e10vk
UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number 1-4174
The Williams Companies,
Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
73-0569878
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(IRS Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
One Williams Center, Tulsa,
Oklahoma
|
|
74172
|
(Address of Principal Executive
Offices)
|
|
(Zip
Code)
|
918-573-2000
(Registrants Telephone
Number, Including Area Code)
Securities registered pursuant
to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Each Exchange
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $1.00 par value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchange
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Purchase Rights
|
|
New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
5.50% Junior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2033
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated
filer þ Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common
equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price
at which the common equity was last sold, as of the last
business day of the registrants most recently completed
second quarter was approximately $13,912,313,182.
The number of shares outstanding of the registrants common
stock outstanding at February 22, 2007 was 597,861,925.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
|
|
|
Document
|
|
Parts Into Which Incorporated
|
|
Proxy Statement for the Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 17, 2007 (Proxy
Statement)
|
|
Part III
|
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
FORM 10-K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
DEFINITIONS
We use the following oil and gas measurements in this report:
Bcfe means one billion cubic feet of gas
equivalent determined using the ratio of one barrel of oil or
condensate to six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
British Thermal Unit or BTU means a unit of
energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by
one degree Fahrenheit.
BBtud means one billion BTUs per day.
Dekatherms or Dth or Dt means a unit of
energy equal to one million BTUs.
Mbbls/d means one thousand barrels per day.
Mcfe means one thousand cubic feet of gas
equivalent using the ratio of one barrel of oil or condensate to
six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
Mdt/d means one thousand dekatherms per day.
MMcf means one million cubic feet.
MMcf/d means one million cubic feet per day.
MMcfe means one million cubic feet of gas
equivalent using the ratio of one barrel of oil or condensate to
six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
MMdt means one million dekatherms or
approximately one trillion BTUs.
MMdt/d means one million dekatherms per
day.
ii
PART I
In this report, Williams (which includes The Williams Companies,
Inc. and, unless the context otherwise requires, all of our
subsidiaries) is at times referred to in the first person as
we, us or our. We also
sometimes refer to Williams as the Company.
WEBSITE
ACCESS TO REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION
We file our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K,
proxy statements and other documents electronically with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). You may read
and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the
SECs Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
You may also obtain such reports from the SECs Internet
website at http://www.sec.gov.
Our Internet website is http://www.williams.com. We make
available free of charge on or through our Internet website our
annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K
and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Corporate
Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethics, Board committee charters
and Code of Business Conduct are also available on our Internet
website. We will also provide, free of charge, a copy of any of
our corporate documents listed above upon written request to our
Secretary at Williams, One Williams Center, Suite 4700,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172.
GENERAL
We are a natural gas company originally incorporated under the
laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. We were founded in 1908
when two Williams brothers began a construction company in
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
We continue to use Economic Value
Added®
(EVA®)1
as the basis for disciplined decision making around the use of
capital.
EVA®
is a tool that considers both financial earnings and a cost of
capital in measuring performance. It is based on the idea that
earning profits from an economic perspective requires that a
company cover not only all of its operating expenses but also
all of its capital costs. The two main components of
EVA®
are net operating profit after taxes and a charge for the
opportunity cost of capital. We derive these amounts by making
various adjustments to our reported results and financial
position, and by applying a cost of capital. We look for
opportunities to improve
EVA®
because we believe there is a strong correlation between
EVA®
improvement and creation of shareholder value.
Today, we primarily find, produce, gather, process and transport
natural gas. We also manage a wholesale power business. Our
operations are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky
Mountains, Gulf Coast, Southern California and Eastern Seaboard.
In 2006 we focused on continued disciplined growth. During 2006
we:
|
|
|
|
|
Continued to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit;
|
|
|
|
Invested in our natural gas businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position;
|
|
|
|
Continued to increase natural gas production in a responsible
manner;
|
|
|
|
Accelerated additional asset transactions between us and
Williams Partners L.P., our master limited partnership;
|
1 Economic
Value
Added®
(EVA®)
is a registered trademark of Stern, Stewart & Co.
1
|
|
|
|
|
Increased the scale of our gathering and processing business in
key growth basins;
|
|
|
|
Filed new rates to enable our Gas Pipeline segment to remain
competitive and value-creating, and completed a capacity
replacement project;
|
|
|
|
Executed power contracts that reduce risk while adding new
business and strengthening future cash flow potential.
|
Our principal executive offices are located at One Williams
Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. Our telephone number is
918-573-2000.
2006
HIGHLIGHTS
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert our
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures into
our common stock. In January 2006, we converted approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures in exchange for
20.2 million shares of common stock, a $25.8 million
cash premium, and $1.5 million of accrued interest.
In April 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
(Transco) issued $200 million aggregate principal amount of
6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due 2016 to certain
institutional investors in a private debt placement. In October
2006, Transco completed an offer to exchange all of these notes
for substantially identical notes registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In May 2006, our Board of Directors approved a regular quarterly
dividend of 9 cents per share of common stock, which reflects an
increase of 20 percent compared with the 7.5 cents per
share paid in each of the three prior quarters.
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest
Pipeline) issued $175 million aggregate principal amount of
7 percent senior unsecured notes due 2016 to certain
institutional investors in a private debt placement. In October
2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation completed an offer to
exchange all of these notes for substantially identical notes
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000, and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. We
funded our $145 million portion of the settlement with
cash-on-hand
in November 2006, with the balance funded through insurance
proceeds. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second-quarter 2006. This settlement did
not have a material effect on our liquidity position. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity
offering of approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In
December 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a $600 million
private debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a
private equity offering of approximately $350 million of
common and Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. The debt and
equity issued by Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a
component of our consolidated debt balance and minority interest
balance, respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain
gathering, processing and treating assets in the San Juan
Basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
2
On July 31, 2006, and August 1, 2006, we received a
verdict in civil litigation related to a contractual dispute
surrounding certain natural gas processing facilities known as
Gulf Liquids. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$88 million in second quarter 2006 related to this loss
contingency. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
Northwest Pipeline and Transco have each filed a general rate
case with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its pending rate
case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval, which is
expected by mid-2007. The new transportation and storage rates
for both pipelines will be effective, subject to refund, in the
first quarter of 2007.
In December 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed and placed into
service its capacity replacement project in the state of
Washington. The project involved abandoning 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline and replacing it with approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline constructed in four sections along the same pipeline
corridor. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline modified five
existing compressor stations which created additional net
horsepower.
Our property insurance coverage levels and premiums were revised
during the second quarter of 2006. In general, our coverage
levels have decreased while our premiums have increased. These
changes reflect general trends in our industry due to
hurricane-related damages in recent years.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT SEGMENTS
See Note 17 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for information with respect to each segments
revenues, profits or losses and total assets. See Note 9
for information with respect to property, plant and equipment
for each segment.
BUSINESS
SEGMENTS
Substantially all our operations are conducted through our
subsidiaries. To achieve organizational and operating
efficiencies, our activities are primarily operated through the
following business segments:
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production produces,
develops and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in
the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the United
States and is comprised of several wholly owned and partially
owned subsidiaries including Williams Production Company LLC and
Williams Production RMT Company.
|
|
|
|
Gas Pipeline includes our interstate natural
gas pipelines and pipeline joint venture investments organized
under our wholly owned subsidiary, Williams Gas Pipeline
Company, LLC.
|
|
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids includes our
natural gas gathering, treating and processing business and is
comprised of several wholly owned and partially owned
subsidiaries including Williams Field Services Group LLC and
Williams Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. Midstream also includes
Williams Partners L.P., our master limited partnership formed in
2005.
|
|
|
|
Power manages our wholesale power and natural
gas commodity businesses through purchases, sales and other
related transactions, under our wholly owned subsidiary Williams
Power Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries.
|
|
|
|
Other primarily consists of corporate
operations. Other also includes our interest in
Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn).
|
This report is organized to reflect this structure.
Detailed discussion of each of our business segments follows.
3
Exploration &
Production
Our Exploration & Production segment, which is
comprised of several wholly owned and partially owned
subsidiaries, including Williams Production Company LLC and
Williams Production RMT Company (RMT), produces, develops, and
manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain (primarily New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado) and
Mid-Continent (Oklahoma and Texas) regions of the United States.
We specialize in natural gas production from tight-sands
formations and coal bed methane reserves in the Piceance,
San Juan, Powder River, Arkoma, Green River and
Fort Worth basins. Over 99 percent of
Exploration & Productions domestic reserves are
natural gas. Our Exploration & Production segment also
has international oil and gas interests, which include a
69 percent equity interest in Apco Argentina, Inc. (Apco
Argentina), an oil and gas exploration and production company
with operations in Argentina, and a four percent interest in
Petrowayu S.A., a Venezuelan corporation that is the operator of
a 100 percent interest in the La Concepcion block
located in Western Venezuela.
Exploration & Productions primary strategy is to
utilize its expertise in the development of tight-sands, shale,
and coal bed methane reserves. Exploration &
Productions current proved undeveloped and probable
reserves provide us with strong capital investment opportunities
for several years into the future. Exploration &
Productions goal is to drill its existing proved
undeveloped reserves, which comprise over 47 percent of
proved reserves and to drill in areas of probable reserves. In
addition, Exploration & Production provides a
significant amount of equity production that is gathered
and/or
processed by our Midstream facilities in the San Juan basin.
Information for our Exploration & Production segment
relates only to domestic activity unless otherwise noted. We use
the terms gross to refer to all wells or acreage in
which we have at least a partial working interest and
net to refer to our ownership represented by that
working interest.
Gas
reserves and wells
The following table summarizes our U.S. natural gas
reserves as of December 31 (using prices at
December 31 held constant) for the year indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Bcfe)
|
|
|
Proved developed natural gas
reserves
|
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
|
1,643
|
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
Proved undeveloped natural gas
reserves
|
|
|
1,756
|
|
|
|
1,739
|
|
|
|
1,638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total proved natural gas reserves
|
|
|
3,701
|
|
|
|
3,382
|
|
|
|
2,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes our proved natural gas reserves
by basin as of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
Basin
|
|
Proved Reserves
|
|
|
Piceance
|
|
|
67%
|
|
San Juan
|
|
|
17%
|
|
Powder River
|
|
|
10%
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No major discovery or other favorable or adverse event has
caused a significant change in estimated gas reserves since
year-end 2006. We have not filed on a recurring basis estimates
of our total proved net oil and gas reserves with any
U.S. regulatory authority or agency other than the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the SEC. The estimates furnished
to the DOE have been consistent with those furnished to the SEC,
although Exploration & Production has not yet filed any
information with respect to its estimated total reserves at
December 31, 2006, with the DOE. Certain estimates filed
with the DOE may not necessarily be directly comparable due to
special DOE reporting requirements, such as the requirement to
report gross operated reserves only. The underlying estimated
reserves for the DOE did not differ by more than five percent
from the underlying estimated reserves utilized in preparing the
estimated reserves reported to the SEC.
4
Approximately 98 percent of our year-end 2006 United States
proved reserves estimates were audited in each separate basin by
Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (NSAI). When
compared on a
well-by-well
basis, some of our estimates are greater and some are less than
the estimates of NSAI. However, in the opinion of NSAI, the
estimates of our proved reserves are in the aggregate reasonable
by basin and have been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted petroleum engineering and evaluation principles. These
principles are set forth in the Standards Pertaining to the
Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserve Information
promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. NSAI is
satisfied with our methods and procedures in preparing the
December 31, 2006 reserve estimates and saw nothing of an
unusual nature that would cause NSAI to take exception with the
estimates, in the aggregate, as prepared by us. Reserves
estimates related to properties underlying the Williams Coal
Seam Gas Royalty Trust which comprise another approximately two
percent of our total U.S. proved reserves were prepared by
Miller and Lents, LTD.
Oil and
gas properties
Following is a discussion of our oil and gas properties for our
significant areas.
Piceance
basin
The Piceance basin is located in northwestern Colorado. In 2006,
we drilled 494 gross wells of which we operate 477, and
owned working interests in a total of 1,889 gross producing
wells at year-end. We produced a net of approximately
152 Bcfe of natural gas from the Piceance basin during
2006. Our estimated proved reserves in this basin at year-end
2006 were 2,469 Bcfe. The Piceance basin is our largest area of
concentrated development comprising approximately
67 percent of our proved reserves at December 31,
2006. This area has approximately 1,500 undrilled proved
locations in inventory. Within this basin, we are also the owner
and operator of a natural gas gathering and processing system.
In March 2005 we entered into a contract with
Helmerich & Payne for the operation of 10 new
FlexRig®
drilling rigs, each for a term of three years. By December 2006,
all 10 of these rigs were operating in the Piceance basin. We
also have 15 rigs operating in the Piceance basin under contract
with other vendors, for a total of 25 rigs operating in the
Piceance basin by December 2006.
San
Juan basin
The San Juan basin is located in northwest New Mexico and
southwest Colorado. In 2006, we participated in the drilling of
214 gross wells, of which we operate 56 and owned working
interests in a total of 2,864 gross producing wells at
year-end. We produced a net of approximately 56 Bcfe of
natural gas from the San Juan basin during 2006. Our
estimated proved reserves in the San Juan basin at year-end
2006 were 614 Bcfe.
Powder
River basin
The Powder River basin is located in northeast Wyoming. In 2006,
we drilled 858 gross wells of which we operate 449, and
owned working interests in a total of 4,454 gross producing
wells at year-end. We produced a net of approximately
52 Bcfe of natural gas from the Powder River basin during
2006. Our estimated proved reserves in this basin at year-end
2006 were 372 Bcfe. The Powder River basin comprises
approximately 10 percent of our proved reserves at
December 31, 2006. The Powder River basin includes large
areas with multiple coal seam potential, targeting thick coal
bed methane formations at shallow depths. We have a significant
inventory of undrilled locations, providing long-term drilling
opportunities.
Mid-Continent
properties
The Mid-Continent properties are located in the southeastern
Oklahoma portion of the Arkoma basin and the Barnett Shale in
the Fort Worth basin of Texas. In 2006, we drilled
112 gross wells, of which we operate 61 and owned working
interests in a total of 475 gross producing wells at year-end.
We produced a net of approximately 11 Bcfe of natural gas
from the Mid-Continent in 2006. Our estimated proved reserves in
the Arkoma and Fort Worth basins at year-end 2006 were
167 Bcfe.
5
The following table summarizes our leased acreage as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Acres
|
|
|
Net Acres
|
|
|
Developed
|
|
|
803,772
|
|
|
|
423,025
|
|
Undeveloped
|
|
|
1,220,422
|
|
|
|
623,538
|
|
At December 31, 2006, we owned working interests in
9,965 gross wells producing hydrocarbons (4,890 net).
Operating
statistics
We focus on lower-risk development drilling. Our drilling
success rate was 99 percent in 2006, 2005 and 2004. The
following tables summarize domestic drilling activity by number
and type of well for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Wells
|
|
Gross Wells
|
|
|
Net Wells
|
|
|
Development:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drilled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
1,783
|
|
|
|
954
|
|
2005
|
|
|
1,627
|
|
|
|
867
|
|
2004
|
|
|
1,395
|
|
|
|
710
|
|
Successful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
1,770
|
|
|
|
948
|
|
2005
|
|
|
1,615
|
|
|
|
859
|
|
2004
|
|
|
1,384
|
|
|
|
706
|
|
Substantially all our natural gas production is currently being
sold to Power at prevailing market prices. Power then resells
the majority of our production to unrelated third parties.
Because we currently have a low-risk drilling program in proven
basins, the main component of risk that we manage is price risk.
We have recently entered into a five-year unsecured credit
agreement with certain banks in order to reduce margin
requirements related to our hedging activities as well as lower
transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any, under this new
facility are dependent on the level of hedging with the banks
and on natural gas reserves value. Exploration &
Production natural gas hedges for 2007 consist of derivative
contracts with Power that hedge 172 BBtud in fixed price
hedges (whole year) and approximately 270 BBtud in NYMEX and
regional collars (whole year) for projected 2007 domestic
natural gas production. Power then enters into offsetting
derivative contracts with unrelated third parties. Our natural
gas production hedges in 2006 consisted of 299 BBtud in fixed
price hedges and 64 BBtud in NYMEX collars and an additional 50
BBtud in regional collars. A collar is a financial instrument
that sets a gas price floor and ceiling for a certain volume of
natural gas. Hedging decisions are made considering the overall
Williams commodity risk exposure and are not executed
independently by Exploration & Production; there are
gas purchase hedging contracts executed on behalf of other
Williams entities which taken as a net position may counteract
Exploration & Production gas sales hedging derivatives.
The following table summarizes our domestic sales and cost
information for the years indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Total net production sold (in Bcfe)
|
|
|
274.4
|
|
|
|
223.5
|
|
|
|
189.4
|
|
Average production costs including
production taxes per thousand cubic feet of gas equivalent
(Mcfe) produced
|
|
$
|
1.02
|
|
|
$
|
.92
|
|
|
$
|
.88
|
|
Average sales price per Mcfe
|
|
$
|
5.24
|
|
|
$
|
6.41
|
|
|
$
|
4.48
|
|
Realized impact of hedging
contracts (Loss)
|
|
$
|
(0.73
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.32
|
)
|
Acquisitions &
divestitures
Exploration & Production expanded its acreage position
and purchased producing properties in the Fort Worth basin
in north-central Texas through transactions totaling
approximately $64 million.
6
Other
information
In 1993, Exploration & Production conveyed a net
profits interest in certain of its properties to the Williams
Coal Seam Gas Royalty Trust. Substantially all of the production
attributable to the properties conveyed to the trust was from
the Fruitland coal formation and constituted coal seam gas. We
subsequently sold trust units to the public in an underwritten
public offering and retained 3,568,791 trust units then
representing 36.8 percent of outstanding trust units. We
have previously sold trust units on the open market, with our
last sales in June 2005. As of February 1, 2007, we own
789,291 trust units. We sold no additional trust units during
2006.
International
exploration and production interests
We also have investments in international oil and gas interests.
If combined with our domestic proved reserves, our international
interests would make up 4.2 percent of our total proved
reserves.
Gas
Pipeline
We own and operate, through Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
and its subsidiaries, a combined total of approximately
14,400 miles of pipelines with a total annual throughput of
approximately 2,500 trillion British Thermal Units of natural
gas and
peak-day
delivery capacity of approximately 12 MMdt of gas. Gas
Pipeline consists of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
and Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Gas Pipeline also holds
interests in joint venture interstate and intrastate natural gas
pipeline systems including a 50 percent interest in
Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco)
Transco is an interstate natural gas transportation company that
owns and operates a
10,500-mile
natural gas pipeline system extending from Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and the offshore Gulf of Mexico through Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to the New York City metropolitan
area. The system serves customers in Texas and 11 southeast and
Atlantic seaboard states, including major metropolitan areas in
Georgia, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Pipeline
system and customers
At December 31, 2006, Transcos system had a mainline
delivery capacity of approximately 4.7 MMdt of natural gas
per day from its production areas to its primary markets. Using
its Leidy Line along with market-area storage and transportation
capacity, Transco can deliver an additional 3.5 MMdt of
natural gas per day for a system-wide delivery capacity total of
approximately 8.2 MMdt of natural gas per day.
Transcos system includes 44 compressor stations, five
underground storage fields, two liquefied natural gas (LNG)
storage facilities. Compression facilities at a sea level-rated
capacity total approximately 1.5 million horsepower.
Transcos major natural gas transportation customers are
public utilities and municipalities that provide service to
residential, commercial, industrial and electric generation end
users. Shippers on Transcos system include public
utilities, municipalities, intrastate pipelines, direct
industrial users, electrical generators, gas marketers and
producers. One customer accounted for approximately
10 percent of Transcos total revenues in 2006.
Transcos firm transportation agreements are generally
long-term agreements with various expiration dates and account
for the major portion of Transcos business. Additionally,
Transco offers storage services and interruptible transportation
services under short-term agreements.
Transco has natural gas storage capacity in five underground
storage fields located on or near its pipeline system or market
areas and operates three of these storage fields. Transco also
has storage capacity in an LNG storage facility and operates the
facility. The total usable gas storage capacity available to
Transco and its customers in such underground storage fields and
LNG storage facility and through storage service contracts is
approximately 216 billion cubic feet of gas. In addition,
wholly owned subsidiaries of Transco operate and hold a
35 percent ownership interest in Pine Needle LNG Company,
LLC, an LNG storage facility with 4 billion cubic feet of
storage capacity. Storage capacity permits Transcos
customers to inject gas into storage during the summer and
off-peak periods for delivery during peak winter demand periods.
7
Transco
expansion projects
Leidy
to Long Island Expansion Project
The Leidy to Long Island Expansion Project will involve an
expansion of Transcos existing natural gas transmission
system in Zone 6 from the Leidy Hub in Pennsylvania to Long
Island, New York. The project will provide 100 Mdt/d of
incremental firm transportation capacity, which has been fully
subscribed by one shipper for a 20-year primary term. The
project facilities will include pipeline looping in
Pennsylvania, pipeline looping, replacement and a natural gas
compressor facility in New Jersey and appurtenant facilities in
New York. Transco expects that over three-quarters of the
project expenditures will occur in 2007. Transco filed an
application for FERC authorization of the project in December
2005, which the FERC approved by order issued on May 18,
2006. On October 20, 2006, Transco filed an application to
amend the FERC authorizations to reflect Transcos
ownership of certain appurtenant facilities as part of the
project and to adjust the cost of facilities and rates, which
the FERC approved on January 11, 2007. The estimated
capital cost of the project is approximately $141 million.
The target in-service date for the project is November 1,
2007.
Potomac
Expansion Project
The Potomac Expansion Project will involve an expansion of
Transcos existing natural gas transmission system from
receipt points in North Carolina to delivery points in the
greater Baltimore and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas.
The project will provide 165 Mdt/d of incremental firm
transportation capacity, which has been fully subscribed by
shippers under long-term firm arrangements. The estimated
capital cost of the project is approximately $74 million.
On July 17, 2006, Transco filed an application for FERC
approval of the project. The target in-service date for the
project is November 1, 2007.
Sentinel
Expansion Project
The Sentinel Expansion Project will involve an expansion of
Transcos existing natural gas transmission system from the
Leidy Hub in Clinton County, Pennsylvania and from the Pleasant
Valley Interconnection with Cove Point LNG in Fairfax County,
Virginia to various delivery points requested by the shippers
under the project. The project will provide 142 Mdt/d of
incremental firm transportation capacity, which has been fully
subscribed by the shippers under long-term firm arrangements.
The project facilities will include pipeline looping in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and minor compressor station
modifications. The estimated capital cost of the project
excluding any customer meter station upgrades is approximately
$140 million. In order to accommodate certain shippers,
Transco is planning to place the incremental firm transportation
capacity into service in two phases, the first phase commencing
on November 1, 2008 for 67 Mdt/d of service and the second
phase commencing on November 1, 2009 for an additional 75
Mdt/d of service. The FERC has granted our request for a
pre-application environmental review of the project, soliciting
early input from citizens, governmental entities and other
interested parties. Transco expects to file a formal application
with the FERC in the second quarter of 2007.
8
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes transportation data for the
Transco system for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In trillion British
|
|
|
|
Thermal Units)
|
|
|
Market-area deliveries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-haul transportation
|
|
|
795
|
|
|
|
755
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
Market-area transportation
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total market-area deliveries
|
|
|
1,612
|
|
|
|
1,608
|
|
|
|
1,599
|
|
Production-area transportation
|
|
|
247
|
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total system deliveries
|
|
|
1,859
|
|
|
|
1,886
|
|
|
|
1,916
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Daily Transportation
Volumes
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
Average Daily Firm Reserved
Capacity
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
Transcos facilities are divided into eight rate zones.
Five are located in the production area, and three are located
in the market area. Long-haul transportation involves gas that
Transco receives in one of the production-area zones and
delivers to a market-area zone. Market-area transportation
involves gas that Transco both receives and delivers within the
market-area zones. Production-area transportation involves gas
that Transco both receives and delivers within the
production-area zones.
Northwest
Pipeline Corporation (Northwest Pipeline)
Northwest Pipeline is an interstate natural gas transportation
company that owns and operates a natural gas pipeline system
extending from the San Juan basin in northwestern New
Mexico and southwestern Colorado through Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington to a point on the Canadian
border near Sumas, Washington. Northwest Pipeline provides
services for markets in California, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington directly or
indirectly through interconnections with other pipelines.
