit Agreement by and among Mariner Energy Inc. and the
Lenders party thereto, dated March 2, 2004. |
|
10 |
.2* |
|
Amendment No. 1 and Assignment Agreement among Mariner
Energy, Inc., Mariner Holdings, Inc. and Mariner Energy LLC, the
Union Bank of California, N.A. and the Lenders party thereto,
dated July 14, 2004. |
|
10 |
.3* |
|
Waiver and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc., Mariner Holdings,
Inc., Mariner Energy LLC, the Union Bank of California, N.A. and
the Lenders party thereto, dated December 29, 2004. |
|
10 |
.4* |
|
Amendment No. 2 and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc.,
Mariner Holdings, Inc., Mariner Energy LLC, the Union Bank of
California, N.A., and the Lenders party thereto, dated
February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.5* |
|
Amendment No. 3 and Consent among Mariner Energy, Inc.,
Mariner LP LLC, Mariner Energy Texas LP, the Union Bank of
California, N.A., and the Lenders party thereto, dated
March 3, 2005. |
|
10 |
.6* |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement between Mariner Energy, Inc.
and each of its directors and officers. |
|
10 |
.7* |
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan,
effective as of March 11, 2005. |
|
10 |
.8* |
|
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, Mariner Energy,
Inc. Stock Incentive Plan for employees without employment
agreements. |
|
10 |
.9* |
|
Form of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, Mariner Energy,
Inc. Stock Incentive Plan for employees with employment
agreements. |
|
10 |
.10* |
|
Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity Participation Plan, effective
March 11, 2005. |
|
10 |
.11* |
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity
Participation Plan for employees with employment agreements. |
|
10 |
.12* |
|
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement, Mariner Energy, Inc. Equity
Participation Plan for employees without employment agreements. |
|
10 |
.13* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Scott D. Josey, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.14* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Dalton F. Polasek, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.15* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Michiel C. van den Bold, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.16* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Judd Hansen, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
10 |
.17* |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Teresa Bushman, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Document |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.18* |
|
Form of Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement for certain
employees of Mariner Energy, Inc. or Mariner Energy
Resources, Inc. who formerly held unvested options issued by
Forest Oil Corporation. |
|
10 |
.19* |
|
Amendment No. 6, Waiver and Agreement among Mariner Energy,
Inc., Mariner LP LLC, Mariner Energy Texas LP, the Union Bank of
California, N.A. and the lenders party thereto, dated
January 20, 2006. |
|
10 |
.20 |
|
Employment Agreement by and between Mariner Energy, Inc. and
Ricky G. Lester, dated February 7, 2005. |
|
21* |
|
|
List of subsidiaries. |
|
23 |
.1 |
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
|
23 |
.2 |
|
Consent of KPMG LLP. |
|
23 |
.3* |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
23 |
.4* |
|
Consent of Baker Botts L.L.P. (included in Exhibit 5.1). |
|
24 |
|
|
Power of Attorney (included on page II-6). |