Pipeline
system and customers
At December 31, 2006, Northwest Pipelines system,
having long-term firm transportation agreements with peaking
capacity of approximately 3.4 MMdt of natural gas per day,
was composed of approximately 3,900 miles of mainline and
lateral transmission pipelines and 41 transmission compressor
stations having a combined sea level-rated capacity of
approximately 473,000 horsepower.
In 2003, we experienced two breaks in a segment of one of our
natural gas pipelines in western Washington. In response to
these breaks, we received Corrective Action Orders from the
Office of Pipeline Safety, elected to idle the pipeline segment
until its integrity could be assured, and began the process of
replacing the capacity served by the pipeline segment.
In September 2005 we received a FERC certificate authorizing us
to construct and operate the Capacity Replacement
Project. This project entailed the abandonment of
approximately 268 miles of the existing
26-inch
pipeline, and the construction of approximately 80 miles of
new 36-inch
pipeline and an additional 10,760 net horsepower of
compression at two existing compressor stations. As of December
2006, all of the facilities were placed in service, and
abandonment of the
26-inch
pipeline was completed.
The rate case we filed on June 30, 2006 seeks to recover,
among other things, the capitalized costs relating to the
Capacity Replacement Project.
In 2006, Northwest Pipeline served a total of 141 transportation
and storage customers. Transportation customers include
distribution companies, municipalities, interstate and
intrastate pipelines, gas marketers and direct industrial users.
The two largest customers of Northwest Pipeline in 2006
accounted for approximately 19.9 percent and
10.9 percent, of its total operating revenues. No other
customer accounted for more than 10 percent of Northwest
Pipelines total operating revenues in 2006. Northwest
Pipelines firm transportation agreements are
9
generally long-term agreements with various expiration dates and
account for the major portion of Northwest Pipelines
business. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline offers interruptible
and short-term firm transportation service.
As a part of its transportation services, Northwest Pipeline
utilizes underground storage facilities in Utah and Washington
enabling it to balance daily receipts and deliveries. Northwest
Pipeline also owns and operates an LNG storage facility in
Washington that provides service for customers during a few days
of extreme demands. These storage facilities have an aggregate
firm delivery capacity of approximately 600 million cubic
feet of gas per day.
Northwest
Pipeline expansion projects
Parachute
Lateral Project
In January 2006, we filed an application with the FERC to
construct a
38-mile
lateral that would provide additional transportation capacity
from the Parachute area to the Greasewood area in northwest
Colorado. The planned lateral would increase capacity by 450
Mdt/d through a
30-inch
diameter line and is estimated to cost $86 million. We
anticipate beginning service on the expansion in March 2007.
Greasewood
Lateral Project
In March 2006, we executed an agreement with a shipper for 200
Mdt/d of capacity on a proposed new lateral to be constructed
from the vicinity of Greasewood, Colorado, to our mainline
system near Sands Springs, Colorado. On February 20, 2007,
following a meeting with representatives of the shipper, we
decided to postpone applying with the FERC for a certificate to
construct the proposed Greasewood Lateral Project. We will be
continuing to work with potential shippers to determine whether
to proceed with the project at a future date.
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes volume and capacity data for the
Northwest Pipeline system for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In trillion British Thermal Units)
|
|
|
Total Transportation Volume
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
673
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
Average Daily Transportation
Volumes
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Average Daily Reserved Capacity
Under Long-Term Base Firm Contracts, excluding peak capacity
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Average Daily Reserved Capacity
Under Short-Term Firm Contracts(1)
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists primarily of additional capacity created from time to
time through the installation of new receipt or delivery points
or the segmentation of existing mainline capacity. Such capacity
is generally marketed on a short-term firm basis, because it
does not involve the construction of additional mainline
capacity. |
Gulfstream
Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream)
Gulfstream is a natural gas pipeline system extending from the
Mobile Bay area in Alabama to markets in Florida. In December
2001, Gulfstream filed an application with the FERC to allow
Gulfstream to complete the construction of its approved
facilities in phases. In May 2002, the first phase of the
project was placed into service at a cost of approximately
$1.5 billion. The second phase of the project was placed
into service on February 1, 2005. The total capital cost of
both phases of the project is approximately $1.7 billion.
At December 31, 2006, our equity investment in Gulfstream
was $387 million. Gas Pipeline and Spectra Energy (formerly
known as Duke Energy), through their respective subsidiaries,
each hold a 50 percent ownership interest in Gulfstream and
provide operating services for Gulfstream.
10
Gulfstream
expansion projects
Gulfstream has entered into a precedent agreement and a related
firm transportation service agreement pursuant to which, subject
to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and other
conditions precedent therein, we intend to extend the pipeline
system into South Florida and fully subscribe the remaining 345
Mdt/d of firm capacity on the existing pipeline system on a
long-term basis. The estimated capital cost of this project is
anticipated to be approximately $135 million. Gulfstream
also has executed a precedent agreement and a related firm
transportation service agreement pursuant to which, subject to
the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and other
conditions precedent therein, we intend to construct and fully
subscribe on a long-term basis the first incremental expansion
of Gulfstreams mainline capacity, increasing the current
mainline capacity of 1.1 MMdt/d to 1.255 MMdt/d. The
project will include the construction of additional pipeline in
Florida and the installation of new compression in Alabama and
Florida. The estimated capital cost of this expansion is
anticipated to be approximately $117 million. No
significant increase in operations personnel is expected as a
result of these two projects.
Midstream
Gas & Liquids
Our Midstream segment, one of the nations largest natural
gas gatherers and processors, has primary service areas
concentrated in the major producing basins in Colorado, New
Mexico, Wyoming, the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela and western
Canada. Midstreams primary businesses natural
gas gathering, treating, and processing; natural gas liquids
(NGL) fractionation, storage and transportation; and oil
transportation fall within the middle of the process
of taking natural gas and crude oil from the wellhead to the
consumer. NGLs, ethylene and propylene are extracted/produced at
our plants, including our Canadian and Gulf Coast olefins
plants. These products are used primarily for the manufacture of
plastics, home heating and refinery feedstock.
Although most of our gas services are performed for a
volumetric-based fee, a portion of our gas processing contracts
are commodity-based and include two distinct types of commodity
exposure. The first type includes Keep Whole
processing contracts whereby we own the NGLs extracted and
replace the lost heating value with natural gas. Under these
contracts, we are exposed to the spread between NGLs and natural
gas prices. The second type consists of Percent of
Liquids contracts whereby we receive a portion of the
extracted liquids with no direct exposure to the price of
natural gas. Under these contracts, we are only exposed to NGL
price movements.
Our Canadian and Gulf Liquids olefin facilities have commodity
exposure. In Canada, we are exposed to the spread between the
price for natural gas and the olefinic products we produce. In
the Gulf Coast, our feedstock for the ethane cracker is ethane
and propane; as a result, we are exposed to the price spread
between ethane and propane and ethylene and propylene. In the
Gulf Coast, we also purchase refinery grade propylene and
fractionate it into polymer grade propylene and propane; as a
result we are exposed to the price spread between those
commodities.
Key variables for our business will continue to be:
|
|
|
|
|
retaining and attracting customers by continuing to provide
reliable services;
|
|
|
|
revenue growth associated with additional infrastructure either
completed or currently under construction;
|
|
|
|
disciplined growth in our core service areas;
|
|
|
|
prices impacting our commodity-based processing and olefin
activities.
|
Domestic
gathering and processing
We own
and/or
operate domestic gas gathering and processing assets primarily
within the western states of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico,
and the onshore and offshore shelf and deepwater areas in and
around the Gulf Coast states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Alabama. These assets consist of approximately
8,200 miles of gathering pipelines, nine processing plants
(one partially owned) and five natural gas treating plants with
a combined daily inlet capacity of nearly 6.2 billion cubic
feet per day. Some of these assets are owned through our
interest in Williams Partners L.P. (see Williams Partners L.P.
section below).
11
Geographically, our Midstream natural gas assets are positioned
to maximize commercial and operational synergies with our other
assets. For example, most of our offshore gathering and
processing assets attach and process or condition natural gas
supplies delivered to the Transco pipeline. Also, our gathering
and processing facilities in the San Juan basin handle
about 85 percent of our Exploration & Production
groups wellhead production in this basin. Both our
San Juan Basin and Southwest Wyoming systems deliver gas
volumes into Northwest Pipelines interstate system.
In addition to these natural gas assets, we own and operate
three crude oil pipelines totaling approximately 270 miles
with a capacity of more than 300,000 barrels per day. This
includes our Mountaineer, Alpine and BANJO crude oil pipeline
systems in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
The BANJO oil pipeline and Seahawk gas pipeline run parallel and
deliver production across two producer-owned spar-type floating
production systems from the Kerr-McGee-operated Boomvang and
Nansen field areas in the western Gulf of Mexico. These
pipelines were placed in service on January 28, 2002.
Our 18 inch oil pipeline, Alpine, which became operational
on December 14, 2003, is our second western gulf crude oil
pipeline. The pipeline extends 96 miles from Garden Banks
Block 668 in the central Gulf of Mexico to our
shallow-water platform at Galveston Area Block A244. From this
platform, the oil is delivered onshore through ExxonMobils
Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System under a joint tariff
agreement. This production is coming from the Gunnison field,
which is located in 3,150 feet of water and operated by
Kerr-McGee.
Our Devils Tower floating production system and associated
pipelines were placed in service on May 5, 2004. Initially
built to serve Dominion Exploration & Productions
Devils Tower field, the floating production system is located in
Mississippi Canyon Block 773, approximately 150 miles
south-southwest of Mobile, Alabama. During the fourth quarter of
2005, the platforms service expanded to include tie-backs
of production from the Triton and Goldfinger fields in addition
to the host Devils Tower field. Located in 5,610 feet of
water, it is the worlds deepest dry tree spar. The
platform, which is operated by Dominion on our behalf, is
capable of producing 60 MMcf/d of natural gas and
60 Mbbls/d of oil.
The Devils Tower project includes gas and oil pipelines. The
102-mile
Canyon Chief gas pipeline consists of
18-inch
diameter pipe. The
118-mile
Mountaineer oil pipeline is a combination of 18- and
20-inch
diameter pipe. The gas is delivered into Transcos
pipeline, and processed at our Mobile Bay plant to recover the
NGLs. The oil is transported to ChevronTexacos Empire
Terminal in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. These associated
pipelines are significantly oversized relative to the Devils
Tower spar top-side capacity.
Included in the natural gas assets listed above are the assets
of Discovery Producer Services LLC and its subsidiary Discovery
Gas Transmission Services LLC (Discovery). We own a partial
interest in Discovery and operate its facilities.
Discoverys assets include a cryogenic natural gas
processing plant near Larose, Louisiana, a natural gas liquids
fractionator plant near Paradis, Louisiana and an offshore
natural gas gathering and transportation system.
Gulf
Coast petrochemical and olefins
We own a 5/12 interest in and are the operator for an ethane
cracker at Geismar, Louisiana, with a total production capacity
of 1.3 billion pounds per year of ethylene. We also own an
ethane pipeline system in Louisiana. Our Gulf Liquids New River
LLC (Gulf Liquids) business consists of a propylene splitter and
its related pipeline system.
Canada
Our Canadian operations include an olefin liquids extraction
plant located near Ft. McMurray, Alberta and an olefin
fractionation facility near Edmonton, Alberta. Our facilities
extract olefinic liquids from the off-gas produced from third
party oil sands bitumen upgrading and then fractionate, treat,
store, terminal and sell the propane, propylene, butane and
condensate recovered from this process. We continue to be the
only olefins fractionator in Western Canada and the only
treater-processor of oil sands upgrader off-gas. These
operations extract valuable petrochemical feedstocks from
upgrader off-gas streams allowing the upgraders to burn cleaner
natural gas streams
12
and reduce overall air emissions. The extraction plant has
processing capacity in excess of 100 MMcf/d with the
ability to recover in excess of 15 Mbbls/d of NGL products.
Venezuela
Our Venezuelan investments involve gas compression and gas
processing and natural gas liquids fractionation operations. We
own controlling interests and operate three gas compressor
facilities which provide roughly 70 percent of the gas
injections in eastern Venezuela. These facilities help stabilize
the reservoir and enhance the recovery of crude oil by
re-injecting natural gas at high pressures. We also own a
49.25 percent interest in two 400 MMcf/d natural gas
liquids extraction plants, a 50,000 barrels per day natural
gas liquids fractionation plant and associated storage and
refrigeration facilities.
Other
We own interests in
and/or
operate NGL fractionation and storage assets. These assets
include two partially owned NGL fractionation facilities near
Conway, Kansas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana that have a combined
capacity in excess of 167,000 barrels per day. We also own
approximately 20 million barrels of NGL storage capacity in
central Kansas. Some of these assets are owned through our
interest in Williams Partners L.P.
Williams
Partners L.P.
Williams Partners L.P. (Williams Partners) was formed to engage
in the business of gathering, transporting and processing
natural gas and fractionating and storing NGLs. We own
approximately 22.5 percent of Williams Partners. Williams
Partners provides us with an acquisition currency that is
expected to enable growth of our Midstream business. Williams
Partners also creates a vehicle to monetize our qualifying
assets. Such transactions, which are subject to approval by both
our and Williams Partners general partners board of
directors, allow us to retain control of the assets through our
ownership interest in Williams Partners.
During 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired Williams Four
Corners, LLC which includes a
3,500-mile
natural gas gathering system in the San Juan Basin in New
Mexico and Colorado with capacity of nearly 2 billion cubic
feet per day; the Ignacio natural gas processing plant in
Colorado and the Kutz and Lybrook natural gas processing plants
in New Mexico, which have a combined processing capacity of
760 million cubic feet per day; and the Milagro and
Esperanza natural gas treating plants in New Mexico, which are
designed to remove carbon dioxide from up to 750 million
cubic feet of natural gas per day.
In addition, Williams Partners owns a 40 percent equity
investment in the Discovery gathering, transportation,
processing and NGL fractionation system; the Carbonate Trend
sour gas gathering pipeline; three integrated NGL storage
facilities near Conway, Kansas; and a 50 percent interest
in an NGL fractionator near Conway, Kansas.
Expansion
projects
Gathering
and processing
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement to develop new
pipeline capacity for transporting natural gas liquids from
production areas in southwestern Wyoming to central Kansas. The
other party to the agreement reimbursed us for the development
costs we incurred to date for the proposed pipeline and
initially will own 99 percent of the pipeline, known as
Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. We retained a
1 percent interest and have the option to increase our
ownership to 50 percent and become the operator within two
years of the pipeline becoming operational.
Start-up is
planned for early 2008. Additionally, we have agreed to dedicate
our equity NGL volumes from our two Wyoming plants for transport
under a long-term shipping agreement. The terms represent
significant savings compared with the existing tariff and other
alternatives considered.
We are constructing a fifth cryogenic processing train at our
existing gas plant in Opal, Wyoming, which is scheduled for
start-up in
the first quarter of 2007. The expansion is designed to boost
the plants processing capacity by more than
30 percent to 1.45 billion cubic feet per day. Opal
also will be able to recover a total of approximately
67,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids.
13
Gathering
and processing deepwater projects
The deepwater Gulf continues to be an attractive growth area for
our Midstream business. Since 1997, we have invested almost
$1 billion in new midstream assets in the Gulf of Mexico.
These facilities provide both onshore and offshore services
through pipelines, platforms and processing plants. The new
facilities could also attract incremental gas volumes to
Transcos pipeline system in the southeastern United States.
Chevron and Kerr-McGee are dedicating to us the transport of
production from their current and future ownership in a defined
area surrounding the Blind Faith discovery in the deepwater Gulf
of Mexico. To accommodate production from the Blind Faith
acreage and the surrounding blocks, we have agreed to extend our
Canyon Chief and Mountaineer pipelines to the producer-owned
floating production facility. We expect to have the extensions
ready for service in second quarter 2008. The approximately
$200 million project will facilitate a
37-mile
extension of each pipeline. The agreement also creates
opportunities for us to move natural gas from the Blind Faith
discovery through our Mobile Bay, Alabama, processing plant and
our Transco and Gulfstream interstate pipeline systems.
Recovered natural gas liquids from Blind Faith also could be
fractionated at our facilities in Baton Rouge or Paradis,
Louisana.
Customers
and operations
Our domestic gas gathering and processing customers are
generally natural gas producers who have proved
and/or
producing natural gas fields in the areas surrounding our
infrastructure. During 2006, these operations gathered and
processed gas for approximately 220 gas gathering and processing
customers. Our top three gathering and processing customers
accounted for about 44 percent of our domestic gathering
and processing revenue. Our gathering and processing agreements
are generally long-term agreements.
In addition to our gathering and processing operations, we
market NGLs and petrochemical products to a wide range of users
in the energy and petrochemical industries. We provide these
products to third parties from the production at our domestic
facilities. The majority of domestic sales are based on supply
contracts of less than one year in duration. The production from
our Canadian facilities is marketed in Canada and in the United
States.
Our Venezuelan assets were constructed and are currently
operated for the exclusive benefit of Petróleos de
Venezuela S.A. The significant contracts have a remaining term
between 11 and 15 years and our revenues are based on a
combination of fixed capital payments, throughput volumes, and,
in the case of one of the gas compression facilities, a minimum
throughput guarantee. The Venezuelan government has continued
its public criticism of U.S. economic and political policy,
has implemented unilateral changes to existing energy related
contracts, and continues to publicly declare that additional
energy contracts will be unilaterally amended and privately held
assets will be expropriated, indicating that a level of
political risk still remains.
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes our significant operating
statistics for Midstream:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Volumes(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Gathering (trillion
British Thermal Units)
|
|
|
1,181
|
|
|
|
1,253
|
|
|
|
1,252
|
|
Domestic Natural Gas Liquid
Production (Mbbls/d)(2)
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
Crude Oil Gathering (Mbbls/d)(2)
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
Processing Volumes (trillion
British Termal Units)
|
|
|
833
|
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
768
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes volumes associated with partially owned assets that are
not consolidated for financial reporting purposes. |
|
(2) |
|
Annual Average Mbbls/d |
14
Power
Our Power business buys, sells, stores and transports energy and
energy-related commodities, primarily power and natural gas.
Powers focus is not only on its objective of maximizing
expected cash flows, but also on executing new contracts to
hedge its portfolio and providing services that support our
natural gas businesses across Williams. Our contracts include
physical forward purchases and sales, various financial
instruments and structured transactions. Our financial
instruments include exchange-traded futures, as well as
exchange-traded and
over-the-counter
options and swaps. Structured transactions include tolling
contracts, full requirements contracts, tolling resales and heat
rate options.
Tolling contracts represent the most significant portion of our
portfolio. Under the tolling contracts, we have the right to
request a plant owner to convert our fuel (usually natural gas)
to electricity in exchange for a fixed fee. We have the right to
request approximately 7,700 megawatts of electricity under six
tolling agreements. The table below lists the locations and
available capacity of each of our tolling agreements. These
capacity numbers are subject to change, and our contractual
rights to capacity may not reflect actual availability at the
plants.
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Megawatts
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
4,141
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
844
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
|
758
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
766
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
664
|
|
Michigan
|
|
|
545
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use portions of the electricity produced under the tolling
agreements to supply obligations under various arrangements such
as power sales, tolling resales, and full requirements
contracts. Under full requirements contracts, we supply the
electricity required by our counterparties to serve their
customers. Through full requirements contracts, we supply
approximately 600 to 1,500 megawatts of electricity to our
customers in Georgia and approximately 515 to 600 megawatts of
electricity to our customers in Pennsylvania. The amount of
electricity we supply under these contracts varies year to year
but is expected to grow annually. Each year, the amount of
electricity we supply is subject to a growth cap.
Through tolling resale agreements, we enter into transactions
that mirror, to varying degrees, some or all of our rights under
our underlying tolling arrangements, which remain in place with
our tolling counterparties. We have resold part of our rights
(1,934 to 3,875 megawatts) under the California tolling
arrangement to two counterparties for periods through 2011.
These volumes include amounts sold under contracts executed in
2007.
We also own two natural gas-fired electric generating plants
located near Bloomfield, New Mexico (60 megawatts, Milagro
facility) and in Hazleton, Pennsylvania (147 megawatts).
In 2006, we managed natural gas throughout North America with
total physical volumes averaging 2.3 billion cubic feet per
day. We use approximately 10 percent of this natural gas to
fuel electric generating plants we own or in which we have
contractual rights. We sell approximately 70 percent of
this natural gas to customers including local distribution
companies, utilities, producers, industrials and other gas
marketers. With the remaining 20 percent, we procure gas
supply for our Midstream operations.
In 2004, we substantially exited our crude oil and refined
products activities.
15
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes marketing and trading gross sales
volumes, including sales volumes to other segments, for the
periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Marketing and trading physical
volumes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power (thousand megawatt hours)
|
|
|
53,866
|
|
|
|
66,779
|
|
|
|
93,998
|
|
Natural gas (billion cubic feet
per day)
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
Petroleum products (thousand
barrels per day)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
In 2006, Power managed 2.3 billion cubic feet per day of
natural gas. The natural gas volumes managed include the
following (in billion cubic feet per day):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Sales to third parties
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
Sales to other segments
|
|
|
.4
|
|
For use in tolling agreements and
by owned generation
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total natural gas managed
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2006, Power had approximately 350
customers compared with approximately 300 customers at the end
of 2005.
Other
At December 31, 2004, we owned approximately
94.7 percent of the Class B Interests and
21.3 percent of the Common Interests in Longhorn Partners
Pipeline LP (Longhorn), which owned a refined petroleum products
pipeline from Houston, Texas to El Paso, Texas. The
Class B Interests are preferred interests but subordinate
to other preferred interests, and the Common Interests are
subordinate to both.
During the first quarter of 2005, Longhorn became fully
operational as deliveries commenced through both the Odessa and
El Paso terminals. However, the pipelines throughput
fell significantly short of management expectations. The primary
driver behind this volume shortfall was the narrowing of the
refined product pricing differentials between the Gulf Coast and
El Paso markets. During the second quarter of 2005,
Longhorn management indicated the shortfall was likely to
continue and that the original business model was no longer
feasible.
As a result of the
other-than-temporary
decline in fair value identified in the second quarter of 2005,
we impaired the Common Interests by $16.2 million and the
Class B shares by $32.7 million. After these
adjustments, the book value of our investment in Longhorn (as of
June 30, 2005) totaled $51.6 million, comprised
of $25.0 million of Common Interests and $26.6 million
of Class B shares.
During the third quarter of 2005, we provided $10 million
of a $50 million fully collateralized bridge loan to fund
operations of Longhorn until an economically feasible
operational alternative was developed. In the fourth quarter of
2005, management of Longhorn concluded that its best alternative
would be to sell the Longhorn assets. Accordingly, they directed
a financial advisor to solicit offers from several entities.
After reviewing the terms and conditions of bids received, our
management determined that a full impairment of our investment
in the Class B and Common Interests was appropriate. This
decision resulted in a December 31, 2005 write-down of the
remaining $38.1 million in book value which had been
further reduced by additional equity losses during the third and
fourth quarters.
The management of Longhorn completed an installment sale of the
pipeline during the third quarter of 2006, and as a result we
received full payment of the $10 million secured bridge
loan that we provided to Longhorn during 2005. It is uncertain
whether we will ever receive any payments related to our
Class B Interests or our Common
16
Interests, however any such amounts related to these fully
impaired interests will only be recognized as income when
received.
We continue to receive payments associated with the 2005
transfer of the First Amended and Restated Pipeline Operating
Services Agreement to a third party. The sale of the pipeline
did not impact these ongoing payments which are recognized as
income when received.
Additional
business segment information
Our ongoing business segments are accounted for as continuing
operations in the accompanying financial statements and notes to
financial statements included in Part II.
Operations related to certain assets in Discontinued
Operations sold in 2003 and 2004 have been reclassified
from their traditional business segment to Discontinued
Operations in the accompanying financial statements and
notes to financial statements included in Part II.
Our corporate parent company performs certain management, legal,
financial, tax, consultative, administrative and other services
for our subsidiaries.
Our corporate parent companys principal sources of cash
are from external financings, dividends and advances from our
subsidiaries, investments, payments by subsidiaries for services
rendered, interest payments from subsidiaries on cash advances
and net proceeds from asset sales. The amount of dividends
available to us from subsidiaries largely depends upon each
subsidiarys earnings and operating capital requirements.
The terms of certain of our subsidiaries borrowing
arrangements limit the transfer of funds to our corporate parent.
We believe that we have adequate sources and availability of raw
materials and commodities for existing and anticipated business
needs. In support of our energy commodity activities, primarily
conducted through Power, our counterparties require us to
provide various forms of credit support such as margin, adequate
assurance amounts and pre-payments for gas supplies. Our
pipeline systems are all regulated in various ways resulting in
the financial return on the investments made in the systems
being limited to standards permitted by the regulatory agencies.
Each of the pipeline systems has ongoing capital requirements
for efficiency and mandatory improvements, with expansion
opportunities also necessitating periodic capital outlays.
REGULATORY
MATTERS
Exploration & Production. Our
Exploration & Production business is subject to various
federal, state and local laws and regulations on taxation, the
development, production and marketing of oil and gas, and
environmental and safety matters. Many laws and regulations
require drilling permits and govern the spacing of wells, rates
of production, water discharge, prevention of waste and other
matters. Such laws and regulations have increased the costs of
planning, designing, drilling, installing, operating and
abandoning our oil and gas wells and other facilities. In
addition, these laws and regulations, and any others that are
passed by the jurisdictions where we have production, could
limit the total number of wells drilled or the allowable
production from successful wells, which could limit our reserves.
Gas Pipeline. Gas Pipelines interstate
transmission and storage activities are subject to FERC
regulation under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and under the
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, and, as such, its rates and
charges for the transportation of natural gas in interstate
commerce, its accounting, and the extension, enlargement or
abandonment of its jurisdictional facilities, among other
things, are subject to regulation. Each gas pipeline company
holds certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by
the FERC authorizing ownership and operation of all pipelines,
facilities and properties for which certificates are required
under the NGA. Each gas pipeline company is also subject to the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, which
regulates safety requirements in the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of interstate natural gas transmission
facilities. FERC Standards of Conduct govern how our interstate
pipelines communicate and do business with their marketing
affiliates. Among other things, the Standards of Conduct require
that interstate pipelines not operate their systems to
preferentially benefit their marketing affiliates.
17
Each of our interstate natural gas pipeline companies
establishes its rates primarily through the FERCs
ratemaking process. Key determinants in the ratemaking process
are:
|
|
|
|
|
costs of providing service, including depreciation expense;
|
|
|
|
allowed rate of return, including the equity component of the
capital structure and related income taxes;
|
|
|
|
volume throughput assumptions.
|
The allowed rate of return is determined in each rate case. Rate
design and the allocation of costs between the demand and
commodity rates also impact profitability. As a result of these
proceedings, certain revenues previously collected may be
subject to refund.
Midstream. For our Midstream segment, onshore
gathering is subject to regulation by states in which we operate
and offshore gathering is subject to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA). Of the states where Midstream gathers gas,
currently only Texas actively regulates gathering activities.
Texas regulates gathering primarily through complaint mechanisms
under which the state commission may resolve disputes involving
an individual gathering arrangement. Although gathering
facilities located offshore are not subject to the NGA (although
offshore transmission pipelines may be), some controversy exists
as to how the FERC should determine whether offshore facilities
function as gathering. These issues are currently before the
FERC. Most gathering facilities offshore are subject to the
OCSLA, which provides in part that outer continental shelf
pipelines must provide open and nondiscriminatory access
to both owner and non-owner shippers.
Midstream also owns and operates two offshore transmission
pipelines that are regulated by the FERC because they are deemed
to transport gas in interstate commerce. Black Marlin Pipeline
Company provides transportation service for offshore Texas
production in the High Island area and redelivers that gas to
intrastate pipeline interconnects near Texas City. Discovery Gas
Transmission LLC provides transportation service for offshore
Louisiana production from the South Timbalier, Grand Isle, Ewing
Bank and Green Canyon (deepwater) areas to an onshore processing
facility and downstream interconnect points with major
interstate pipelines. FERC regulation requires all terms and
conditions of service, including the rates charged, to be filed
with and approved by the Commission before any changes can go
into effect. Currently, Black Marlin has a major rate change
application pending before the Commission to increase its rates
for service.
Our remaining Midstream Canadian assets are regulated by the
Alberta Energy & Utilities Board (AEUB) and Alberta
Environment. The regulatory system for the Alberta oil and gas
industry incorporates a large measure of self-regulation,
providing that licensed operators are held responsible for
ensuring that their operations are conducted in accordance with
all provincial regulatory requirements. For situations in which
non-compliance with the applicable regulations is at issue, the
AEUB and Alberta Environment have implemented an enforcement
process with escalating consequences.
Power. Our Power business is subject to a
variety of laws and regulations at the local, state and federal
levels, including FERC and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission regulation. In addition, electricity and natural gas
markets in California and elsewhere continue to be subject to
numerous and wide-ranging federal and state regulatory
proceedings and investigations. We are also subject to various
federal and state actions and investigations regarding, among
other things, market structure, behavior of market participants,
market prices, and reporting to trade publications. We may be
liable for refunds and other damages and penalties as a result
of ongoing actions and investigations. The outcome of these
matters could affect our creditworthiness and ability to perform
contractual obligations as well as other market
participants creditworthiness and ability to perform
contractual obligations to us.
See Note 15 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for further details on our regulatory matters.
ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS
Our generation facilities, natural gas pipelines, and
exploration and production operations are subject to federal
environmental laws and regulations as well as the state and
tribal laws and regulations adopted by the jurisdictions in
which we operate. We could incur liability to governments or
third parties for any unlawful
18
discharge of oil, gas or other pollutants into the air, soil, or
water, as well as liability for clean up costs. Materials could
be released into the environment in several ways including, but
not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
from a well or drilling equipment at a drill site;
|
|
|
|
leakage from gathering systems, pipelines, transportation
facilities and storage tanks;
|
|
|
|
damage to oil and gas wells resulting from accidents during
normal operations;
|
|
|
|
blowouts, cratering and explosions.
|
Because the requirements imposed by environmental laws and
regulations are frequently changed, we cannot assure you that
laws and regulations enacted in the future, including changes to
existing laws and regulations, will not adversely affect our
business. In addition we may be liable for environmental damage
caused by former operators of our properties.
We believe compliance with environmental laws and regulations
will not have a material adverse effect on capital expenditures,
earnings or competitive position. However, environmental laws
and regulations could affect our business in various ways from
time to time, including incurring capital and maintenance
expenditures, imposing limitations on generation facility
availability, fines and penalties, and creating the need to seek
relief from the FERC for rate increases to recover the costs of
certain capital expenditures and operation and maintenance
expenses (which we believe would be granted).
For a discussion of specific environmental issues, see
Environmental under Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and
Environmental Matters in Note 15 of our Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements.
COMPETITION
Exploration & Production. Our
Exploration & Production segment competes with other
oil and gas concerns, including major and independent oil and
gas companies in the development, production and marketing of
natural gas. We compete in areas such as acquisition of oil and
gas properties and obtaining necessary equipment, supplies and
services. We also compete in recruiting and retaining skilled
employees.
Gas Pipeline. Our Gas Pipeline segment faces
increased competition as a result of various actions taken by
the FERC and several states in which we operate to strengthen
market forces in the natural gas pipeline industry. In a number
of key markets, interstate pipelines are now facing competitive
pressures from other major pipeline systems, enabling local
distribution companies and end users to choose a supplier or
switch suppliers based on the short-term price of gas and the
cost of transportation. We expect competition for natural gas
transportation to continue to intensify in future years due to
increased customer access to other pipelines, rates,
competitiveness among pipelines, customers desire to have
more than one transporter, shorter contract terms, regulatory
developments, and development of LNG facilities particularly in
our market areas. Future utilization of pipeline capacity will
depend on competition from other pipelines and LNG facilities,
use of alternative fuels, the general level of natural gas
demand, and weather conditions.
Suppliers of natural gas are able to compete for any gas markets
capable of being served by pipelines using nondiscriminatory
transportation services provided by the pipeline companies. As
the regulated environment has matured, many pipeline companies
have faced reduced levels of subscribed capacity as contractual
terms expire and customers opt to reduce firm capacity under
contract in favor of alternative sources of transmission and
related services. This situation, known in the industry as
capacity turnback, is forcing the pipeline companies
to evaluate the consequences of major demand reductions in
traditional long-term contracts. It could also result in
significant shifts in system utilization, and possible
realignment of cost structure for remaining customers because
all interstate natural gas pipeline companies continue to be
authorized to charge maximum rates approved by the FERC on a
cost of service basis. Gas Pipeline does not anticipate any
significant financial impact from capacity turnback.
We anticipate that we will be able to remarket most future
capacity subject to future capacity turnback, although
competition may cause some of the remarketed capacity to be sold
at lower rates or for shorter terms.
19
Midstream. In our Midstream segment, we face
regional competition with varying competitive factors in each
basin. Our gathering and processing business competes with other
midstream companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines, master
limited partnerships (MLP), producers and independent gatherers
and processors. We primarily compete with five to ten companies
across all basins in which we provide services. Numerous factors
impact any given customers choice of a gathering or
processing services provider, including rate, location, term,
timeliness of well connections, pressure obligations and
contract structure. We also compete in recruiting and retaining
skilled employees. In 2005 we formed Williams Partners to help
compete against other master limited partnerships for midstream
projects. By virtue of the master limited partnership structure,
Williams Partners provides us with an alternative and low-cost
source of capital. We expect the alternative, low-cost capital
will allow Williams Partners to compete with other MLPs when
pursuing acquisition opportunities of gathering and processing
assets.
Power. In our Power segment, we compete
directly with large independent energy marketers, marketing
affiliates of regulated pipelines and utilities, and natural gas
producers. We also compete with brokerage houses, energy hedge
funds and other energy-based companies offering similar services.
EMPLOYEES
At February 1, 2007, we had approximately
4,313 full-time employees including 972 at the corporate
level, 584 at Exploration & Production, 1,694 at Gas
Pipeline, 928 at Midstream, and 135 at Power. None of our
employees are represented by unions or covered by collective
bargaining agreements.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
See Note 17 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for amounts of revenues during the last three fiscal
years from external customers attributable to the United States
and all foreign countries. Also see Note 17 of our Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for information relating to
long-lived assets during the last three fiscal years, other than
financial instruments, long-term customer relationships of a
financial institution, mortgage and other servicing rights and
deferred policy acquisition costs, located in the United States
and all foreign countries.
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS/RISK FACTORS AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
FOR PURPOSES OF THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS OF
THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
Certain matters contained in this report include
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. These statements discuss our expected future results
based on current and pending business operations. We make those
forward-looking statements in reliance on the safe harbor
protections provided under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.
All statements, other than statements of historical facts,
included in this report which address activities, events or
developments that we expect, believe or anticipate will exist or
may occur in the future, are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements can be identified by various forms of
words such as anticipates, believes,
could, may, should,
continues, estimates,
expects, forecasts, might,
planned, potential,
projects, scheduled or similar
expressions. These forward-looking statements include, among
others, statements regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
amounts and nature of future capital expenditures;
|
|
|
|
expansion and growth of our business and operations;
|
|
|
|
business strategy;
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
estimates of proved gas and oil reserves;
|
|
|
|
reserve potential;
|
|
|
|
development drilling potential;
|
|
|
|
cash flow from operations;
|
|
|
|
seasonality of certain business segments;
|
|
|
|
power, natural gas and natural gas liquids prices and demand.
|
Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions,
uncertainties and risks that could cause future events or
results to be materially different from those stated or implied
in this document. Many of the factors that will determine these
results are beyond our ability to control or project. Specific
factors which could cause actual results to differ from those in
the forward-looking statements include:
|
|
|
|
|
availability of supplies (including the uncertainties inherent
in assessing and estimating future natural gas reserves), market
demand, volatility of prices, and increased costs of capital;
|
|
|
|
inflation, interest rates, fluctuation in foreign exchange, and
general economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
the strength and financial resources of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
development of alternative energy sources;
|
|
|
|
the impact of operational and development hazards;
|
|
|
|
costs of, changes in, or the results of laws, government
regulations including proposed climate change legislation,
environmental liabilities, litigation, and rate proceedings;
|
|
|
|
changes in the current geopolitical situation;
|
|
|
|
risks related to strategy and financing, including restrictions
stemming from our debt agreements and our lack of investment
grade credit ratings;
|
|
|
|
risk associated with future weather conditions and acts of
terrorism.
|
Given the uncertainties and risk factors that could cause our
actual results to differ materially from those contained in any
forward-looking statement, we caution investors not to unduly
rely on our forward-looking statements. We disclaim any
obligations to and do not intend to update the above list to
announce publicly the result of any revisions to any of the
forward-looking statements to reflect future events or
developments.
In addition to causing our actual results to differ, the factors
listed above and referred to below may cause our intentions to
change from those statements of intention set forth in this
report. Such changes in our intentions may also cause our
results to differ. We may change our intentions, at any time and
without notice, based upon changes in such factors, our
assumptions, or otherwise.
Because forward-looking statements involve risks and
uncertainties, we caution that there are important factors, in
additions to those listed above, that may cause actual results
to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking
statements. These factors include the following:
RISK
FACTORS
You should carefully consider the following risk factors in
addition to the other information in this report. Each of these
factors could adversely affect our business, operating results,
and financial condition as well as adversely affect the value of
an investment in our securities.
21
Risks
Inherent to our Industry and Business
The
long-term financial condition of our natural gas transmission
and midstream businesses is dependent on the continued
availability of natural gas supplies in the supply basins that
we access, demand for those supplies in our traditional markets,
and market demand for natural gas.
The development of the additional natural gas reserves that are
essential for our gas transmission and midstream businesses to
thrive requires significant capital expenditures by others for
exploration and development drilling and the installation of
production, gathering, storage, transportation and other
facilities that permit natural gas to be produced and delivered
to our pipeline systems. Low prices for natural gas, regulatory
limitations, or the lack of available capital for these projects
could adversely affect the development and production of
additional reserves, as well as gathering, storage, pipeline
transmission and import and export of natural gas supplies,
adversely impacting our ability to fill the capacities of our
gathering, transmission and processing facilities. Additionally,
in some cases, new LNG import facilities built near our markets
could result in less demand for our gathering and transmission
facilities.
Estimating
reserves and future net revenues involves uncertainties.
Negative revisions to reserve estimates and oil and gas price
declines may lead to decreased earnings, losses or impairment of
oil and gas assets.
Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating
underground accumulations of oil and gas that cannot be measured
in an exact manner. Reserves that are proved
reserves are those estimated quantities of crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids that geological and
engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty are
recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing
economic and operating conditions, but should not be considered
as a guarantee of results for future drilling projects.
The process relies on interpretations of available geological,
geophysical, engineering and production data. There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved
reserves and in projecting future rates of production and timing
of developmental expenditures, including many factors beyond the
control of the producer. The reserve data included in this
report represent estimates. In addition, the estimates of future
net revenues from our proved reserves and the present value of
such estimates are based upon certain assumptions about future
production levels, prices and costs that may not prove to be
correct over time.
Quantities of proved reserves are estimated based on economic
conditions in existence during the period of assessment. Lower
oil and gas prices may have the impact of shortening the
economic lives of certain fields because it becomes uneconomic
to produce all recoverable reserves on such fields, which
reduces proved property reserve estimates.
If negative revisions in the estimated quantities of proved
reserves were to occur, it would have the effect of increasing
the rates of depreciation, depletion and amortization on the
affected properties, which would decrease earnings or result in
losses through higher depreciation, depletion and amortization
expense. The revisions may also be sufficient to trigger
impairment losses on certain properties which would result in a
further non-cash charge to earnings. The revisions could also
possibly affect the evaluation of Exploration &
Productions goodwill for impairment purposes.
Our
past success rate for drilling projects and the historic
performance of our exploration and production business is no
predictor of future performance.
Our past success rate for drilling projects in 2006 should not
be considered a predictor of future performance.
Performance of our exploration and production business is
affected in part by factors beyond our control (any of which
could cause the results of this business to decrease
materially), such as:
|
|
|
|
|
regulations and regulatory approvals;
|
|
|
|
availability of capital for drilling projects which may be
affected by other risk factors discussed in this report;
|
|
|
|
cost-effective availability of drilling rigs and necessary
equipment;
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
availability of skilled labor;
|
|
|
|
availability of cost-effective transportation for products;
|
|
|
|
market risks (including price risks and competition) discussed
in this report.
|
Our
drilling, production, gathering, processing and transporting
activities involve numerous risks that might result in
accidents, and other operating risks and hazards.
Our operations are subject to all the risks and hazards
typically associated with the development and exploration for,
and the production and transportation of oil and gas. These
operating risks include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
blowouts, cratering and explosions;
|
|
|
|
uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids;
|
|
|
|
fires;
|
|
|
|
formations with abnormal pressures;
|
|
|
|
pollution and other environmental risks;
|
|
|
|
natural disasters.
|
In addition, there are inherent in our gas gathering, processing
and transporting properties a variety of hazards and operating
risks, such as leaks, spills, explosions and mechanical problems
that could cause substantial financial losses. In addition,
these risks could result in loss of human life, significant
damage to property, environmental pollution, impairment of our
operations and substantial losses to us. In accordance with
customary industry practice, we maintain insurance against some,
but not all, of these risks and losses, and only at levels we
believe to be appropriate. The location of certain segments of
our pipelines in or near populated areas, including residential
areas, commercial business centers and industrial sites, could
increase the level of damages resulting from these risks. In
spite of our precautions, an event could cause considerable harm
to people or property, and could have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition and results of operations,
particularly if the event is not fully covered by insurance.
Accidents or other operating risks could further result in loss
of service available to our customers. Such circumstances could
materially impact our ability to meet contractual obligations
and retain customers, with a resulting impact on our results of
operations.
Costs
of environmental liabilities and complying with existing and
future environmental regulations could exceed our current
expectations.
Our operations are subject to extensive environmental regulation
pursuant to a variety of federal, provincial, state and
municipal laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations
impose, among other things, restrictions, liabilities and
obligations in connection with the generation, handling, use,
storage, extraction, transportation, treatment and disposal of
hazardous substances and wastes, in connection with spills,
releases and emissions of various substances into the
environment, and in connection with the operation, maintenance,
abandonment and reclamation of our facilities.
Compliance with environmental laws requires significant
expenditures, including for clean up costs and damages arising
out of contaminated properties. In addition, the possible
failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations might
result in the imposition of fines and penalties. We are
generally responsible for all liabilities associated with the
environmental condition of our facilities and assets, whether
acquired or developed, regardless of when the liabilities arose
and whether they are known or unknown. In connection with
certain acquisitions and divestitures, we could acquire, or be
required to provide indemnification against, environmental
liabilities that could expose us to material losses, which may
not be covered by insurance. In addition, the steps we could be
required to take to bring certain facilities into compliance
could be prohibitively expensive, and we might be required to
shut down, divest or alter the operation of those facilities,
which might cause us to incur losses. Although we do not expect
that the costs of complying with current environmental laws will
have a material adverse effect on
23
our financial condition or results of operations, no assurance
can be given that the costs of complying with environmental laws
in the future will not have such an effect.
We make assumptions and develop expectations about possible
expenditures related to environmental conditions based on
current laws and regulations and current interpretations of
those laws and regulations. If the interpretation of laws or
regulations, or the laws and regulations themselves, change, our
assumptions may change. Our regulatory rate structure and our
contracts with customers might not necessarily allow us to
recover capital costs we incur to comply with the new
environmental regulations. Also, we might not be able to obtain
or maintain from time to time all required environmental
regulatory approvals for certain development projects. If there
is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory
approvals or if we fail to obtain and comply with them, the
operation of our facilities could be prevented or become subject
to additional costs, resulting in potentially material adverse
consequences to our results of operations.
Our
operating results for certain segments of our business might
fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis.
Revenues from certain segments of our business, including gas
transmission and the sale of electric power, can have seasonal
characteristics. In many parts of the country, demand for power
peaks during the summer months, with market prices also peaking
at that time. In other areas, demand for power peaks during the
winter. In addition, demand for natural gas and other fuels
peaks during the winter. As a result, our overall operating
results in the future might fluctuate substantially on a
seasonal basis. Demand for natural gas and other fuels could
vary significantly from our expectations depending on the nature
and location of our facilities and pipeline systems and the
terms of our power sale agreements and natural gas transmission
arrangements relative to demand created by unusual weather
patterns. Additionally, changes in the price of natural gas
could benefit one of our business units, but disadvantage
another. For example, our Exploration & Production
business may benefit from higher natural gas prices, and Power,
which uses gas as a fuel source, may not.
Risks
Related to the Current Geopolitical Situation
Our
investments and projects located outside of the United States
expose us to risks related to the laws of other countries, and
the taxes, economic conditions, fluctuations in currency rates,
political conditions and policies of foreign governments. These
risks might delay or reduce our realization of value from our
international projects.
We currently own and might acquire
and/or
dispose of material energy-related investments and projects
outside the United States. The economic and political conditions
in certain countries where we have interests or in which we
might explore development, acquisition or investment
opportunities present risks of delays in construction and
interruption of business, as well as risks of war,
expropriation, nationalization, renegotiation, trade sanctions
or nullification of existing contracts and changes in law or tax
policy, that are greater than in the United States. The
uncertainty of the legal environment in certain foreign
countries in which we develop or acquire projects or make
investments could make it more difficult to obtain non-recourse
project financing or other financing on suitable terms, could
adversely affect the ability of certain customers to honor their
obligations with respect to such projects or investments and
could impair our ability to enforce our rights under agreements
relating to such projects or investments. Recent events in
certain South American countries, particularly the proposed
nationalization of certain energy-related assets in Venezuela,
could have a material negative impact on our results of
operations. We may not receive adequate compensation, or any
compensation, if our assets in Venezuela are nationalized.
Operations and investments in foreign countries also can present
currency exchange rate and convertibility, inflation and
repatriation risk. In certain situations under which we develop
or acquire projects or make investments, economic and monetary
conditions and other factors could affect our ability to convert
to U.S. dollars our earnings denominated in foreign
currencies. In addition, risk from fluctuations in currency
exchange rates can arise when our foreign subsidiaries expend or
borrow funds in one type of currency, but receive revenue in
another. In such cases, an adverse change in exchange rates can
reduce our ability to meet expenses, including debt service
obligations. Foreign currency risk can also arise when the
revenues received by our foreign subsidiaries are not in
U.S. dollars. In such cases, a strengthening of the
U.S. dollar or a weakening of the foreign currency could
reduce the amount of
24
cash and income we receive from these foreign subsidiaries. We
have put contracts in place designed to mitigate our most
significant foreign currency exchange risks. We have some
exposures that are not hedged and which could result in losses
or volatility in our results of operations.
Risks
Related to Strategy and Financing
Our
debt agreements impose restrictions on us that may adversely
affect our ability to operate our business.
Certain of our debt agreements contain covenants that restrict
or limit among other things, our ability to create liens, sell
assets, make certain distributions, repurchase equity and incur
additional debt. In addition, our debt agreements contain, and
those we enter into in the future may contain, financial
covenants and other limitations with which we will need to
comply. Our ability to comply with these covenants may be
affected by many events beyond our control, and we cannot assure
you that our future operating results will be sufficient to
comply with the covenants or, in the event of a default under
any of our debt agreements, to remedy that default.
Our failure to comply with the covenants in our debt agreements
and other related transactional documents could result in events
of default. Upon the occurrence of such an event of default, the
lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under a
particular facility to be immediately due and payable and
terminate all commitments, if any, to extend further credit. An
event of default or an acceleration under one debt agreement
could cause a cross-default or cross-acceleration of another
debt agreement. Such a cross-default or cross-acceleration could
have a wider impact on our liquidity than might otherwise arise
from a default or acceleration of a single debt instrument. If
an event of default occurs, or if other debt agreements
cross-default, and the lenders under the affected debt
agreements accelerate the maturity of any loans or other debt
outstanding to us, we may not have sufficient liquidity to repay
amounts outstanding under such debt agreements.
Our
lack of investment grade credit ratings increases our costs of
doing business in certain ways and attainment of an investment
grade rating is within the control of independent third
parties.
Because we do not have an investment grade credit rating, our
transactions in each of our businesses require greater credit
assurances, both to be given from, and received by, us to
satisfy credit support requirements. In addition, we are more
vulnerable to the impact of market disruptions or a further
downgrade of our credit rating that might further increase our
cost of borrowing or further impair our ability to access
capital markets. Such disruptions could include:
|
|
|
|
|
economic downturns;
|
|
|
|
deteriorating capital market conditions generally;
|
|
|
|
declining market prices for electricity and natural gas;
|
|
|
|
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or
those of other energy companies;
|
|
|
|
the overall health of the energy industry, including the
bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.
|
Credit rating agencies perform independent analysis when
assigning credit ratings. Given the significant changes in
capital markets and the energy industry over the last few years,
credit rating agencies continue to review the criteria for
attaining investment grade ratings and make changes to those
criteria from time to time. Our goal is to attain investment
grade ratios. However, there is no guarantee that the credit
rating agencies will assign us investment grade ratings even if
we meet or exceed their criteria for investment grade ratios.
Long-term
power generation purchase contracts without corresponding
long-term purchase sale contracts might expose us to
fluctuations in the wholesale power markets and negatively
affect our results of operations.
We have entered into agreements with certain power generation
facilities to purchase all or a substantial portion of their
generation capacity. These facilities operate as
merchant facilities, many without corresponding
long-term power sales agreements, and therefore are exposed to
market fluctuations. Without the benefit of such
25
long-term power sales agreements, we cannot be sure that we will
be able to sell any or all of the power generated by these
facilities at commercially attractive rates or that these power
generation relationships will be profitable.
We sell all or a portion of the energy, capacity and other
products from certain generation facilities to wholesale power
markets, including energy markets operated by independent system
operators, or ISOs, or regional transmission organizations, or
RTOs, as well as wholesale purchasers. We are not subject to
traditional cost-based regulation, therefore we sell electric
generation capacity, power and ancillary services to wholesale
purchasers at prices determined by the market. As a result, we
are not guaranteed any rate of return on our capital investments
through mandated rates, and our revenues and results of
operations depend upon current and forward market prices for
power.
Prices
for electricity, natural gas liquids, natural gas and other
commodities are volatile and this volatility could adversely
affect our financial results, cash flows, access to capital and
ability to maintain existing businesses.
Our revenues, operating results, future rate of growth and the
value of our power and gas businesses depend primarily upon the
prices we receive for electricity, natural gas liquids, natural
gas, or other commodities, and the differences between prices of
these commodities. Prices also affect the amount of cash flow
available for capital expenditures and our ability to borrow
money or raise additional capital. In particular, market prices
for power, generation capacity and ancillary services tend to
fluctuate substantially. Unlike other commodities, electricity
can only be stored on a very limited basis and generally must be
produced concurrently with its use. As a result, market prices
for electricity are subject to significant volatility from
supply and demand imbalances, especially in the day-ahead and
spot markets.
The markets for electricity, natural gas liquids, and natural
gas are likely to continue to be volatile. Wide fluctuations in
prices might result from relatively minor changes in the supply
of and demand for these commodities, market uncertainty and
other factors that are beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
worldwide and domestic supplies of and demand for electricity,
natural gas, petroleum, and related commodities;
|
|
|
|
turmoil in the Middle East and other producing regions;
|
|
|
|
terrorist attacks on production or transportation assets;
|
|
|
|
weather conditions;
|
|
|
|
the level of consumer demand;
|
|
|
|
the development of federal and state power markets, including
actions of ISOs and RTOs;
|
|
|
|
the price and availability of other types of fuels;
|
|
|
|
the availability of pipeline capacity;
|
|
|
|
supply disruptions, including plant outages and transmission
disruptions;
|
|
|
|
the price and level of foreign imports;
|
|
|
|
domestic and foreign governmental regulations and taxes;
|
|
|
|
volatility in the natural gas markets;
|
|
|
|
the overall economic environment;
|
|
|
|
the credit of participants in the markets where products are
bought and sold.
|
We
might not be able to successfully manage the risks associated
with selling and marketing products in the wholesale energy
markets.
Our portfolio of derivative and other energy contracts consists
of wholesale contracts to buy and sell commodities, including
contracts for electricity, natural gas, natural gas liquids and
other commodities that are
26
settled by the delivery of the commodity or cash throughout the
United States. If the values of these contracts change in a
direction or manner that we do not anticipate or cannot manage,
it could negatively affect our results of operations. In the
past, certain marketing and trading companies have experienced
severe financial problems due to price volatility in the energy
commodity markets. In certain instances this volatility has
caused companies to be unable to deliver energy commodities that
they had guaranteed under contract. If such a delivery failure
were to occur in one of our contracts, we might incur additional
losses to the extent of amounts, if any, already paid to, or
received from, counterparties. In addition, in our businesses,
we often extend credit to our counterparties. Despite performing
credit analysis prior to extending credit, we are exposed to the
risk that we might not be able to collect amounts owed to us. If
the counterparty to such a financing transaction fails to
perform and any collateral that secures our counterpartys
obligation is inadequate, we will suffer a loss.
If we are unable to perform under our energy agreements, we
could be required to pay damages. These damages generally would
be based on the difference between the market price to acquire
replacement energy or energy services and the relevant contract
price. Depending on price volatility in the wholesale energy
markets, such damages could be significant.
Risks
Related to Regulations that Affect our Industry
Our
natural gas sales, transmission, and storage operations are
subject to government regulations and rate proceedings that
could have an adverse impact on our results of
operations.
Our interstate natural gas sales, transmission, and storage
operations conducted through our Gas Pipelines business are
subject to the FERCs rules and regulations in accordance
with the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Natural Gas Policy Act
of 1978. The FERCs regulatory authority extends to:
|
|
|
|
|
transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate
commerce;
|
|
|
|
rates and charges;
|
|
|
|
construction;
|
|
|
|
acquisition, extension or abandonment of services or facilities;
|
|
|
|
accounts and records;
|
|
|
|
depreciation and amortization policies;
|
|
|
|
operating terms and conditions of service.
|
Regulatory actions in these areas can affect our business in
many ways, including decreasing tariff rates and revenues,
decreasing volumes in our pipelines, increasing our costs and
otherwise altering the profitability of our business.
The FERC has taken certain actions to strengthen market forces
in the natural gas pipeline industry that have led to increased
competition throughout the industry. In a number of key markets,
interstate pipelines are now facing competitive pressure from
other major pipeline systems, enabling local distribution
companies and end users to choose a transmission provider based
on considerations other than location.
Competition
in the markets in which we operate may adversely affect our
results of operations.
We have numerous competitors in all aspects of our businesses,
and additional competitors may enter our markets. Other
companies with which we compete may be able to respond more
quickly to new laws or regulations or emerging technologies, or
to devote greater resources to the construction, expansion or
refurbishment of their facilities than we can. In addition,
current or potential competitors may make strategic acquisitions
or have greater financial resources than we do, which could
affect our ability to make investments or acquisitions. There
can be no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully
against current and future competitors and any failure to do so
could have a material adverse effect on our businesses and
results of operations.
27
Expiration
of firm transportation agreements.
A substantial portion of the operating revenues of our Gas
Pipelines are generated through firm transportation agreements
that expire periodically and must be renegotiated and extended
or replaced. We cannot give any assurance as to whether any of
these agreements will be extended or replaced or that the terms
of any renegotiated agreements will be as favorable as the
existing agreements. Upon the expiration of these agreements,
should customers turn back or substantially reduce their
commitments, we could experience a negative effect to our
results of operations.
Our
revenues might decrease if we are unable to gain adequate,
reliable and affordable access to transmission and distribution
assets due to regulation by the FERC and regional authorities of
wholesale market transactions for electricity and natural
gas.
We depend on transmission and distribution facilities owned and
operated by utilities and other energy companies to deliver the
electricity and natural gas we buy and sell in the wholesale
market. If transmission is disrupted, if capacity is inadequate,
or if credit requirements or rates of such utilities or energy
companies are increased, our ability to sell and deliver
products might be hindered. The FERC has issued power
transmission regulations that require wholesale electric
transmission services to be offered on an open-access,
non-discriminatory basis. Although these regulations are
designed to encourage competition in wholesale market
transactions for electricity, some companies may fail to provide
fair and equal access to their transmission systems or may not
provide sufficient transmission capacity to enable other
companies to transmit electric power.
In addition, the independent system operators who oversee the
transmission systems in regional power markets, such as
California, have in the past been authorized to impose, and
might continue to impose, price limitations and other mechanisms
to address volatility in the power markets. These types of price
limitations and other mechanisms might adversely impact the
profitability of our wholesale power marketing and trading.
Given the extreme volatility and lack of meaningful long-term
price history in many of these markets and the imposition of
price limitations by regulators, ISOs, RTOs or other marker
operators, we can offer no assurance that we will be able to
operate profitably in all wholesale power markets or that our
results of operations will not be adversely affected by the
actions of these parties.
Our
businesses are subject to complex government regulations. The
operation of our businesses might be adversely affected by
changes in these regulations or in their interpretation or
implementation.
Existing regulations might be revised or reinterpreted, new laws
and regulations might be adopted or become applicable to us or
our facilities, and future changes in laws and regulations might
have a detrimental effect on our business. Over the past few
years, certain restructured energy markets have experienced
supply problems and price volatility. In some of these markets,
proposals have been made by governmental agencies and other
interested parties to re-regulate areas of these markets which
have previously been deregulated. Various forms of market
controls and limitations including price caps and bid caps have
already been implemented and new controls and market
restructuring proposals are in various stages of development,
consideration and implementation. We cannot assure you that
changes in market structure and regulation will not adversely
affect our business and results of operations. We also cannot
assure you that other proposals to re-regulate will not be made
or that legislative or other attention to these restructured
energy markets will not cause the deregulation process to be
delayed or reversed or otherwise adversely affect our business
and results of operations.
The
outcome of pending rate cases to set the rates we can charge
customers on certain of our pipelines might result in rates that
do not provide an adequate return on the capital we have
invested in those pipelines.
We have filed rate cases with the FERC to request changes to the
rates we charge on Northwest Pipeline and Transco. Although we
have a pending settlement of our Northwest Pipeline rate case,
we must still obtain approval of the settlement. Therefore, the
outcome of both rate cases remains uncertain. There is a risk
that rates set by the FERC will be lower than is necessary to
provide us with an adequate return on the capital we have
invested in these
28
assets. There is also the risk that higher rates will cause our
customers to look for alternative ways to transport their
natural gas.
Legal
and regulatory proceedings and investigations relating to the
energy industry and capital markets have adversely affected our
business and may continue to do so.
Public and regulatory scrutiny of the energy industry and of the
capital markets has resulted in increased regulation being
either proposed or implemented. Such scrutiny has also resulted
in various inquiries, investigations and court proceedings in
which we are a named defendant. Both the shippers on our
pipelines and regulators have rights to challenge the rates we
charge under certain circumstances. Any successful challenge
could materially affect our results of operations.
Certain inquiries, investigations and court proceedings are
ongoing and continue to adversely affect our business as a
whole. We might see these adverse effects continue as a result
of the uncertainty of these ongoing inquiries and proceedings,
or additional inquiries and proceedings by federal or state
regulatory agencies or private plaintiffs. In addition, we
cannot predict the outcome of any of these inquiries or whether
these inquiries will lead to additional legal proceedings
against us, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other
regulatory action, including legislation, which might be
materially adverse to the operation of our business and our
revenues and net income or increase our operating costs in other
ways. Current legal proceedings or other matters against us
arising out of our ongoing and discontinued operations including
environmental matters, disputes over gas measurement, royalty
payments, shareholder class action suits, regulatory appeals and
similar matters might result in adverse decisions against us.
The result of such adverse decisions, either individually or in
the aggregate, could be material and may not be covered fully or
at all by insurance.
Risks
Related to Accounting Standards
Potential
changes in accounting standards might cause us to revise our
financial results and disclosures in the future, which might
change the way analysts measure our business or financial
performance.
Accounting irregularities discovered in the past few years
across various industries have forced regulators and legislators
to take a renewed look at accounting practices, financial
disclosures, companies relationships with their
independent registered public accounting firms and retirement
plan practices. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of any
future changes in accounting regulations or practices in general
with respect to public companies or the energy industry or in
our operations specifically.
In addition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) or
the SEC could enact new accounting standards that might impact
how we are required to record revenues, expenses, assets,
liabilities and equity.
Risks
Related to Market Volatility and Risk Measurement and Hedging
Activities
Our
risk measurement and hedging activities might not be effective
and could increase the volatility of our results.
We manage our commodity price risk for our unregulated
businesses as a whole. Although we have systems in place that
use various methodologies to quantify risk, these systems might
not always be followed or might not always be effective.
Further, such systems do not in themselves manage risk,
particularly risks outside of our control, and adverse changes
in energy commodity market prices, volatility, adverse
correlation of commodity prices, the liquidity of markets,
changes in interest rates and other risks discussed in this
report might still adversely affect our earnings, cash flows and
balance sheet under applicable accounting rules, even if risks
have been identified.
In an effort to manage our financial exposure related to
commodity price and market fluctuations, we have entered into
contracts to hedge certain risks associated with our assets and
operations, including our long-term tolling agreements. In these
hedging activities, we have used fixed-price, forward, physical
purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps and
option contracts traded in the
over-the-counter
markets or on exchanges, as well as long-term structured
transactions when feasible. Nevertheless, no single hedging
arrangement can adequately address all risks present in a given
contract. For example, a forward contract that would be
effective
29
in hedging commodity price volatility risks would not hedge the
tolling contracts counterparty credit or performance risk.
Therefore, unhedged risks will always continue to exist. While
we attempt to manage counterparty credit risk within guidelines
established by our credit policy, we may not be able to
successfully manage all credit risk and as such, future cash
flows and results of operations could be impacted by
counterparty default.
Our use of hedging arrangements through which we attempt to
reduce the economic risk of our participation in commodity
markets could result in increased volatility of our reported
results and could also result in reported cash flows in future
years not reflecting the realization of increases in the fair
value of derivatives that have already been reflected in our
income statements. Changes in the fair values (gains and losses)
of derivatives that qualify as hedges under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities,
(SFAS 133) to the extent that such hedges are not
fully effective in offsetting changes to the value of the hedged
commodity, as well as changes in the fair value of derivatives
that do not qualify as hedges under SFAS 133, must be
recorded in our income. This creates the risk of volatility in
earnings even if no economic impact to the Company has occurred
during the applicable period. During the period from 2002 to
2004 when our Power business was for sale, most changes in the
fair value of derivatives used in our Power business were
reflected in our earnings as net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains. As a result, in future periods if the cash benefits
associated with those hedges are actually realized, the value
will not be reflected as earnings on our income statement,
having already been recorded as earnings in prior years.
The impact of changes in market prices for natural gas on the
average gas prices received by us may be reduced based on the
level of our hedging strategies. These hedging arrangements may
limit our potential gains if the market prices for natural gas
were to rise substantially over the price established by the
hedge. In addition, our hedging arrangements expose us to the
risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including
instances in which:
|
|
|
|
|
production is less than expected;
|
|
|
|
a change in the difference between published price indexes
established by pipelines in which our hedged production is
delivered and the reference price established in the hedging
arrangements is such that we are required to make payments to
our counterparties;
|
|
|
|
the counterparties to our hedging arrangements fail to honor
their financial commitments.
|
Risks
Related to Employees, Outsourcing of Non-Core Support
Activities, and Technology
Institutional
knowledge residing with current employees nearing retirement
eligibility might not be adequately preserved.
In certain segments of our business, institutional knowledge
resides with employees who have many years of service. As these
employees reach retirement age, we may not be able to replace
them with employees of comparable knowledge and experience. In
addition, we may not be able to retain or recruit other
qualified individuals and our efforts at knowledge transfer
could be inadequate. If knowledge transfer, recruiting and
retention efforts are inadequate, access to significant amounts
of internal historical knowledge and expertise could become
unavailable to us.
Failure
of the outsourcing relationships might negatively impact our
ability to conduct our business.
Some studies indicate a high failure rate of outsourcing
relationships. Although we have taken steps to build a
cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with our
outsourcing providers and to closely monitor their performance,
a deterioration in the timeliness or quality of the services
performed by the outsourcing providers or a failure of all or
part of these relationships could lead to loss of institutional
knowledge and interruption of services necessary for us to be
able to conduct our business.
30
Our
ability to receive services from outsourcing provider locations
outside of the United States might be impacted by cultural
differences, political instability, or unanticipated regulatory
requirements in jurisdictions outside the United
States.
Certain of our accounting, information technology, application
development, and helpdesk services are currently provided by an
outsourcing provider from service centers outside of the United
States. The economic and political conditions in certain
countries from which our outsourcing providers may provide
services to us present similar risks of business operations
located outside of the United States previously discussed,
including risks of interruption of business, war, expropriation,
nationalization, renegotiation, trade sanctions or nullification
of existing contracts and changes in law or tax policy, that are
greater than in the United States.
Our
current information technology infrastructure is aging and may
adversely affect our ability to conduct our
business.
Limited capital spending for information technology
infrastructure during
2001-2003
resulted in an aging server environment that may be less
efficient, may require more personnel and capital resources to
maintain and upgrade than more current systems, and may not be
adequate for our current business needs. While efforts are
ongoing to update the environment, the current age and condition
of equipment could result in loss of internal and external
communications, loss of data, inability to access data when
needed, excessive software downtime (including downtime for
critical software applications), and other disruptions that
could have a material adverse impact on our business and results
of operations.
Risks
Related to Weather, other Natural Phenomena and Business
Disruption
Our
assets and operations can be adversely affected by weather and
other natural phenomena.
Our assets and operations, including those located offshore, can
be adversely affected by hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and
other natural phenomena and weather conditions including extreme
temperatures, making it more difficult for us to realize the
historic rates of return associated with these assets and
operations.
Acts
of terrorism could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our assets and the assets of our customers and others may be
targets of terrorist activities that could disrupt our business
or cause significant harm to our operations, such as full or
partial disruption to our ability to generate, produce, process,
transmit, transport or distribute electricity, natural gas or
natural gas liquids. Acts of terrorism as well as events
occurring in response to or in connection with acts of terrorism
could cause environmental repercussions that could result in a
significant decrease in revenues or significant reconstruction
or remediation costs, which could have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
We own property in 32 states plus the District of Columbia
in the United States and in Argentina, Canada and Venezuela.
Powers primary assets are its term contracts, related
systems and technological support. In addition, affiliates of
Power own the Hazelton and Milagro generating facilities
described above. In our Gas Pipeline and Midstream segments, we
generally own our facilities, although a substantial portion of
our pipeline and gathering facilities is constructed and
maintained pursuant to
rights-of-way,
easements, permits, licenses or consents on and across
properties owned by others. In our Exploration &
Production segment, the majority of our ownership interest in
exploration and production properties is held as working
interests in oil and gas leaseholds.
31
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
The information called for by this item is provided in
Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
of this report, which information is incorporated by reference
into this item.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
Executive
Officers of the Registrant
The name, age, period of service, and title of each of our
executive officers as of February 22, 2007, are listed
below.
|
|
|
Alan S. Armstrong |
|
Senior Vice President, Midstream |
|
|
Age: 44 |
|
|
Position held since February 2002. |
|
|
|
From 1999 to February 2002, Mr. Armstrong was Vice
President, Gathering and Processing for Midstream. From 1998 to
1999 he was Vice President, Commercial Development for Midstream. |
|
James J. Bender |
|
Senior Vice President and General Counsel |
|
|
Age 50 |
|
|
Position held since December 2002. |
|
|
|
Prior to joining us, Mr. Bender was Senior Vice President
and General Counsel with NRG Energy, Inc., a position held since
June 2000, prior to which he was Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary of NRG Energy Inc. since June 1997. NRG Energy,
Inc. filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition during 2003 and its
plan of reorganization was approved in December 2003. |
|
Donald R. Chappel |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
Age: 55 |
|
|
Position held since April 2003. |
|
|
|
Prior to joining us, Mr. Chappel during 2000 founded and
served as chief executive officer of a development business in
Chicago, Illinois through April 2003, when he joined us.
Mr. Chappel joined Waste Management, Inc. in 1987 and held
various financial, administrative and operational leadership
positions, including twice serving as chief financial officer,
during 1997 and 1998 and most recently during 1999 through
February 2000. |
|
Ralph A. Hill |
|
Senior Vice President, Exploration & Production |
|
|
Age: 47 |
|
|
Position held since December 1998. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hill was vice president of the exploration and
production unit from 1993 to 1998 as well as Senior Vice
President Petroleum Services from 1998 to 2003. |
|
William E. Hobbs |
|
Senior Vice President, Power |
|
|
Age: 47 |
|
|
Position held since October 2002. |
|
|
|
From February 2000 to October 2002, Mr. Hobbs was President
and Chief Executive Officer of Williams Energy
Marketing & Trading. From 1997 to February 2000, he
served as a Vice President of various Williams subsidiaries. |
32
|
|
|
Michael P. Johnson, Sr. |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
|
|
Age: 59 |
|
|
Position held since May 2004. |
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson was named our Senior Vice President of Human
Resources and Administration in April 1999. Prior to joining us
in December 1998, he held officer level positions, such as Vice
President of Human Resources, Vice President for Corporate
People Strategies, and Vice President Human Resource Services,
for Amoco Corporation from 1991 to 1998. |
|
Steven J. Malcolm |
|
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
|
|
Age: 58 |
|
|
Position held since September 2001. |
|
|
|
Mr. Malcolm was elected Chief Executive Officer of Williams
in January 2002 and Chairman of the Board in May 2002. He was
elected President and Chief Operating Officer in September 2001.
Prior to that, he was our Executive Vice President from May
2001, President and Chief Executive Officer of our subsidiary
Williams Energy Services, LLC, since December 1998 and the
Senior Vice President and General Manager of our subsidiary,
Williams Field Services Company, since November 1994. |
|
Phillip D. Wright |
|
Senior Vice President, Gas Pipeline |
|
|
Age: 51 |
|
|
Position held since January 2005. |
|
|
|
From October 2002 to January 2005, Mr. Wright served as
Chief Restructuring Officer. From September 2001 to October
2002, Mr. Wright served as President and Chief Executive
Officer of our subsidiary Williams Energy Services. From 1996
until September 2001, he was Senior Vice President, Enterprise
Development and Planning for our energy services group.
Mr. Wright has held various positions with us since 1989. |
33
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchanges under the symbol WMB.
At the close of business on February 22, 2007, we had
approximately 11,875 holders of record of our common stock. The
high and low closing sales price ranges (New York Stock Exchange
composite transactions) and dividends declared by quarter for
each of the past two years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Quarter
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
1st
|
|
$
|
25.12
|
|
|
$
|
19.49
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
|
$
|
19.29
|
|
|
$
|
15.29
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
2nd
|
|
$
|
23.36
|
|
|
$
|
20.33
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
19.21
|
|
|
$
|
16.29
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
3rd
|
|
$
|
25.23
|
|
|
$
|
22.51
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
25.05
|
|
|
$
|
19.16
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
4th
|
|
$
|
27.95
|
|
|
$
|
22.95
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
25.40
|
|
|
$
|
19.97
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
Some of our subsidiaries borrowing arrangements limit the
transfer of funds to us. These terms have not impeded, nor are
they expected to impede, our ability to pay dividends. However,
until January 20, 2005, the credit agreements underlying
our two unsecured revolving credit facilities totaling
$500 million prohibited us from paying quarterly cash
dividends on our common stock in excess of $0.05 per share.
On January 20, 2005, these facilities were terminated and
replaced with two new facilities. As part of the transaction,
the dividend restriction, along with most of the other
restrictive covenants, was removed from the new credit
agreements.
34
Performance
Graph
Set forth below is a line graph comparing our cumulative total
stockholder return on our common stock (assuming reinvestment of
dividends) with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500
Stock Index and the Bloomberg U.S. Pipeline Index for the
period of five fiscal years commencing January 1, 2002. The
Bloomberg U.S. Pipeline Index is composed of El Paso,
Equitable Resources, Questar, Kinder Morgan, TransCanada,
Spectra Energy, Enbridge and Williams. The graph below assumes
an investment of $100 at the beginning of the period.
Cumulative
Total Shareholder Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
|
40.6
|
|
|
|
|
67.7
|
|
|
|
|
97.5
|
|
|
|
|
111.5
|
|
S&P 500 Index
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
77.9
|
|
|
|
|
100.2
|
|
|
|
|
111.1
|
|
|
|
|
116.6
|
|
|
|
|
135.0
|
|
Bloomberg U.S. Pipelines Index
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
|
82.8
|
|
|
|
|
93.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The following financial data as of December 31, 2006 and
2005, and for the three years ended December 31, 2006, are
an integral part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the
consolidated financial statements and related notes. All other
amounts have been prepared from our financial records. Certain
amounts below have been restated or reclassified. See
Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
Part II Item 8 for discussion of changes in 2006, 2005
and 2004. Information concerning significant trends in the
financial condition and results of operations is contained in
Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(Millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenues(1)
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
|
$
|
16,651.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,434.5
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations(2)
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
|
|
(57.5
|
)
|
|
|
(618.4
|
)
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations(3)
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
326.6
|
|
|
|
(136.3
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principles(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(761.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
|
|
|
.55
|
|
|
|
.53
|
|
|
|
.18
|
|
|
|
(.17
|
)
|
|
|
(1.37
|
)
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
.63
|
|
|
|
(.26
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.47
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at December 31
|
|
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
23,993.0
|
|
|
|
27,021.8
|
|
|
|
34,988.5
|
|
Short-term notes payable and
long-term debt due within one year at December 31
|
|
|
392.1
|
|
|
|
122.6
|
|
|
|
250.1
|
|
|
|
938.5
|
|
|
|
2,077.1
|
|
Long-term debt at December 31
|
|
|
7,622.0
|
|
|
|
7,590.5
|
|
|
|
7,711.9
|
|
|
|
11,039.8
|
|
|
|
11,075.7
|
|
Stockholders equity at
December 31
|
|
|
6,073.2
|
|
|
|
5,427.5
|
|
|
|
4,955.9
|
|
|
|
4,102.1
|
|
|
|
5,049.0
|
|
Cash dividends per common share
|
|
|
.345
|
|
|
|
.25
|
|
|
|
.08
|
|
|
|
.04
|
|
|
|
.42
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As part of our adoption of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 02-3
Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts
Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy
Trading and Risk Management Activities, (EITF
02-3), we
concluded that revenues and costs of sales from nonderivative
contracts and certain physically settled derivative contracts
should generally be reported on a gross basis. Prior to the
adoption on January 1, 2003, these revenues were presented
net of costs. As permitted by EITF
02-3, prior
year amounts have not been restated. Additionally, revenues
within our Power segment in 2003 includes approximately
$117 million related to the correction of the accounting
treatment previously applied to certain third-party derivative
contracts during 2002 and 2001. |
|
(2) |
|
See Note 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for discussion of asset sales and other accruals in 2006, 2005,
and 2004. |
|
(3) |
|
See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for the analysis of the 2006, 2005 and 2004 income (loss) from
discontinued operations. Results for the years 2003 and 2002
also include amounts related to the discontinued operations of
certain gas processing and natural gas liquid operations in
Canada, a soda ash mining operation, our interest and investment
in Williams Energy Partners, a bio-energy operation, certain
natural gas production properties, Texas Gas Transmission
Corporation, refining and marketing operations in the midsouth,
retail travel centers in the midsouth, Central natural gas
pipeline,
Mid-America
pipeline, Seminole pipeline and Kern River pipeline. |
|
(4) |
|
The 2005 cumulative effect of change in accounting principles
is due to implementation of Interpretation (FIN) 47,
Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations an Interpretation of FASB Statement No.
143. The 2003 cumulative effect of change in accounting
principles includes a $762.5 million charge related to the
adoption of EITF
02-3,
slightly offset by $1.2 million related to the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations. The
$762.5 million charge primarily consisted of the then fair
value of power tolling, load serving, gas transportation and gas
storage contracts. These contracts are not derivatives and,
therefore, are no longer reported at fair value. |
36
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
General
We are primarily a natural gas company, engaged in finding,
producing, gathering, processing, and transporting natural gas.
We also manage a wholesale power business. Our operations are
located principally in the United States and are organized into
the following reporting segments: Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids
(Midstream), and Power. (See Note 1 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of
reporting segments.)
Unless indicated otherwise, the following discussion of critical
accounting estimates, discussion and analysis of results of
operations and financial condition and liquidity relates to our
current continuing operations and should be read in conjunction
with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto
included in Part II Item 8 of this document.
Overview
of 2006
Our plan for 2006 was focused on continued disciplined growth.
Objectives and highlights of this plan included:
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
|
Highlights
|
Continuing to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit.
|
|
|
2006 segment profit increased
$185.8 million to $1,468.3 million, which contributed
to improving our
EVA®.
|
Investing in our natural gas
businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position.
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures were
approximately $2.5 billion, of which approximately
$1.4 billion was invested in Exploration &
Production.
|
Continuing to increase natural gas
production in a responsible and efficient manner.
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
increased its average daily production by approximately 21% over
last year and also added 597 billion cubic feet equivalent
in net reserves during 2006. Additionally, we received 2006
industry awards including Hydrocarbon Producer of the Year and
North Americas Best Field Rejuvenation.
|
Accelerating additional asset
transactions between us and Williams Partners L.P., our master
limited partnership.
|
|
|
Williams Partners L.P. acquired
100 percent of Williams Four Corners LLC for a total of
$1.583 billion.
|
Increasing the scale of our
gathering and processing business in key growth basins.
|
|
|
We invested approximately
$257 million in capital expenditures in Midstream including
Deepwater Gulf expansion projects and completing the expansion
of our Opal gas processing facility.
|
Filing new rates to enable our Gas
Pipeline segment to create additional value.
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline and Transco
each filed a general rate case with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In January 2007, Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its
pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval,
which is expected by mid-2007.
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
|
Highlights
|
Executing power contracts that
reduce risk while adding new business and strengthening future
cash flow potential.
|
|
|
During 2006, Power completed
several new power sales contracts that increase the value of the
portfolio and provide additional cash-flow certainty in future
periods. Additionally, in early 2007, Power executed power sales
agreements in southern California through 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Our 2006 income from continuing operations increased to
$332.8 million, as compared to $317.4 million in 2005.
Our net cash provided by operating activities was
$1,889.6 million in 2006 compared to $1,449.9 million
in 2005. These comparative results reflect the benefit of strong
natural gas liquid margins partially offset with resolution of
certain legacy litigation issues. In addition to achieving these
results, the following represent significant actions or events
that occurred during the year:
Recent
Events
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity
offering of approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In
December 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a $600 million
private debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a
private equity offering of approximately $350 million of
common and Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. The debt and
equity issued by Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a
component of our consolidated debt balance and minority interest
balance, respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain
gathering, processing and treating assets in the San Juan
Basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
In December 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed and placed into
service its capacity replacement project in the state of
Washington. The project involved abandoning 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline and replacing it with approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline constructed in four sections along the same pipeline
corridor. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline modified five
existing compressor stations and created additional net
horsepower.
Northwest Pipeline and Transco have each filed a general rate
case with the FERC. Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in
its pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC
approval, which is expected by mid-2007. The new rates for
Northwest Pipeline are effective in January 2007, subject to
refund. The new rates for Transco are expected to be effective
in March 2007, subject to refund.
In April 2006, Transco issued $200 million aggregate
principal amount of 6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due
2016 to certain institutional investors in a private debt
placement. In October 2006, Transco completed an offer to
exchange all of these notes for substantially identical notes
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In May 2006, our Board of Directors approved a regular quarterly
dividend of 9 cents per share of common stock, which reflects an
increase of 20 percent compared with the 7.5 cents per
share paid in each of the three prior quarters.
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline issued $175 million
aggregate principal amount of 7 percent senior unsecured
notes due 2016 to certain institutional investors in a private
debt placement. In October 2006, Northwest
38
Pipeline completed an offer to exchange all of these notes for
substantially identical notes registered under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000, and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. We
funded our $145 million portion of the settlement with
cash-on-hand
in November 2006, with the balance funded directly by our
insurers. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second quarter 2006. This settlement did
not have a material effect on our liquidity position. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
On July 31, 2006, and August 1, 2006, we received a
verdict in civil litigation related to a contractual dispute
surrounding certain natural gas processing facilities known as
Gulf Liquids. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$88 million in second quarter 2006 related to this loss
contingency. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
Our property insurance coverage levels and premiums were revised
during the second quarter of 2006. In general, our coverage
levels have decreased while our premiums have increased. These
changes reflect general trends in our industry due to
hurricane-related damages in recent years.
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert our
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures into
our common stock. In January 2006, we converted approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures in exchange for
20.2 million shares of common stock, a $25.8 million
cash premium, and $1.5 million of accrued interest.
Outlook
for 2007
Our plan for 2007 is focused on continued disciplined growth.
Objectives of this plan include:
|
|
|
|
|
Continue to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit.
|
|
|
|
Invest in our natural gas businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position.
|
|
|
|
Continue to increase natural gas production and reserves.
|
|
|
|
Increase the scale of our gathering and processing business in
key growth basins.
|
|
|
|
Successfully resolving the rate cases for both Northwest
Pipeline and Transco.
|
|
|
|
Execute power contracts that offset a significant percentage of
our financial obligations associated with our tolling agreements.
|
Potential risks
and/or
obstacles that could prevent us from achieving these objectives
include:
|
|
|
|
|
Volatility of commodity prices;
|
|
|
|
Lower than expected levels of cash flow from operations;
|
|
|
|
Decreased drilling success at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
Exposure associated with our efforts to resolve regulatory and
litigation issues (see Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements);
|
|
|
|
General economic and industry downturn.
|
We continue to address these risks through utilization of
commodity hedging strategies, focused efforts to resolve
regulatory issues and litigation claims, disciplined investment
strategies, and maintaining our desired level of at least
$1 billion in liquidity from cash and revolving credit
facilities.
39
New
Accounting Standards and Emerging Issues
Accounting standards that have been issued and are not yet
effective may have a material effect on our Consolidated
Financial Statements in the future. These include:
|
|
|
|
|
SFAS No. 157 Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157). The effective date for this Statement is for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We will
assess the impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
|
|
FASB Interpretation No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty
in Income Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48).
|
FIN 48 prescribes guidance for the financial statement
recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected
to be taken in a tax return. To recognize a tax position, the
enterprise determines whether it is more likely than not that
the tax position will be sustained upon examination, including
resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based
on the technical merits of the position. A tax position that
meets the more likely than not recognition threshold is measured
to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the financial
statements. The tax position is measured at the largest amount
of benefit, determined on a cumulative probability basis, that
is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon
ultimate settlement.
We adopted FIN 48 as of January 1, 2007. The
cumulative effect of applying the Interpretation will be
reported as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained
earnings. The net impact of the cumulative effect of adopting
FIN 48 is expected to be in the range of a $10 million
to $20 million decrease in retained earnings.
See Recent Accounting Standards in Note 1 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on
these and other recently issued accounting standards.
Critical
Accounting Estimates
The preparation of financial statements, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles, requires management to
make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts
therein. We have discussed the following accounting estimates
and assumptions as well as related disclosures with our Audit
Committee. We believe that the nature of these estimates and
assumptions is material due to the subjectivity and judgment
necessary, or the susceptibility of such matters to change, and
the impact of these on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Revenue
Recognition Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities
We hold a substantial portfolio of energy trading and nontrading
contracts for a variety of purposes. We review these contracts
to determine whether they are nonderivatives or derivatives. If
they are derivatives, we further assess whether the contracts
qualify for either cash flow hedge accounting or the normal
purchases and normal sales exception.
The determination of whether a derivative contract qualifies as
a cash flow hedge includes an analysis of historical market
price information to assess whether the derivative is expected
to be highly effective in achieving offsetting cash flows
attributed to the hedged risk. We also assess whether the hedged
forecasted transaction is probable of occurring. This assessment
requires us to exercise judgment and consider a wide variety of
factors in addition to our intent, including internal and
external forecasts, historical experience, changing market and
business conditions, our financial and operational ability to
carry out the forecasted transaction, the length of time until
the forecasted transaction is projected to occur, and the
quantity of the forecasted transaction. In addition, we compare
actual cash flows to those that were expected from the
underlying risk. If a hedged forecasted transaction is not
probable of occurring, or if the derivative contract is not
expected to be highly effective, the derivative does not qualify
for hedge accounting.
For derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges, we do
not reflect changes in their fair value in earnings until the
associated hedged item affects earnings. For those that have not
been designated as hedges or do not qualify for hedge
accounting, we recognize the net change in their fair value in
income currently (marked to market).
40
For derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges, we
prospectively discontinue hedge accounting and recognize future
changes in fair value directly in earnings if we no longer
expect the hedge to be highly effective, or if we believe that
the hedged forecasted transaction is no longer probable of
occurring. If the forecasted transaction becomes probable of not
occurring, we must also reclass amounts previously recorded in
other comprehensive income into earnings in addition to
prospectively discontinuing hedge accounting. If the
effectiveness of the derivative improves and is again expected
to be highly effective in offsetting cash flows attributed to
the hedged risk, or if the forecasted transaction again becomes
probable, we may prospectively re-designate the derivative as a
hedge of the underlying risk.
Derivatives for which the normal purchases and normal sales
exception has been elected are accounted for on an accrual
basis. In determining whether a derivative is eligible for this
exception, we assess whether the contract provides for the
purchase or sale of a commodity that will be physically
delivered in quantities expected to be used or sold over a
reasonable period in the normal course of business. In making
this assessment, we consider numerous factors, including the
quantities provided under the contract in relation to our
business needs, delivery locations per the contract in relation
to our operating locations, duration of time between entering
the contract and delivery, past trends and expected future
demand, and our past practices and customs with regard to such
contracts. Additionally, we assess whether it is probable that
the contract will result in physical delivery of the commodity
and not net financial settlement.
The fair value of derivative contracts is determined based on
the nature of the transaction and the market in which
transactions are executed. We also incorporate assumptions and
judgments about counterparty performance and credit
considerations in our determination of their fair value.
Contracts are executed in the following environments:
|
|
|
|
|
Organized commodity exchange or
over-the-counter
markets with quoted prices;
|
|
|
|
Organized commodity exchange or
over-the-counter
markets with quoted market prices but limited price
transparency, requiring increased judgment to determine fair
value;
|
|
|
|
Markets without quoted market prices.
|
The number of transactions executed without quoted market prices
is limited. We estimate the fair value of these contracts by
using readily available price quotes in similar markets and
other market analyses. The fair value of all derivative
contracts is continually subject to change as the underlying
commodity market changes and our assumptions and judgments
change.
Additional discussion of the accounting for energy contracts at
fair value is included in Energy Trading Activities within
Item 7 and Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Oil-
and Gas-Producing Activities
We use the successful efforts method of accounting for our oil-
and gas-producing activities. Estimated natural gas and oil
reserves and forward market prices for oil and gas are a
significant part of our financial calculations. Following are
examples of how these estimates affect financial results:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase (decrease) in estimated proved oil and gas reserves
can reduce (increase) our
unit-of-production
depreciation, depletion and amortization rates.
|
|
|
|
Changes in oil and gas reserves and forward market prices both
impact projected future cash flows from our oil and gas
properties. This, in turn, can impact our periodic impairment
analyses, including that for goodwill.
|
The process of estimating natural gas and oil reserves is very
complex, requiring significant judgment in the evaluation of all
available geological, geophysical, engineering, and economic
data. After being estimated internally, 99.9 percent of our
reserve estimates are either audited or prepared by independent
experts. The data may change substantially over time as a result
of numerous factors, including additional development activity,
evolving production history, and a continual reassessment of the
viability of production under changing economic conditions. As a
result, material revisions to existing reserve estimates could
occur from time to time. A revision of our reserve estimates
within reasonably likely parameters is not expected to result in
an impairment of our oil and
41
gas properties or goodwill. However, reserve estimate revisions
would impact our depreciation and depletion expense
prospectively. For example, a change of approximately
10 percent in oil and gas reserves for each basin would
change our annual depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense between approximately $25 million
and $31 million. The actual impact would depend on the
specific basins impacted and whether the change resulted from
proved developed, proved undeveloped or a combination of these
reserve categories.
Forward market prices, which are utilized in our impairment
analyses, include estimates of prices for periods that extend
beyond those with quoted market prices. This forward market
price information is consistent with that generally used in
evaluating our drilling decisions and acquisition plans. These
market prices for future periods impact the production economics
underlying oil and gas reserve estimates. The prices of natural
gas and oil are volatile and change from period to period, thus
impacting our estimates. An unfavorable change in the forward
price curve within reasonably likely parameters is not expected
to result in an impairment of our oil and gas properties or
goodwill.
Contingent
Liabilities
We record liabilities for estimated loss contingencies,
including environmental matters, when we assess that a loss is
probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
Revisions to contingent liabilities are reflected in income in
the period in which new or different facts or information become
known or circumstances change that affect the previous
assumptions with respect to the likelihood or amount of loss.
Liabilities for contingent losses are based upon our assumptions
and estimates and upon advice of legal counsel, engineers, or
other third parties regarding the probable outcomes of the
matter. As new developments occur or more information becomes
available, our assumptions and estimates of these liabilities
may change. Changes in our assumptions and estimates or outcomes
different from our current assumptions and estimates could
materially affect future results of operations for any
particular quarterly or annual period. See Note 15 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Valuation
of Deferred Tax Assets and Tax Contingencies
We have deferred tax assets resulting from certain investments
and businesses that have a tax basis in excess of the book basis
and from tax carry-forwards generated in the current and prior
years. We must evaluate whether we will ultimately realize these
tax benefits and establish a valuation allowance for those that
may not be realizable. This evaluation considers tax planning
strategies, including assumptions about the availability and
character of future taxable income. At December 31, 2006,
we have approximately $926 million of deferred tax assets
for which a $36 million valuation allowance has been
established. When assessing the need for a valuation allowance,
we considered forecasts of future company performance, the
estimated impact of potential asset dispositions and our ability
and intent to execute tax planning strategies to utilize tax
carryovers. Based on our projections, we believe that it is
probable that we can utilize our year-end 2006 federal tax net
operating losses carryovers and charitable contribution
carryovers prior to their expiration. We do not expect to be
able to utilize $36 million of foreign deferred tax assets
related to carryovers. See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for additional information regarding the
tax carryovers. The ultimate amount of deferred tax assets
realized could be materially different from those recorded, as
influenced by potential changes in jurisdictional income tax
laws and the circumstances surrounding the actual realization of
related tax assets.
We regularly face challenges from domestic and foreign tax
authorities regarding the amount of taxes due. These challenges
include questions regarding the timing and amount of deductions
and the allocation of income among various tax jurisdictions. In
evaluating the liability associated with our various filing
positions, we record a liability for probable tax contingencies.
The ultimate disposition of these contingencies could have a
significant impact on net cash flows. To the extent we were to
prevail in matters for which accruals have been established or
were required to pay amounts in excess of our accrued liability,
our effective tax rate in a given financial statement period may
be materially impacted.
Pension
and Postretirement Obligations
We have employee benefit plans that include pension and other
postretirement benefits. Pension and other postretirement
benefit plan expense and obligations are calculated by a
third-party actuary and are impacted by various estimates and
assumptions. These estimates and assumptions include the
expected long-term rates of return
42
on plan assets, discount rates, expected rate of compensation
increase, health care cost trend rates, and employee
demographics, including retirement age and mortality. These
assumptions are reviewed annually and adjustments are made as
needed. The assumptions utilized to compute expense and the
benefit obligations are shown in Note 7 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements. The following table presents
the estimated increase (decrease) in pension and other
postretirement benefit expense and obligations resulting from a
one-percentage-point change in the specified assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Expense
|
|
|
Benefit Obligation
|
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
|
Point Increase
|
|
|
Point Decrease
|
|
|
Point Increase
|
|
|
Point Decrease
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Pension benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
$
|
(12
|
)
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
(129
|
)
|
|
$
|
151
|
|
Expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
Other postretirement benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
47
|
|
Expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed health care cost trend rate
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
The expected long-term rates of return on plan assets are
determined by combining a review of historical returns realized
within the portfolio, the investment strategy included in the
plans Investment Policy Statement, and the capital market
projections provided by our independent investment consultant
for the asset classifications in which the portfolio is invested
as well as the target weightings of each asset classification.
These rates are impacted by changes in general market
conditions, but because they are long-term in nature, short-term
market swings do not significantly impact the rates. Changes to
our target asset allocation would also impact these rates. Our
expected long-term rate of return on plan assets used for our
pension plans is 7.75 percent for 2006 and was
8.5 percent from
2002-2005.
Over the past ten years, our actual average return on plan
assets for our pension plans has been approximately
7.9 percent.
The discount rates are used to discount future benefit cash
flows to todays dollars. Decreases in these rates increase
the obligation and, generally, increase the related expense. The
discount rates for our pension and other postretirement benefit
plans were determined separately based on an approach specific
to our plans and their respective expected benefit cash flows as
described in Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements. Our discount rate assumptions are impacted by
changes in general economic and market conditions that affect
interest rates on long-term high-quality corporate bonds.
The expected rate of compensation increase represents average
long-term salary increases. An increase in this rate causes
pension obligation and expense to increase.
The assumed health care cost trend rates are based on our actual
historical cost rates that are adjusted for expected changes in
the health care industry.
43
Results
of Operations
Consolidated
Overview
The following table and discussion is a summary of our
consolidated results of operations for the three years ended
December 31, 2006. The results of operations by segment are
discussed in further detail following this consolidated overview
discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004(1)
|
|
|
2004(1)
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
$
|
770.7
|
|
|
|
−6
|
%
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
$
|
+122.3
|
|
|
|
+1
|
%
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
9,973.6
|
|
|
|
+897.4
|
|
|
|
+8
|
%
|
|
|
10,871.0
|
|
|
|
−119.3
|
|
|
|
−1
|
%
|
|
|
10,751.7
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
|
|
|
449.2
|
|
|
|
−123.8
|
|
|
|
−38
|
%
|
|
|
325.4
|
|
|
|
+30.1
|
|
|
|
+8
|
%
|
|
|
355.5
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
+40.5
|
|
|
|
+66
|
%
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
−112.8
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(51.6
|
)
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
132.1
|
|
|
|
+13.4
|
|
|
|
+9
|
%
|
|
|
145.5
|
|
|
|
−25.7
|
|
|
|
−21
|
%
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
−157.9
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
−9.4
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
10,742.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,412.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,175.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,070.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,171.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,285.9
|
|
Interest accrued net
|
|
|
(658.9
|
)
|
|
|
+5.6
|
|
|
|
+1
|
%
|
|
|
(664.5
|
)
|
|
|
+163.2
|
|
|
|
+20
|
%
|
|
|
(827.7
|
)
|
Investing income
|
|
|
173.0
|
|
|
|
+149.3
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
−24.3
|
|
|
|
−51
|
%
|
|
|
48.0
|
|
Early debt retirement costs
|
|
|
(31.4
|
)
|
|
|
−31.0
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
+281.7
|
|
|
|
+100
|
%
|
|
|
(282.1
|
)
|
Minority interest in income of
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(40.0
|
)
|
|
|
−14.3
|
|
|
|
−56
|
%
|
|
|
(25.7
|
)
|
|
|
−4.3
|
|
|
|
−20
|
%
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)
|
Other income net
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
−0.7
|
|
|
|
−3
|
%
|
|
|
27.1
|
|
|
|
+5.3
|
|
|
|
+24
|
%
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
539.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
224.5
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
206.3
|
|
|
|
+7.6
|
|
|
|
+4
|
%
|
|
|
213.9
|
|
|
|
−82.6
|
|
|
|
−63
|
%
|
|
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
−22.2
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
−72.6
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1.7
|
|
|
|
+100
|
%
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
−1.7
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
+ = Favorable change to net income; =
Unfavorable change to net income; NM = A percentage
calculation is not meaningful due to change in signs, a
zero-value denominator or a percentage change greater than 200. |
2006 vs.
2005
The decrease in revenues is primarily due to lower power
and natural gas realized revenues at Power. These revenues
declined due to lower sales volumes associated with reducing the
scope of our trading activities and lower natural gas sales
prices. Partially offsetting these decreases are increased
crude, olefin and natural gas liquid (NGL) marketing revenues
and higher NGL production revenue at Midstream and increased
production revenue at Exploration & Production.
The decrease in costs and operating expenses is largely
due to decreased power purchase volumes and reduced natural gas
purchase prices at Power. Partially offsetting these decreases
are increased crude, olefin and NGL
44
marketing purchases and operating expenses at Midstream and
increased depreciation, depletion and amortization and lease
operating expense at Exploration & Production.
The increase in selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses is primarily due to increased personnel
costs, insurance expense, higher information systems support
costs and the absence of a $17.1 million reduction of
pension expense at Gas Pipeline in 2005. Additionally,
Exploration & Production experienced higher costs due
to increased staffing in support of increased drilling and
operational activity.
Other (income) expense net within
operating income in 2006 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
A $72.7 million accrual for a Gulf Liquids litigation
contingency;
|
|
|
|
Income of $12.7 million due to reducing contingent
obligations associated with our former distributive power
generation business at Power;
|
|
|
|
Income of $9 million due to a settlement of an
international contract dispute at Midstream;
|
Other (income) expense net within
operating income in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $82.2 million accrual for litigation contingencies at
Power, associated primarily with agreements reached to
substantially resolve exposure related to certain natural gas
price and volume reporting issues;
|
|
|
|
Gains totaling $29.6 million on the sale of certain natural
gas properties at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
A gain of $9 million on a sale of land in our Other segment.
|
General corporate expenses decreased primarily due to the
absence of $13.8 million of insurance settlement charges in
2005 associated with certain insurance coverage allocation
issues.
The securities litigation settlement and related costs is
the result of settling
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002.
Interest accrued net in 2006 includes
$22 million in interest expense associated with our Gulf
Liquids litigation contingency.
The increase in investing income is due to:
|
|
|
|
|
The absence of an $87.2 million impairment in 2005 on our
investment in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn);
|
|
|
|
The absence of a $23 million impairment in 2005 of our Aux
Sable Liquid Products, L.P. (Aux Sable) equity investment;
|
|
|
|
An approximate $37 million increase in interest income
primarily associated with increased earnings on cash and cash
equivalent balances associated with higher rates of return;
|
|
|
|
Increased equity earnings of $33.3 million due largely to
the absence of equity losses in 2006 on Longhorn and increased
earnings of our Discovery Producer Services LLC (Discovery) and
Aux Sable investments;
|
These increases are partially offset by:
|
|
|
|
|
A $16.4 million impairment of a Venezuelan cost-based
investment at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
The absence of an $8.6 million gain on sale of our
remaining
Mid-America
Pipeline (MAPL) and Seminole Pipeline (Seminole) investments at
Midstream in 2005.
|
Early debt retirement costs in 2006 includes
$25.8 million in premiums and $1.2 million in fees
related to the January 2006 debt conversion and
$4.4 million of accelerated amortization of debt expenses
related to the retirement of the debt secured by assets of
Williams Production RMT Company.
The increase in minority interest in income of consolidated
subsidiaries is primarily due to the growth of Williams
Partners L.P., our consolidated master limited partnership.
45
Provision for income taxes changed favorably during the
year. The effective income tax rate for 2006 is slightly higher
than the federal statutory rate primarily due to state income
taxes, the effect of taxes on foreign operations, nondeductible
convertible debenture expenses and an accrual for income tax
contingencies, partially offset by the favorable resolution of
federal income tax litigation and the utilization of charitable
contribution carryovers not previously benefited. The 2006
effective income tax rate has been increased by an adjustment to
increase overall deferred income tax liabilities. The effective
income tax rate for 2005 is higher than the federal statutory
rate due primarily to state income taxes, nondeductible
expenses, the effect of taxes on foreign operations and the
inability to utilize charitable contribution carryovers. The
2005 effective income tax rate was reduced by an adjustment to
reduce overall deferred income tax liabilities and favorable
settlements on federal and state income tax matters. (See
Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations in 2006
includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $11.9 million
net-of-tax
litigation settlement related to our former chemical fertilizer
business;
|
|
|
|
A $3.7 million
net-of-tax
charge associated with the settlement of a loss contingency
related to a former exploration business;
|
|
|
|
A $9.1 million
net-of-tax
charge associated with an oil purchase contract related to our
former Alaska refinery.
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in
2005 is due to the implementation of FIN 47. (See
Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
2005 vs.
2004
The increase in revenues is due primarily to increased revenues
at Exploration & Production due to higher natural gas
prices and production volumes sold and gas management income,
and at Midstream due primarily to increased NGL prices and crude
marketing revenue. Partially offsetting these increases is
decreased revenue at Power due primarily to the absence of crude
and refined products activity and reduced net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains.
The increase in costs and operating expenses is due
primarily to increased crude marketing costs and increased NGL
costs at Midstream in addition to increased depreciation,
depletion and amortization and gas management expense at
Exploration & Production. Partially offsetting these
increases are decreased costs at Power primarily due to the
absence of crude and refined products activity.
The decrease in SG&A expenses is primarily due to the
$17.1 million reduction in expenses at Gas Pipeline to
record the cumulative impact of a correction to pension expense
attributable to the periods 2003 and 2004 and a $9.7 reduction
of bad debt expense at Power resulting from the sale of certain
receivables to a third party. Partially offsetting these items
is increased staffing costs at Exploration & Production
in support of increased operational drilling activity.
Other (income) expense net, within
operating income, in 2004 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
Income of $93.6 million from an insurance arbitration award
associated with Gulf Liquids at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
Gains of $16.2 million from the sale of
Exploration & Productions securities, invested in
a coal seam royalty trust, that were purchased for resale;
|
|
|
|
A $9.5 million gain on the sale of Louisiana olefins assets
at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
A $15.4 million loss provision related to an ownership
dispute on prior period production included at
Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
An $11.8 million environmental expense accrual related to
the Augusta refinery facility included in our Other segment;
|
|
|
|
A $9 million write-off of previously capitalized costs on
an idled segment of Northwest Pipelines system included at
Gas Pipeline.
|
46
The increase in general corporate expenses is due
primarily to the $13.8 million of expense related to the
settlement of certain insurance coverage issues and a
$16 million increase in outside legal costs associated
primarily with securities class action matters.
The decrease in interest accrued net is due
primarily to lower average borrowing levels in 2005 as compared
to 2004.
The decrease in investing income is due primarily to a
$76.4 increase in impairment charges on our investment in
Longhorn, a $13.9 million increase in Longhorn equity
losses, and the $23 million impairment of our Aux Sable
equity investment. Partially offsetting these decreases are the
following increases:
|
|
|
|
|
A $30.4 million increase in domestic and international
equity earnings, excluding Longhorn and Aux Sable;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $20.8 million impairment of an
international cost-based investment;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $16.9 million impairment of our
Discovery equity investment;
|
|
|
|
The $8.6 million gain on the sale of our remaining
interests in the MAPL and Seminole assets;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $6.5 million Longhorn
recapitalization fee.
|
Early debt retirement costs include premiums, fees and
expenses related to the retirement of debt.
Provision for income taxes changed unfavorably primarily
due to increased pre-tax income in 2005 as compared to 2004. The
effective income tax rate for 2005 is higher than the federal
statutory rate due primarily to state income taxes,
nondeductible expenses, the effect of taxes on foreign
operations and the inability to utilize charitable contribution
carryovers. The 2005 effective income tax rate has been reduced
by an adjustment to reduce the overall deferred income tax
liabilities and favorable settlements on federal and state
income tax matters. The effective income tax rate for 2004 is
higher than the federal statutory rate due primarily to state
income taxes, a charge associated with charitable contribution
carryovers and the effect of taxes on foreign operations. A 2004
accrual for income tax contingencies was offset by favorable
settlements of certain federal and state income tax matters.
(See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations in 2004 is
comprised of gains on the sales of the Canadian straddle plants
and the Alaska refinery of $189.8 million and
$3.6 million, respectively, as well as $22 million in
income from our Canadian straddles discontinued operation.
Partially offsetting these are $153 million of charges to
increase our accrued liability associated with certain Quality
Bank litigation matters.
47
Results
of Operations Segments
We are currently organized into the following segments:
Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream,
Power, and Other. Other primarily consists of corporate
operations. Our management currently evaluates performance based
on segment profit (loss) from operations. (See Note 17 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Exploration &
Production
Overview
of 2006
In 2006, we focused on our objective to rapidly expand
development of our drilling inventory. This resulted in
significant growth as evidenced by the following accomplishments:
|
|
|
|
|
We increased average daily domestic production levels by
approximately 23 percent over last year, surpassing our
goal of 15 to 20 percent. The average daily domestic
production was approximately 752 million cubic feet of gas
equivalent (MMcfe) compared to 612 MMcfe in 2005. The
increased production is primarily due to increased development
within the Piceance and Powder River basins.
|
Domestic
Production
2006
domestic production grew 23 percent or 140 MMcfe per day over
2005
|
|
|
|
|
We continued to increase our development drilling program during
2006. We drilled 1,783 gross wells in 2006 compared to
1,627 in 2005. This contributed to the addition of
597 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe) in net
reserves a replacement rate for our domestic
production of 216 percent in 2006 compared to
277 percent in 2005. Capital expenditures for domestic
drilling, development, gathering facilities and acquisition
activity in 2006 were approximately $1.4 billion compared
to approximately $768 million in 2005.
|
The benefit of higher production volumes to operating results
was more than offset by the downward trending of natural gas
market prices during the year and increased operating costs. The
increase in operating costs reflects an increase in our
production volumes combined with a general industry condition of
greater demand for services and products as production
activities increase in our key basins.
Significant
events
At December 31, 2006, all ten new
state-of-the-art
FlexRig4®
drilling rigs have been placed into service pursuant to our
lease agreement with Helmerich & Payne. The March 2005
contract provided for the operation of the drilling rigs, each
for a primary lease term of three years. This arrangement
supports our continuing objective to
48
accelerate the pace of natural gas development in the Piceance
basin through both deployment of the additional rigs and through
the drilling and operational efficiencies of the new rigs.
In 2006, we increased our position in the Fort Worth basin
by acquiring producing properties and undeveloped leasehold
interests for approximately $64 million. These acquisitions
increased our diversification into the Mid-Continent region and
will allow us to use our horizontal drilling expertise to
develop wells in the Barnett Shale formation.
Outlook
for 2007
Our expectations and objectives for 2007 include:
|
|
|
|
|
Maintaining our development drilling program in our key basins
of Piceance, Powder River, San Juan, Arkoma, and
Fort Worth through planned capital expenditures of $1.3 to
$1.4 billion.
|
|
|
|
Continuing to grow our domestic average daily production level
with a goal of 10 to 20 percent annual growth.
|
Approximately 172 MMcfe, or 18 percent, of our
forecasted 2007 daily production is hedged by NYMEX and basis
fixed price contracts at prices that average $3.90 per Mcfe
at a basin level. In addition, we have collar agreements for
each month in 2007 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 15 MMcfe per day
at a weighted-average floor price of $6.50 per Mcfe and a
weighted-average ceiling price of $8.25 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $5.65 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $7.45 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
|
|
|
El Paso/San Juan collar agreements totaling
approximately 130 MMcfe per day at a weighted average floor
price of $5.98 per Mcfe and a weighted average ceiling
price of $9.63 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
|
|
|
Mid-Continent (PEPL) collar agreements totaling approximately
75 MMcfe per day at a weighted average floor price of
$6.82 per Mcfe and a weighted average ceiling price of
$10.80 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
We have recently entered into a five-year unsecured credit
agreement with certain banks in order to reduce margin
requirements related to our hedging activities as well as lower
transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any, under this new
facility are dependent on the level of hedging and on natural
gas reserves value.
Additional risks to achieving our expectations include weather
conditions at certain of our locations during the first and
fourth quarters of 2007, drilling rig availability, obtaining
permits as planned for drilling, and market price movements.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
1,487.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,269.1
|
|
|
$
|
777.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
$
|
551.5
|
|
|
$
|
587.2
|
|
|
$
|
235.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 vs.
2005
Total segment revenues increased $218.5 million, or
17 percent, primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$165 million, or 15 percent, increase in domestic
production revenues reflecting $245 million primarily
associated with a 23 percent increase in natural gas
production volumes sold, offset by a decrease of
$80 million associated with a 6 percent decrease in
net realized average prices. The increase in production volumes
is primarily from the Piceance and Powder River basins and the
decrease in prices reflects the downward trending of market
prices in the latter part of 2006.
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
$10 million increase in production revenues from our
international operations primarily due to increases in net
realized average prices for crude oil production volumes sold.
|
|
|
|
$14 million of net unrealized gains in 2006 from hedge
ineffectiveness and forward
mark-to-market
gains on certain basis swaps not designated as hedges as
compared to $10 million in net unrealized losses
attributable to hedge ineffectiveness from NYMEX collars in 2005.
|
To manage the commodity price risk and volatility of owning
producing gas properties, we enter into derivative sales
contracts that fix the sales price relating to a portion of our
future production. Approximately 40 percent of domestic
production in 2006 was hedged by NYMEX and basis fixed price
contracts at a weighted average price of $3.82 per Mcfe at
a basin level compared to 47 percent hedged at a weighted
average price of $3.99 per Mcfe in 2005. In addition,
approximately 15 percent of domestic production was hedged
by the following collar agreements in 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 49 MMcfe per day
at a floor price of $6.50 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$8.25 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 15 MMcfe per day
at a floor price of $7.00 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$9.00 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $6.05 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $7.90 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
In 2005, approximately 10 percent of domestic production
was hedged by a NYMEX collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $7.50 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $10.49 per Mcfe in the first quarter
and at a floor price of $6.75 per Mcfe and a ceiling price
of $8.50 per Mcfe in the second, third, and fourth
quarters, and a Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for
approximately 50 MMcfe per day in the fourth quarter at a
floor price of $6.10 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$7.70 per Mcfe.
Our hedges are executed with our Power segment, which, in turn,
executes offsetting derivative contracts with unrelated third
parties. Generally, Power bears the counterparty performance
risks associated with unrelated third parties. Hedging decisions
are made considering our overall commodity risk exposure and are
not executed independently by Exploration & Production.
Total costs and expenses increased $257 million,
primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$107 million higher depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense primarily due to higher production volumes
and increased capitalized drilling costs;
|
|
|
|
$54 million higher lease operating expense primarily due to
the increased number of producing wells and higher well service
and industry costs due to increased demand and approximately
$6 million for
out-of-period
expenses related to 2005. Our management has concluded that the
effect of this item is not material to our consolidated results
for 2006, or prior periods, or to our trend of earnings;
|
|
|
|
$19 million higher operating taxes primarily due to higher
production volumes sold and increased tax rates;
|
|
|
|
$33 million higher selling, general and administrative
expenses primarily due to higher compensation for additional
staffing in support of increased drilling and operational
activity. In addition, we incurred higher legal, insurance, and
information technology support costs related to the increased
activity;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2006 of $29.6 million of gains on the sales
of properties in 2005.
|
The $35.7 million decrease in segment profit is
primarily due to lower net realized average prices and higher
costs and expenses as discussed previously, and the
absence in 2006 of $29.6 million of gains on the sales of
properties in 2005. Partially offsetting these decreases are a
23 percent increase in domestic production volumes sold and
an increase in income from ineffectiveness and forward
mark-to-market gains. Segment profit also includes an
$8 million increase in our international operations
primarily due to higher revenue and equity earnings as a result
of increases in net realized average prices for crude oil
production volumes sold.
50
2005 vs.
2004
The $491.5 million, or 63 percent increase in
segment revenues is primarily due to an increase in
domestic production revenues of $434 million during 2005
reflecting higher net realized average prices and higher
production volumes sold. Also contributing to the increase is a
$58 million increase in revenues from gas management
activities, offset in costs and expenses, and
$13 million increased production revenues from our
international operations. Partially offsetting these increases
is $10 million in net unrealized losses attributable to
NYMEX collars from hedge ineffectiveness.
The increase in domestic production revenues primarily results
from $319 million higher revenues associated with a
42 percent increase in net realized average prices for
production sold as well as a $115 million increase
associated with an 18 percent increase in average daily
production volumes. The higher net realized average prices
reflect the benefit of the lower volumes hedged in 2005 as
compared to 2004 coupled with higher market prices for natural
gas in 2005. The increase in production volumes primarily
reflects an increase in the number of producing wells resulting
from our successful 2005 drilling program.
Approximately 77 percent of domestic production in 2004 was
hedged at a weighted average price of $3.65 per Mcfe at a
basin level.
Total costs and expenses increased $147 million,
primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$62 million higher depreciation, depletion and amortization
expense primarily due to higher production volumes and increased
capitalized drilling costs;
|
|
|
|
$16 million higher lease operating expense from the
increased number of producing wells and generally higher
industry costs;
|
|
|
|
$23 million higher operating taxes primarily due to
increased market prices and production volumes sold;
|
|
|
|
$18 million higher selling, general and administrative
expenses primarily due to higher compensation and increased
staffing in 2005 in support of increased drilling and
operational activity;
|
|
|
|
$58 million higher gas management expenses associated with
higher revenues from gas management activities, offset in
segment revenues;
|
|
|
|
$11 million lower gain in 2005 than in 2004 on the sale of
securities associated with our coal seam royalty trust that were
previously purchased for resale.
|
These increased costs and expenses are partially offset
by the absence in 2005 of a $15.4 million loss provision
related to an ownership dispute on prior period production in
2004, a $7.9 million gain on the sale of an undeveloped
leasehold position in Colorado in the first quarter of 2005, and
a $21.7 million gain on the sale of certain outside
operated properties in the Powder River basin area of Wyoming in
the third quarter of 2005.
The $351.4 million increase in segment profit is
primarily due to increased revenues from higher volumes and
higher net realized average prices, as well as the gains on
sales of assets, partially offset by higher expenses as
discussed above. Segment profit also includes a
$19 million increase in our international operations
reflecting higher revenue and equity earnings resulting from
higher net realized oil and gas prices.
Gas
Pipeline
Overview
We operate, through our Northwest Pipeline and Transco
subsidiaries, approximately 14,400 miles of pipeline from
the Gulf Coast to the northeast United States and from northern
New Mexico to the Pacific Northwest with a total annual
throughput of approximately 2,500 trillion BTUs. Additionally,
we hold a 50 percent interest in Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream). This asset, which extends from the
Mobile Bay area in Alabama to markets in Florida, has current
transportation capacity of 1.1 MMdt/d.
Our strategy to create value for our shareholders focuses on
maximizing the utilization of our pipeline capacity by providing
high quality, low cost transportation of natural gas to large
and growing markets.
51
Gas Pipelines interstate transmission and storage
activities are subject to regulation by the FERC and as such,
our rates and charges for the transportation of natural gas in
interstate commerce, and the extension, expansion or abandonment
of jurisdictional facilities and accounting, among other things,
are subject to regulation. The rates are established through the
FERCs ratemaking process. Changes in commodity prices and
volumes transported have little impact on revenues because the
majority of cost of service is recovered through firm capacity
reservation charges in transportation rates.
Significant events of 2006 include:
Filing of
rate cases
During 2006, Northwest Pipeline and Transco each filed general
rate cases with the FERC for increases in rates due to higher
costs in recent years. The new rates are effective, subject to
refund, in January 2007 for Northwest Pipeline and in March 2007
for Transco. We expect the new rates to result in significantly
higher revenues.
In January 2007, Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its
pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval,
which is expected by mid-2007.
Gulfstream
In March 2006, our equity method investee, Gulfstream, announced
a new long-term agreement with a Florida utility company, which
fully subscribed the pipelines mainline capacity on a
long-term basis. Under the agreement, Gulfstream will extend its
existing pipeline approximately 35 miles within Florida.
The agreement is subject to the approval of various authorities.
Construction of the extension is anticipated to begin in early
2008 with a targeted completion of summer 2008.
In May 2006, Gulfstream announced a new agreement to provide
155 Mdt/d of natural gas to a Florida utility. In December
2006, Gulfstream filed an application with the FERC seeking
approval to expand its pipeline system to provide the additional
capacity. Under this agreement, Gulfstream will construct
approximately 17.5 miles of 20 inch pipeline and the
installation of a new compressor facility. If approved, all of
the facilities will be placed into service by January 2009.
Parachute
Lateral project
In August 2006, we received FERC approval to construct a
37.6-mile
expansion that will provide additional natural gas
transportation capacity in northwest Colorado. The planned
expansion will increase capacity by 450 Mdt/d through the
30-inch
diameter line and is estimated to cost approximately
$86 million. The expansion is expected to be in service in
March 2007.
Grays
Harbor
Effective January 2005, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC
(Duke) terminated its firm transportation agreement related to
Northwest Pipelines Grays Harbor lateral. In January 2005,
Duke paid Northwest Pipeline $94 million for the remaining
book value of the asset and the related income taxes. We and
Duke have not agreed on the amount of the income taxes due
Northwest Pipeline as a result of the contract termination. We
have deferred the $6 million difference between the
proceeds and net book value of the lateral pending resolution of
the disputed early termination obligation.
On June 16, 2005, we filed a Petition for a Declaratory
Order with the FERC requesting that it rule on our
interpretation of our tariff to aid in resolving the dispute
with Duke. On July 15, 2005, Duke filed a motion to
intervene and provided comments supporting its position
concerning the issues in dispute.
On October 4, 2006, the FERC issued its Order on Petition
for Declaratory Order, providing clarification on issues
relating to Dukes obligation to reimburse us for future
tax expenses. We reviewed the Order and filed a request for
rehearing requesting further clarification of certain items.
Based upon the order, as written, we do not anticipate any
adverse impact to our results of operations or financial
position.
52
Northwest
Pipeline capacity replacement project
In September 2005, we received FERC approval to construct and
operate approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline loop as a replacement for most of the capacity
previously served by 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline in the Washington state area. The capacity replacement
as well as the abandonment of the old capacity was completed in
December 2006. In addition to the capacity replacement, five
existing compressor stations were modified, and we increased net
horsepower.
Outlook
for 2007
Leidy to
Long Island expansion project
In May 2006, we received FERC approval to expand Transcos
natural gas pipeline in the northeast United States. The
estimated cost of the project is approximately $141 million
with three-quarters of that spending expected to occur in 2007.
The expansion will provide 100 Mdt/d of incremental firm
capacity and is expected to be in service by November 2007.
Potomac
expansion project
In July 2006, we filed an application with the FERC to expand
Transcos existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region of
the United States by constructing 16.5 miles of
42-inch
pipeline. The project will provide 165 Mdt/d of incremental
firm capacity. The estimated cost of the project is
approximately $74 million, with an anticipated in-service
date of November 2007.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
1,347.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,412.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,362.3
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
$
|
467.4
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
Significant
2005 adjustments
Operating results for 2005 included:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments of $17.7 million reflected as a
$12.1 million reduction of costs and operating
expenses and a $5.6 million reduction of SG&A
expenses. These cost reductions were corrections of the
carrying value of certain liabilities that were recorded in
prior periods. Based on a review by management, these
liabilities were no longer required.
|
|
|
|
Pension expense reduction of $17.1 million in the second
quarter of 2005 to reflect the cumulative impact of a correction
of an error attributable to 2003 and 2004. The error was
associated with our third-party actuarial computation of annual
net periodic pension expense and resulted from the
identification of errors in certain Transco participant data
involving annuity contract information utilized for 2003 and
2004.
|
|
|
|
Adjustments of $37.3 million reflected as increases in
costs and operating expenses related to
$32.1 million of prior period accounting and valuation
corrections for certain inventory items and an accrual of
$5.2 million for contingent refund obligations.
|
Our management concluded that the effects of these adjustments
were not material to our consolidated results for 2005 or prior
periods, or to our trend of earnings.
2006 vs.
2005
Revenues decreased $65.1 million, or 5 percent,
due primarily to $75 million lower revenues associated with
exchange imbalance settlements (offset in costs and operating
expenses). Partially offsetting this decrease is a
$9 million increase in revenue due to an adjustment for the
recovery of state income tax rate changes (offset in
provision for income taxes).
53
Costs and operating expenses decreased $17 million,
or 2 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
A decrease in costs of $75 million associated with exchange
imbalance settlements (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
A decrease in costs of $37.3 million related to the absence
of $32.1 million of 2005 prior period accounting and
valuation corrections for certain inventory items and an accrual
of $5.2 million for contingent refund obligations.
|
Partially offsetting these decreases are:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in contract and outside service costs of
$23 million due primarily to higher pipeline assessment and
repair costs;
|
|
|
|
An increase in depreciation expense of $15 million due to
property additions;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expenses of
$15 million;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating taxes of $10 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $14.2 million of income in 2005 associated
with the resolution of litigation;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $12.1 million of expense reductions during
2005 related to the carrying value of certain liabilities.
|
SG&A expenses increased $77 million, or
92 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in personnel costs of $18 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of a 2005 $17.1 million reduction in pension
costs to correct an error in prior periods;
|
|
|
|
An increase in information systems support costs of
$16 million;
|
|
|
|
An increase in property insurance expenses of $14 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $5.6 million of cost reductions in 2005 that
related to correcting the carrying value of certain liabilities.
|
The $118.4 million, or 20 percent, decrease in
segment profit is due primarily to the absence of
significant 2005 adjustments as previously discussed, increases
in costs and operating expenses and SG&A expenses
as previously discussed, and the absence of a
$4.6 million construction completion fee recognized in 2005
related to our investment in Gulfstream.
2005 vs.
2004
The $50.5 million, or 4 percent, increase in Gas
Pipeline revenues is due primarily to $86 million
higher revenues associated with exchange imbalance cash-out
settlements (offset in costs and operating expenses).
Partially offsetting this increase is $24 million lower
transportation revenues due primarily to the termination of the
Grays Harbor contract, and $11 million lower revenues
associated with reimbursable costs, which are passed through to
customers (offset in costs and operating expenses and
SG&A expenses).
Costs and operating expenses increased $109 million,
or 16 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in costs of $86 million associated with
exchange imbalances (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $32.1 million due to prior period
accounting and valuation corrections related to inventory, as
previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expense of
$14 million due primarily to increased contract service
costs, materials and supplies and rental fees;
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $5.2 million due to an accrual for
contingent refund obligations, as previously discussed.
|
54
Partially offsetting these increases are decreases due to:
|
|
|
|
|
Income of $14.2 million associated with the resolution of
the litigation related to recovery of gas costs;
|
|
|
|
The cost reduction of $12.1 million due to adjusting the
carrying value of certain liabilities, as previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
Lower reimbursable costs of $5 million (offset in
revenues).
|
SG&A expenses decreased approximately
$38 million, or 31 percent, due to the
$17.1 million reduction in pension costs to correct a prior
period error, $6 million lower reimbursable costs (offset
in revenues), and the reversal of $5.6 million of
prior period accruals.
Comparative segment profit is unchanged from 2004. The
following are significant components of 2005 segment profit:
|
|
|
|
|
The reduction in pension costs of $17.1 million to correct
a prior period error, as previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
An increase in Gulfstream equity earnings of $14 million
due to the realization of a $4.6 million construction fee
award on the completion of the Phase II expansion project
coupled with increased revenues associated with the Gulfstream
expansions;
|
|
|
|
Income of $14.2 million from the reversal of the
contingency related to recovery of gas costs;
|
|
|
|
The $17.7 million reversal of prior period accruals;
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $32.1 million due to prior period
accounting and valuation corrections related to inventory;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expense of
$14 million due primarily to increased contract service
costs, materials and supplies and rental fees;
|
|
|
|
A decrease in transportation revenue of $24 million due
primarily to the termination of the Grays Harbor contract.
|
Midstream
Gas & Liquids
Overview
of 2006
Midstreams ongoing strategy is to safely and reliably
operate large-scale midstream infrastructure where our assets
can be fully utilized and drive low
per-unit
costs. Our business is focused on consistently attracting new
business by providing highly reliable service to our customers.
Significant events during 2006 included the following:
Favorable
commodity price margins
The actual realized NGL per unit margins at our processing
plants exceeded Midstreams rolling five-year average for
the last four quarters. The geographic diversification of
Midstream assets contributed significantly to our actual
realized unit margins resulting in margins generally greater
than that of the industry benchmarks for gas processed in the
Henry Hub area and fractionated and sold at Mont Belvieu. The
largest impact was realized at our western United States gas
processing plants, which benefited from lower regional market
natural gas prices. During 2006, NGL production rebounded from
levels experienced in fourth-quarter 2005 in response to
improved gas processing spreads as crude prices, which correlate
to NGL prices, averaged $66 per barrel and natural gas
prices decreased.
55
Domestic
Gathering and Processing Per Unit NGL Margin with Production
and
Sales Volumes by Quarter
(excludes partially owned plants)
Expansion
efforts in growth areas
Consistent with our strategy, we continued to expand our
midstream operations where we have large-scale assets in growth
basins.
We continued construction at our existing gas processing plant
located near Opal, Wyoming, to add a fifth cryogenic train
capable of processing up to 350 MMcf/d, bringing total Opal
capacity to approximately 1,450 MMcf/d. This plant
expansion is being placed into service during the first quarter
of 2007 to begin processing gas from the Pinedale Anticline
field.
Also, we continued construction on a
37-mile
extension of our oil and gas pipelines from our Devils Tower
spar to the Blind Faith prospect located in Mississippi Canyon.
This extension, estimated to cost approximately
$200 million, is expected to be ready for service by the
second quarter of 2008.
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement to develop new
pipeline capacity for transporting natural gas liquids from
production areas in southwestern Wyoming to central Kansas. The
other party to the agreement reimbursed us for the development
costs we incurred to date for the proposed pipeline and
initially will own 99 percent of the pipeline, known as
Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. We retained a
1 percent interest and have the option to increase our
ownership to 50 percent and become the operator within two
years of the pipeline becoming operational.
Start-up is
planned for early 2008. Additionally, we have agreed to dedicate
our equity NGL volumes from our two Wyoming plants for transport
under a long-term shipping agreement. The terms represent
significant savings compared with the existing tariff and other
alternatives considered.
Williams
Partners L.P. acquires Four Corners gathering and processing
business
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. closed a $150 million private debt offering
of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity offering of
approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In December
2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. closed a $600 million private debt
offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a private equity
offering of approximately $350 million of common and
Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. Williams Four
Corners LLC owns certain gathering, processing and treating
assets in the San Juan basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
We currently own approximately 22.5 percent of Williams
Partners L.P., including the interests of the general partner,
which is wholly owned by us. Considering the presumption of
control of the general partner in accordance
56
with EITF Issue
No. 04-5,
Williams Partners L.P. is consolidated within the Midstream
segment. (See Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.) Midstreams segment profit includes
100 percent of Williams Partners L.P.s segment
profit, with the minority interests share deducted below
segment profit. The debt and equity issued by Williams Partners
L.P. is reported as a component of our consolidated debt balance
and minority interest balance, respectively.
Gulf
Coast operations return to normal after 2005s
hurricanes
In 2005, Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina and Rita caused temporary
shut-downs of most of our facilities and our producers
facilities in the Gulf Coast region, which reduced product flows
in the second half of 2005. Our major facilities resumed normal
operations shortly after the passage of each hurricane except
for our Devils Tower spar which returned to service in early
November 2005 and our Cameron Meadows gas processing plant which
returned to partial service in February 2006 and achieved full
service in January 2007. Generally, overall product flows
returned to pre-hurricane levels during the first quarter of
2006.
Gulf
Liquids litigation
We recorded pre-tax charges totalling $94.7 million
resulting from jury verdicts in civil litigation. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
These charges reflect our estimated exposure for actual damages
of $72.7 million, including estimated legal fees of
$4.7 million, and potential pre-judgment interest of
$22 million. Midstream Other segment profit reflects the
$72.7 million charge for the estimated actual damages and
legal fees. The matter is related to a contractual dispute
surrounding construction in 2000 and 2001 of certain refinery
off-gas processing facilities by Gulf Liquids. In addition, it
is reasonably possible that any ultimate judgment may include
additional amounts of $199 million in excess of our
accrual, which represents our estimate of potential punitive
damage exposure under Texas law. The jury verdicts are subject
to trial and appellate court review. Entry of a judgment in the
trial court is expected in the second or third quarter of 2007.
If the trial court enters a judgment consistent with the
jurys verdicts against us, we will seek a reversal through
appeal.
Outlook
for 2007
The following factors could impact our business in 2007 and
beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
As evidenced in recent years, natural gas and crude oil markets
are highly volatile. NGL margins earned at our gas processing
plants in the last four quarters were above our rolling
five-year average, due to global economics maintaining high
crude prices which correlate to strong NGL prices in
relationship to natural gas prices. Forecasted domestic demand
for ethylene and propylene, whose feedstock are ethane and
propane, along with political instability in many of the key oil
producing countries will continue to support unit margins in
2007 exceeding our rolling five-year average. We do not expect
to achieve the record levels we experienced in 2006.
|
|
|
|
Margins in our olefins unit are highly dependent upon continued
economic growth within the U.S. and any significant slow down in
the economy would reduce the demand for the petrochemical
products we produce in both Canada and the U.S. Based on
recent market price forecasts, we anticipate olefins unit
margins to be slightly lower than 2006 levels.
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing revenues at our facilities are expected
to be at or above levels of previous years due to continued
strong drilling activities in our core basins.
|
|
|
|
Revenues from deepwater production areas are often subject to
risks associated with the interruption and timing of product
flows which can be influenced by weather and other third-party
operational issues.
|
|
|
|
We will continue to invest in facilities in the growth basins in
which we provide services. We expect continued expansion of our
gathering and processing systems in our Gulf Coast and West
regions to keep pace with increased demand for our services.
|
|
|
|
We expect continued growth in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of
Mexico to contribute to, and become a larger component of, our
future segment revenues and segment profit. We expect these
additional fee-
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
based revenues to lower our proportionate exposure to commodity
price risks. We expect revenues from our deepwater production
areas to decrease as volumes decline in 2007 and increase in
2008 as the extension of our oil and gas pipelines from our
Devils Tower spar to the Blind Faith prospect is placed into
service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007 we will begin construction on our Perdido Norte project
which includes oil and gas lines that expand the scale of our
existing infrastructure in the western deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico. Additionally, we will be expanding our Markham gas
processing facility to adequately serve this new gas production.
The project is estimated to cost approximately $480 million
and be in service in the third quarter of 2009.
|
|
|
|
We are currently negotiating with our customer in Venezuela to
resolve approximately $14 million in past due invoices
related to labor escalation charges. The customer is not
disputing the index used to calculate these charges and we have
calculated the charges according to the terms of the contract.
The customer does, however, believe the index has resulted in a
disproportionate escalation over time. We believe the
receivables, net of associated reserves, are fully collectible.
Although we believe our negotiations will be successful, failure
to resolve this matter could ultimately trigger default
noncompliance provisions in the services agreement.
|
|
|
|
The Venezuelan government continues its public criticism of
U.S. economic and political policy, has implemented
unilateral changes to existing energy related contracts,
continues to publicly declare that additional energy contracts
will be unilaterally amended, and that privately held assets
will be expropriated, indicating that a level of political risk
still remains.
|
Year-Over-Year
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
4,124.7
|
|
|
$
|
3,232.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,882.6
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic gathering &
processing
|
|
|
626.8
|
|
|
|
379.7
|
|
|
|
385.8
|
|
Venezuela
|
|
|
98.4
|
|
|
|
94.7
|
|
|
|
85.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
|
|
134.0
|
|
Indirect general and
administrative
expense
|
|
|
(70.3
|
)
|
|
|
(65.5
|
)
|
|
|
(55.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
658.3
|
|
|
$
|
471.2
|
|
|
$
|
549.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to provide additional clarity, our managements
discussion and analysis of operating results separately reflects
the portion of general and administrative expense not allocated
to an asset group as indirect general and administrative
expense. These charges represent any overhead
cost not directly attributable to one of the specific asset
groups noted in this discussion.
2006 vs.
2005
The $892.0 million increase in segment revenues is
largely due to:
|
|
|
|
|
A $561 million increase in crude marketing revenues, which
is offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from
additional deepwater production coming on-line in November 2005;
|
|
|
|
A $165 million increase in revenues associated with the
production of NGLs, primarily due to higher NGL prices combined
with higher volumes;
|
|
|
|
A $137 million increase in the marketing of NGLs and
olefins, which is offset by a similar change in costs;
|
|
|
|
An $83 million increase in fee-based revenues including
$52 million in higher production handling revenues;
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
A $44 million increase in revenues in our olefins unit due
to higher volumes.
|
These increases were partially offset by an $84 million
reduction in NGL revenues due to a change in classification of
NGL transportation and fractionation expenses from costs of
goods sold to net revenues (offset in costs and operating
expenses).
Segment costs and expenses increased $707.3 million
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
|
|
A $561 million increase in crude marketing purchases, which
is offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
|
|
|
A $137 million increase in NGL and olefins marketing
purchases, offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
|
|
|
An $82 million increase in operating expenses including a
$10.6 million accounts payable accrual adjustment, higher
system losses, depreciation, insurance expense, personnel and
related benefit expenses, turbine overhauls, materials and
supplies, compression and post-hurricane inspection and survey
costs required by a government agency;
|
|
|
|
A $59 million increase in other expense including the
$68 million estimated exposure for actual damages for the
Gulf Liquids litigation, partially offset by a $9 million
favorable settlement of a contract dispute;
|
|
|
|
A $20 million increase in costs associated with production
in our olefins unit.
|
These increases were partially offset by:
|
|
|
|
|
An $84 million reduction in NGL transportation and
fractionation expenses due to the above-noted change in
classification (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
A $77 million decrease in plant fuel and costs associated
with the production of NGLs due primarily to lower gas prices.
|
The $187.1 million increase in Midstream segment profit
is primarily due to higher NGL margins, higher deepwater
production handling revenues, higher gathering and processing
revenues, higher margins from our olefins unit, and a settlement
of an international contract dispute, largely offset by the
$72.7 million charge related to the Gulf Liquids litigation
contingency combined with higher operating costs and lower
margins related to the marketing of olefins and NGLs. A more
detailed analysis of the segment profit of
Midstreams various operations is presented as follows.
Domestic
gathering & processing
The $247.1 million increase in domestic gathering and
processing segment profit includes a $143 million
increase in the West region and a $104 million increase in
the Gulf Coast region.
The $143 million increase in our West regions
segment profit primarily results from higher product
margins and higher gathering and processing revenues, partially
offset by higher operating expenses. The significant components
of this increase include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
NGL margins increased $166 million compared to 2005. This
increase was driven by a decrease in costs associated with the
production of NGLs, an increase in average per unit NGL prices
and higher volumes resulting from lower NGL recoveries during
the fourth quarter of 2005 caused by intermittent periods of
uneconomical market commodity prices and a power outage and
associated operational issues at our Opal, Wyoming facility. NGL
margins are defined as NGL revenues less BTU replacement cost,
plant fuel, transportation and fractionation expense.
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing fee revenues increased
$26 million. Gathering fees are higher as a result of
higher average
per-unit
gathering rates. Processing volumes are higher due to customers
electing to take liquids and pay processing fees.
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $51 million including
$11 million in higher net system product losses as a result
of system gains in 2005 compared to losses in 2006, a
$7 million accounts payable accrual adjustment;
$8 million in higher personnel and related benefit
expenses; $6 million in higher materials
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
and supplies; $6 million in higher gathering fuel,
$4 million in higher leased compression costs;
$4 million in higher turbine overhaul costs; and
$4 million in higher depreciation.
|
The $104 million increase in the Gulf Coast regions
segment profit is primarily a result of higher NGL
margins, higher volumes from our deepwater facilities, partially
offset by higher operating expenses. The significant components
of this increase include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
NGL margins increased $77 million compared to 2005. This
increase was driven by an increase in average per unit NGL
prices and a decrease in costs associated with the production of
NGLs.
|
|
|
|
Fee revenues from our deepwater assets increased
$52 million as a result of $51 million in higher
volumes flowing across the Devils Tower facility and
$22 million in higher Devils Tower
unit-of-production
rates recognized as a result of a new reserve study. These
increases are partially offset by a $21 million decline in
other gathering and production handling revenues due to volume
declines in other areas.
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $25 million primarily as a
result of $12 million in higher insurance costs,
$4 million in higher depreciation expense on our deepwater
assets, $3 million in higher net system product losses as a
result of lower gain volumes in 2006, $2 million in
post-hurricane inspection and survey costs required by a
government agency, and a $1 million accounts payable
accrual adjustment.
|
Venezuela
Segment profit for our Venezuela assets increased
$3.7 million and includes $9 million resulting from
the settlement of a contract dispute and $1 million in
higher revenues due to higher natural gas volumes and prices at
our compression facility. These are partially offset by
$4 million in higher expenses related to higher insurance,
personnel and contract labor costs and a $2 million
increase in the reserve for uncollectible accounts.
Other
The $58.9 million decrease in segment profit of our
other operations is largely due to the $72.7 million of
charges related to the Gulf Liquids litigation contingency
combined with $13 million in lower margins related to the
marketing of olefins. The decrease also reflects
$12 million in lower margins related to the marketing of
NGLs due to more favorable changes in pricing while product was
in transit during 2005 as compared to 2006. These were partially
offset by $24 million in higher margins in our olefins
unit, $7 million in higher earnings from our equity
investment in Discovery Producer Services, L.L.C. (Discovery),
$7 million in higher fractionation, storage and other fee
revenues, and a $4 million favorable transportation
settlement.
2005 vs.
2004
The $350.1 million increase in segment revenues is
largely due to:
|
|
|
|
|
A $196 million increase in crude marketing revenues, which
is offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from the start
up of a deepwater pipeline in the second quarter of 2004;
|
|
|
|
A $72 million increase in revenues associated with
production of NGLs, primarily due to $180 million in higher
NGL prices partially offset by $108 million in lower sales
volumes. The decline in sales volumes in our Gulf Coast region
is largely due to the impact of summer hurricanes, while the
decline in the West region is largely due to the higher levels
of NGL rejection as well as maintenance issues with our gas
processing facility at Opal, Wyoming;
|
|
|
|
A $58 million increase in the marketing of NGLs, which is
offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from higher
prices and additional spot sales;
|
|
|
|
A $21 million increase in fee-based revenues in part due to
higher customer production volumes flowing to our West region
and deepwater assets.
|
Costs and operating expenses increased
$364.1 million primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
|
|
A $196 million increase in crude marketing purchases, which
is offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
A $92 million increase in costs related to the production
of NGLs as a result of $100 million in higher natural gas
purchases due largely to higher prices, partially offset by
lower volumes;
|
|
|
|
A $58 million increase related to the marketing of NGLs and
additional spot purchases, which is offset by a similar change
in revenues;
|
|
|
|
A $33 million increase in operating expenses mostly due to
higher fuel expense and commodity costs associated with our NGL
storage and fractionation business and higher depreciation
expense.
|
The $78.5 million decline in Midstream segment profit
is primarily due to the absence of the $93.6 million
gain from the Gulf Liquids insurance arbitration award in
2004. The offsetting increase in segment profit is primarily due
to higher fee revenues from our domestic gathering and
processing and Venezuela businesses and higher earnings from our
investment in the Discovery partnership, partially offset by
lower NGL margins and higher operating costs. A more detailed
analysis of the segment profit of Midstreams various
operations is presented below.
Domestic
gathering & processing
The $6.1 million decrease in domestic gathering and
processing segment profit includes a $30 million
decline in the Gulf Coast region, largely offset by a
$24 million increase in the West region.
The $24 million increase in our West regions
segment profit primarily results from higher gathering
and processing fee revenues, and the absence of an asset
write-down and other 2004 charges, offset partially by higher
operating expenses and lower NGL margins. The significant
drivers to these items are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing fee revenues increased $18 million
primarily as a result of higher average
per-unit
gathering and processing rates and higher volumes in the Rocky
Mountain production area due to increased drilling activity. A
portion of this increase is also due to the increase in volumes
subject to fee-based processing contracts.
|
|
|
|
A favorable variance due to the absence of the write-down of
$7.6 million for an idle treating facility in 2004.
|
|
|
|
NGL margins decreased $6 million due to a $17 million
impact from lower sales volumes resulting from lower fourth
quarter 2005 NGL recoveries caused by intermittent periods of
uneconomical market commodity prices and a power outage and
associated operational issues at our Opal, Wyoming facility. NGL
margins are defined as NGL revenues less BTU replacement cost,
plant fuel, transportation and fractionation expense. The impact
of lower volumes is partially offset by an $11 million
impact of higher per unit NGL margins.
|
The $30 million decrease in the Gulf Coast regions
segment profit is primarily a result of higher operating
and depreciation expenses and lower NGL margins. The significant
components of this decline include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $10 million primarily due to
higher maintenance expenses related to our gathering assets,
compressor overhauls, and an increase in hurricane-related costs
of $2 million. Inspection and repair expenses related to
the hurricanes were recorded as incurred up to the level of our
insurance deductible.
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $13 million primarily due to
placing in service our Devils Tower spar and associated
deepwater gas and oil pipelines in May and June 2004,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
NGL margins declined $14 million due to lower volumes,
largely due to the impact of summer hurricanes, and the increase
in natural gas prices. While revenues from the Devils Tower
deepwater facility are recognized as volumes are delivered over
the life of the reserves, cash payments from our customers are
based on a contractual fixed fee received over a defined term.
As a result, $44 million of cash received in 2005, which is
included in cash flow from operations, was deferred at
December 31, 2005 and will be recognized as revenue in
periods subsequent to 2005. The total amount deferred for all
years as of December 31, 2005 was $80 million.
|
61
Venezuela
Segment profit for our Venezuela assets increased
$9.1 million as a result of higher plant volumes and higher
equity earnings from our investment in the ACCROVEN partnership.
The higher equity earnings are largely due to the renegotiation
of a power supply contract and the absence of 2004 legal fees
associated with the Jose Terminal.
Other
The $71.7 million decrease in segment profit of our
other operations is largely due to the absence of the
$93.6 million gain from the Gulf Liquids insurance
arbitration award and a $9.5 million gain on the sale of
the Choctaw ethylene distribution assets in 2004 partially
offset by $7 million in higher olefins and commodity
margins, $6 million in higher earnings from our equity
investment in the Discovery partnership, and the absence of a
2004 $16.9 million impairment charge also related to our
equity investment in the Discovery partnership.
Indirect
general and administrative expense
The $9.8 million unfavorable variance for our indirect
general and administrative expenses is primarily due to
higher employee expenses and administrative costs associated
with the creation of Williams Partners L.P.
Power
Overview
of 2006
Powers operating results for 2006 reflect an accrual gross
margin loss on its nonderivative tolling contracts. Powers
results in 2006 were also influenced by a decrease in forward
power prices against a net long derivative position, which
caused net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
(MTM) losses. Powers results do not reflect, however, cash
flows that Power realized in 2006 from hedges for which
mark-to-market
gains or losses had been previously recognized.
In 2006, Power continued to focus on its objectives of
minimizing financial risk, maximizing cash flow, meeting
contractual commitments, executing new contracts to hedge its
portfolio and providing services that support our natural gas
businesses.
Outlook
for 2007
For 2007, Power intends to service its customers needs
while increasing the certainty of cash flows from its long-term
tolling contracts by executing new long-term electricity and
capacity sales contracts. In the first quarter of 2007, Power
executed agreements to sell dispatch and tolling rights and
supply natural gas in southern California for periods through
2011. These contracts mirror Powers rights under its
California tolling agreement and represent up to
1,920 megawatts of power.
As Power continues to apply hedge accounting in 2007, its future
earnings may be less volatile. However, not all of Powers
derivative contracts qualify for hedge accounting. Application
of hedge accounting requires quantitative and qualitative
analysis. To qualify for hedge accounting, Power must assess
derivatives for their expected effectiveness in offsetting the
risk being hedged. In addition, it must assess whether the
hedged forecasted transaction is probable of occurring. If Power
no longer expects the hedge to be highly effective, or if it
believes that the hedged forecasted transaction is no longer
probable of occurring, it would discontinue hedge accounting
prospectively and recognize future changes in fair value
directly to earnings.
Because certain derivative contracts qualifying for hedge
accounting were previously
marked-to-market
through earnings prior to their designation as cash flow hedges,
the amounts recognized in future earnings under hedge accounting
will not necessarily align with the expected cash flows to be
realized from the settlement of those derivatives. For example,
future earnings may reflect losses from underlying transactions,
such as natural gas purchases and power sales associated with
our tolling contracts, which have been hedged by derivatives. A
portion of the offsetting gains from these hedges, however, has
already been recognized in prior periods under
mark-to-market
accounting. So, while earnings in a reported period may not
reflect the full amount realized from our hedges, cash flows
will continue to reflect the total amount from both the hedged
transactions and the
62
hedges. In 2006, 2005 and 2004 Power had positive cash flows
from operations, and expects to continue to have positive cash
flows from operations in 2007.
Even with the application of hedge accounting, Powers
earnings will continue to reflect
mark-to-market
volatility from unrealized gains and losses resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
Market movements of commodity-based derivatives that represent
economic hedges but which do not qualify for hedge accounting;
|
|
|
|
Ineffectiveness of cash flow hedges, primarily caused by
locational differences between the hedging derivative and the
hedged item or changes in the creditworthiness of counterparties;
|
|
|
|
Market movements of commodity-based derivatives that are held
for trading purposes.
|
The fair value of Powers tolling, full requirements,
transportation, storage and transmission contracts is not
reflected on the balance sheet since these contracts are not
derivatives. Some of these contracts have a significant negative
estimated fair value and could result in future operating
losses. Powers estimate of fair value may differ
significantly from a third partys estimate. Powers
estimate of fair value is based on internal valuation
assumptions, which include assumptions of natural gas prices,
electricity prices, price volatility, correlation of gas and
electricity, and many other inputs. Some of these assumptions
are readily available in the market, while others are not.
Key factors that may influence Powers financial condition
and operating performance include:
|
|
|
|
|
Prices of power and natural gas, including changes in the margin
between power and natural gas prices;
|
|
|
|
Changes in power and natural gas price volatility;
|
|
|
|
Changes in power and natural gas supply and demand;
|
|
|
|
Changes in the regulatory environment;
|
|
|
|
The inability of counterparties to perform under contractual
obligations due to their own credit constraints;
|
|
|
|
Changes in interest rates;
|
|
|
|
Changes in market liquidity, including changes in the ability to
effectively hedge commodity price risk;
|
|
|
|
The inability to apply hedge accounting.
|
Year-Over-Year
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Realized revenues
|
|
$
|
7,484.6
|
|
|
$
|
8,921.8
|
|
|
$
|
8,954.7
|
|
Net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses)
|
|
|
(22.2
|
)
|
|
|
172.1
|
|
|
|
304.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
|
7,462.4
|
|
|
|
9,093.9
|
|
|
|
9,258.7
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
7,619.8
|
|
|
|
9,150.3
|
|
|
|
9,073.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
(157.4
|
)
|
|
|
(56.4
|
)
|
|
|
185.4
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
22.2
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses
|
|
|
62.2
|
|
|
|
64.5
|
|
|
|
83.2
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
(26.8
|
)
|
|
|
113.6
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
(210.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(256.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
2006 vs.
2005
The $1.4 billion decrease in realized revenues is
primarily due to a decrease in power and natural gas realized
revenues. Realized revenues represent (1) revenue from the
sale of commodities or completion of energy-related services and
(2) gains and losses from the net financial settlement of
derivative contracts.
Power and natural gas realized revenues decreased primarily due
to a 20 percent decrease in power sales volumes and a
17 percent decrease in average natural gas sales prices.
Power sales volumes decreased because certain long-term physical
contracts were not replaced due to reducing the scope of trading
activities subsequent to 2002.
Net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses) represent changes in the fair values of
certain derivative contracts with a future settlement or
delivery date that have not been designated as cash flow hedges
and the impact of the ineffectiveness of cash flow hedges. The
effect of changes in forward prices on power contracts not
designated as cash flow hedges primarily caused the
$194.3 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses). A 2005 increase in forward power prices
caused gains on the net forward purchase position, while a 2006
decrease in forward power prices caused losses on the net
forward power purchase contracts.
The $1.5 billion decrease in Powers cost of sales
is primarily due to a 20 percent decrease in power
purchase volumes and an 18 percent decrease in average
natural gas purchase prices.
The decrease in selling, general and administrative expenses
is due primarily to increased gains from the sale of certain
Enron receivables to a third party. Power recognized a
$24.8 million gain in 2006 compared to a $9.7 million
gain in 2005.
Other (income) expense net in 2006 includes a
$12.7 million reduction of contingent obligations
associated with our former distributive power generation
business.
Other (income) expense net in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $82.2 million accrual for estimated litigation
contingencies, primarily associated with agreements reached to
substantially resolve exposure related to natural gas price and
volume reporting issues (see Note 15 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements);
|
|
|
|
A $4.6 million accrual for a regulatory settlement;
|
|
|
|
A $23 million impairment of an equity investment (see
Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).
|
The decrease in segment loss is primarily due to
favorable changes in other (income) expense net
described above, partially offset by a decrease in gross
margin.
2005 vs.
2004
The $164.8 million decrease in revenues includes a
$32.9 million decrease in realized revenues and a
$131.9 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to -market gains (losses).
The $32.9 million decrease in realized revenues is
primarily due to the absence in 2005 of $471 million in
crude and refined products realized revenues, partially offset
by a $444 million increase in power and natural gas
realized revenues. The absence of crude and refined products
revenues is due to the sale of the refined products business in
2004. Power and natural gas realized revenues increased
primarily due to a 33 percent increase in average natural
gas sales prices and a 17 percent increase in average power
sales prices. Hurricane Katrina, among other factors,
contributed to the increase in prices. A 29 percent
decrease in power sales volumes partially offsets the increase
in prices. Power sales volumes decreased because Power did not
replace certain long-term physical contracts that expired or
were terminated and because of mild weather in California, which
resulted in lower demand.
The $131.9 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses) is primarily due to a $165 million
decrease associated with power and gas derivative contracts,
partially offset by the absence in 2005 of a $38 million
unrealized loss on the interest rate portfolio in 2004.
64
The decrease in power and gas unrealized
mark-to-market
gains primarily results from the impact of cash flow hedge
accounting, which was prospectively applied to certain of
Powers derivative contracts beginning October 1,
2004. Net unrealized gains of $711 million related to the
effective portion of the hedges are reported in accumulated
other comprehensive loss in 2005 compared to
$15 million in 2004. If Power had not applied cash flow
hedge accounting in 2005, we would have reported the
$711 million in revenues instead of in
accumulated other comprehensive loss. Also in 2005, Power
recognized losses of $6.8 million representing a correction
of unrealized losses associated with a prior year. Our
management concluded that the effects of this correction are not
material to prior periods, 2005 results, or our trend of
earnings. Partially offsetting these decreases is the effect of
a greater increase in forward power prices on a greater volume
of power purchase contracts in 2005 compared to 2004, resulting
in increased unrealized
mark-to-market
gains on net power derivatives that are not accounted for as
cash flow hedges.
The absence in 2005 of the unrealized loss on the interest rate
portfolio is due to the termination and liquidation of all
remaining interest-rate derivatives in fourth quarter 2004. A
decrease in forward interest rates caused unrealized losses in
the interest rate portfolio in 2004.
The $77 million increase in Powers cost of sales
is primarily due to an increase in power and natural gas
costs of $563 million, partially offset by a decrease in
crude and refined products costs of $486 million. Power and
natural gas costs increased primarily due to a 32 percent
increase in average power purchase prices and a 44 percent
increase in average natural gas purchase prices, partially
offset by a 29 percent decrease in power purchase volumes.
Hurricane Katrina, among other factors, contributed to the
increase in prices. Costs in 2005 include approximately
$8 million in purchases due to an outage at an electric
generating facility that Power has access to via a fuel
conversion service agreement. A 2004 reduction to certain
contingent loss accruals of $10.4 million associated with
power marketing activities in California during 2000 and 2001
also contributes to the increase in costs. Costs in 2004 include
$486 million of crude and refined products costs, which are
absent in 2005 due to the sale of the refined products business
in 2004. Costs in 2004 also reflect a $13 million payment
made to terminate a nonderivative power sales contract.
Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased
primarily due to decreased employee incentive compensation and
decreased costs for outside services. A $9.7 million
reduction of allowance for bad debts resulting from the sale of
certain receivables to a third party also contributed to the
decrease in SG&A expenses. SG&A
expenses in 2004 include a $6.3 million reduction of
allowance for bad debts resulting from a 2004 settlement with
certain California utilities.
Other (income) expense net in 2004 includes
$6.1 million in fees paid related to the sale of certain
receivables to a third party.
Although increased gas prices favorably impacted the fair value
of Powers derivative natural gas hedges, the
$333.4 million change from a segment profit to a
segment loss is primarily due to the impact of cash flow
hedge accounting. Additionally, plant outages and depressed
margin spreads between the cost of gas and sales price of
electricity contributed to lower segment profit. Accruals
in 2005 for litigation contingencies and an impairment of an
equity investment also contributed to the change in segment
profit (loss). Partially offsetting the decrease in
segment profit is the absence in 2005 of unrealized and
realized losses from the interest rate portfolio, which was
liquidated in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Other
Overview
of 2006
While we continue to have an equity ownership interest in
Longhorn, the management of Longhorn completed an asset sale of
the pipeline during the third quarter of 2006. As a result, we
received full payment of the $10 million secured bridge
loan that we provided Longhorn during 2005. The carrying value
of our equity investment in Longhorn is zero as of
December 31, 2006.
We continue to receive payments associated with the 2005
transfer of the Longhorn operating agreement to a third party.
These payments totaled approximately $3.3 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Any ongoing
65
payments received or through monetization of the contract will
be recognized as income when received. These ongoing payments
were not impacted by the sale of the pipeline.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
27.2
|
|
|
$
|
32.8
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
(105.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(41.6
|
)
|
2006 vs.
2005
Other segment profit for 2006 includes $3.3 million
in payments received related to the 2005 transfer of the
Longhorn operating agreement.
Other segment loss for 2005 includes $87.2 million
of impairment charges, of which $38.1 million was recorded
during the fourth quarter, related to our investment in
Longhorn. In a related matter, we wrote off $4 million of
capitalized project costs associated with Longhorn. We also
recorded $23.7 million of equity losses associated with our
investment in Longhorn. Partially offsetting these charges and
losses was a $9 million fourth quarter gain on the sale of
land.
2005 vs.
2004
Other segment loss for 2005 includes various items which
are discussed above.
Other segment loss for 2004 includes $11.8 million
of accrued environmental remediation expense associated with the
Augusta refinery. Also included in Other segment loss is
$10.8 million of impairment charges related to our
investment in Longhorn, $9.8 million of equity losses
associated with our investment in Longhorn, and
$6.5 million of net unreimbursed advisory fees related to
the recapitalization of Longhorn.
Energy
Trading Activities
Fair
Value of Trading and Nontrading Derivatives
The chart below reflects the fair value of derivatives held for
trading purposes as of December 31, 2006. We have presented
the fair value of assets and liabilities by the period in which
we expect them to be realized.
Net
Assets (Liabilities) Trading
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
|
|
1-12 Months
|
|
13-36 Months
|
|
|
37-60 Months
|
|
|
61-120 Months
|
|
|
121+ Months
|
|
|
Net
|
|
(Year 1)
|
|
(Years 2-3)
|
|
|
(Years 4-5)
|
|
|
(Years 6-10)
|
|
|
(Years 11+)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$3
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
As the table above illustrates, we are not materially engaged in
trading activities. However, we hold a substantial portfolio of
nontrading derivative contracts. Nontrading derivative contracts
are those that hedge or could possibly hedge forecasted
transactions on an economic basis. We have designated certain of
these contracts as cash flow hedges of Powers forecasted
purchases of gas, its purchases and sales of power related to
its long-term structured contracts and owned generation, and
Exploration & Productions forecasted sales of
natural gas production. Certain of Powers other
derivatives have not been designated as or do not qualify as
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities
(SFAS 133) cash flow hedges. The chart below reflects
the fair value of derivatives held for nontrading purposes as of
December 31, 2006, for the Power and Exploration &
Production businesses. Of the total fair value of nontrading
derivatives, SFAS 133 cash flow hedges had a net asset
value of $360 million as of December 31, 2006, which
includes the existing fair value of the derivatives at the time
of their designation as SFAS 133 cash flow hedges.
66
Net
Assets (Liabilities) Nontrading
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
|
|
1-12 Months
|
|
13-36 Months
|
|
|
37-60 Months
|
|
|
61-120 Months
|
|
|
121+ Months
|
|
|
Net
|
|
(Year 1)
|
|
(Years 2-3)
|
|
|
(Years 4-5)
|
|
|
(Years 6-10)
|
|
|
(Years 11+)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$94
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
|
$
|
88
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
433
|
|
Methods
of Estimating Fair Value
Most of the derivatives we hold settle in active periods and
markets in which quoted market prices are available. These
include futures contracts, option contracts, swap agreements and
physical commodity purchases and sales in the commodity markets
in which we transact. While an active market may not exist for
the entire period, quoted prices can generally be obtained for
natural gas through 2012 and power through 2011.
These prices reflect current economic and regulatory conditions
and may change because of market conditions. The availability of
quoted market prices in active markets varies between periods
and commodities based upon changes in market conditions. The
ability to obtain quoted market prices also varies greatly from
region to region. The time periods noted above are an estimation
of aggregate availability of quoted prices. An immaterial
portion of our total net derivative value of $436 million
relates to periods in which active quotes cannot be obtained. We
estimate energy commodity prices in these illiquid periods by
incorporating information about commodity prices in actively
quoted markets, quoted prices in less active markets, and other
market fundamental analysis. Modeling and other valuation
techniques, however, are not used significantly in determining
the fair value of our derivatives.
Counterparty
Credit Considerations
We include an assessment of the risk of counterparty
nonperformance in our estimate of fair value for all contracts.
Such assessment considers (1) the credit rating of each
counterparty as represented by public rating agencies such as
Standard & Poors and Moodys Investors
Service, (2) the inherent default probabilities within
these ratings, (3) the regulatory environment that the
contract is subject to and (4) the terms of each individual
contract.
Risks surrounding counterparty performance and credit could
ultimately impact the amount and timing of expected cash flows.
We continually assess this risk. We have credit protection
within various agreements to call on additional collateral
support if necessary. At December 31, 2006, we held
collateral support, including letters of credit, of
$695 million.
We also enter into master netting agreements to mitigate
counterparty performance and credit risk. During 2006 and 2005,
we did not incur any significant losses due to recent
counterparty bankruptcy filings.
The gross credit exposure from our derivative contracts as of
December 31, 2006, is summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
248.0
|
|
|
$
|
249.9
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
412.7
|
|
|
|
1,784.3
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
29.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,903.4
|
|
|
|
4,283.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,263.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
We assess our credit exposure on a net basis to reflect master
netting agreements in place with certain counterparties. We
offset our credit exposure to each counterparty with amounts we
owe the counterparty under derivative contracts. The net credit
exposure from our derivatives as of December 31, 2006, is
summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
120.4
|
|
|
$
|
120.5
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
209.0
|
|
|
|
455.4
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
675.3
|
|
|
|
921.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
901.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
We determine investment grade primarily using publicly available
credit ratings. We included counterparties with a minimum
Standard & Poors rating of BBB- or Moodys
Investors Service rating of Baa3 in investment grade. We also
classify counterparties that have provided sufficient
collateral, such as cash, standby letters of credit, adequate
parent company guarantees, and property interests, as investment
grade. |
Trading
Policy
We have policies and procedures that govern our trading and risk
management activities. These policies cover authority and
delegation thereof in addition to control requirements,
authorized commodities and term and exposure limitations.
Powers
value-at-risk
is limited in aggregate and calculated at a 95 percent
confidence level.
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
Outlook
We believe we have, or have access to, the financial resources
and liquidity necessary to meet future requirements for working
capital, capital and investment expenditures and debt payments
while maintaining a sufficient level of liquidity to reasonably
protect against unforeseen circumstances requiring the use of
funds. In 2007, we expect to maintain liquidity from cash and
cash equivalents and unused revolving credit facilities of at
least $1 billion. We maintain adequate liquidity to manage
margin requirements related to significant movements in
commodity prices, unplanned capital spending needs, near term
scheduled debt payments, and litigation and other settlements.
We expect to fund capital and investment expenditures, debt
payments, dividends, and working capital requirements through
cash flow from operations, which is currently estimated to be
between $2 billion and $2.3 billion in 2007, proceeds
from debt issuances and sales of units of Williams Partners
L.P., as well as cash and cash equivalents on hand as needed.
We enter 2007 positioned for growth through disciplined
investments in our natural gas businesses. Examples of this
planned growth include:
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production will continue to maintain its
development drilling program in its key basins of Piceance,
Powder River, San Juan, Arkoma, and Fort Worth. During
2006, all ten
state-of-the-art
FlexRig4®
drilling rigs were placed in service in the Piceance basin
pursuant to our March 2005 contract with Helmerich &
Payne. Each rig is leased for three years.
|
|
|
|
Gas Pipeline will continue to expand its system to meet the
demand of growth markets.
|
|
|
|
Midstream will continue to pursue significant deepwater
production commitments and expand capacity in the western United
States.
|
We estimate capital and investment expenditures will total
approximately $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion in 2007. As
a result of increasing our development drilling program,
$1.3 billion to $1.4 billion of the total estimated
2007
68
capital expenditures is related to Exploration &
Production. Also within the total estimated expenditures for
2007 is approximately $215 million to $270 million for
maintenance-related projects at Gas Pipeline, including pipeline
replacement and Clean Air Act compliance. Commitments for
construction and acquisition of property, plant and equipment
are approximately $406 million at December 31, 2006.
Potential risks associated with our planned levels of liquidity
and the planned capital and investment expenditures discussed
above include:
|
|
|
|
|
Lower than expected levels of cash flow from operations due to
commodity pricing volatility. To mitigate this exposure,
Exploration & Production has economically hedged the
price of natural gas for approximately 172 MMcfe per day of
its expected 2007 production. In addition, Exploration &
Production has collar agreements for each month of 2007 which
hedge approximately 270 MMcfe per day of expected 2007
production. Power has entered into various sales contracts that
economically cover substantially all of its fixed demand
obligations through 2010.
|
|
|
|
Sensitivity of margin requirements associated with our
marginable commodity contracts. As of December 31, 2006, we
estimate our exposure to additional margin requirements through
2007 to be no more than $521 million, using a statistical
analysis at a 99 percent confidence level.
|
|
|
|
Exposure associated with our efforts to resolve regulatory and
litigation issues (see Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements).
|
In August 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 was signed
into law. The Act makes significant changes to the requirements
for employer-sponsored retirement plans, including revisions
affecting the funding of defined benefit pension plans beginning
in 2008. We are assessing the impact of the legislation on our
future funding requirements, but do not expect a significant
increase in required contributions over current levels, assuming
long-term rates of return on assets and current discount rates
do not experience a significant decline.
Overview
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to induce conversion of
up to $300 million of the 5.5 percent junior
subordinated convertible debentures into our common stock. The
conversion was executed in January 2006 and approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures were exchanged for common
stock. We paid $25.8 million in premiums that are included
in early debt retirement costs in the Consolidated
Statement of Income. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for further information.
In April 2006, Transco issued $200 million aggregate
principal amount of 6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due
2016 to certain institutional investors in a private debt
placement to fund general corporate expenses and capital
expenditures. In October 2006, Transco completed an exchange of
these notes for substantially identical new notes that are
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline issued $175 million
aggregate principal amount of 7 percent senior unsecured
notes due 2016 to certain institutional investors in a private
debt placement to fund general corporate expenses and capital
expenditures. In October 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed an
exchange of these notes for substantially identical new notes
that are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. On
February 9, 2007, the court gave its final approval of the
settlement. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second quarter 2006. Our portion of the
total payment was $145 million.
69
On June 1, 2006, the FERC entered its final order (FERC
Final Order) concerning the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
Quality Bank litigation. The Quality Bank Administrator will
determine and invoice for amounts due based on the FERC Final
Order, subject to the final disposition of the FERC Final Order
appeals. We estimate that our net obligation could be as much as
$116 million. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of 7.5 percent senior unsecured notes due
2011 and an equity offering of approximately $225 million
in net proceeds. In December 2006, Williams Partners L.P.
acquired the remaining 74.9 percent interest in Williams
Four Corners LLC for $1.223 billion. The acquisition was
completed after Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a
$600 million private debt offering of 7.25 percent
senior unsecured notes due 2017, a private equity offering of
approximately $350 million of common and Class B
units, and a public equity offering of approximately
$294 million in net proceeds. The debt and equity issued by
Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a component of our
consolidated debt balance and minority interest balance,
respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain gathering,
processing and treating assets in the San Juan Basin in
Colorado and New Mexico.
Exploration & Production has recently entered into a
five-year unsecured credit agreement with certain banks in order
to reduce margin requirements related to our hedging activities
as well as lower transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any,
under this new facility are dependent on the level of hedging
and on natural gas reserves value.
Credit
ratings
On May 4, 2006, Standard & Poors raised our
senior unsecured debt rating from a B+ to a BB- with a positive
ratings outlook. With respect to Standard &
Poors, a rating of BBB or above indicates an
investment grade rating. A rating below BBB
indicates that the security has significant speculative
characteristics. A BB rating indicates that
Standard & Poors believes the issuer has the
capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation, but
adverse business conditions could lead to insufficient ability
to meet financial commitments. Standard & Poors
may modify its ratings with a + or a
sign to show the obligors relative
standing within a major rating category.
On June 7, 2006, Moodys Investors Service raised our
senior unsecured debt rating from a B1 to a Ba2 with a stable
ratings outlook. With respect to Moodys, a rating of
Baa or above indicates an investment grade rating. A
rating below Baa is considered to have speculative
elements. A Ba rating indicates an obligation that
is judged to have speculative elements and is subject to
substantial credit risk. The 1, 2 and
3 modifiers show the relative standing within a
major category. A 1 indicates that an obligation
ranks in the higher end of the broad rating category,
2 indicates a mid-range ranking, and 3
ranking at the lower end of the category.
On May 15, 2006, Fitch Ratings raised our senior unsecured
rating from BB to BB+ with a stable ratings outlook. With
respect to Fitch, a rating of BBB or above indicates
an investment grade rating. A rating below BBB is
considered speculative grade. A BB rating from Fitch
indicates that there is a possibility of credit risk developing,
particularly as the result of adverse economic change over time;
however, business or financial alternatives may be available to
allow financial commitments to be met. Fitch may add a
+ or a sign to show the
obligors relative standing within a major rating category.
Our goal is to attain investment grade ratios at some point in
the future.
Liquidity
Our internal and external sources of liquidity include cash
generated from our operations, bank financings, and proceeds
from the issuance of long-term debt and equity securities, and
proceeds from asset sales. While most of our sources are
available to us at the parent level, others are available to
certain of our subsidiaries, including equity and debt issuances
from Williams Partners L.P. Our ability to raise funds in the
capital markets will be impacted by our financial condition,
interest rates, market conditions, and industry conditions.
70
Available
Liquidity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents*
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
Auction rate securities and other
liquid securities
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
Available capacity under our four
unsecured revolving and letter of credit facilities totaling
$1.2 billion
|
|
|
304.9
|
|
Available capacity under our
$1.5 billion unsecured revolving and letter of credit
facility**
|
|
|
1,471.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,147.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Cash and cash equivalents includes $128.7 million of
funds received from third parties as collateral. The obligation
for these amounts is reported as customer margin deposits
payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Also included is
$347 million of cash and cash equivalents that is being
utilized by certain subsidiary and international operations. |
|
** |
|
This facility is guaranteed by Williams Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. Northwest Pipeline and Transco each have access to
$400 million under this facility to the extent not utilized
by us. Williams Partners L.P. has access to $75 million, to
the extent not utilized by us, that we guarantee. |
In addition to the above, Northwest Pipeline and Transco have
shelf registration statements available for the issuance of up
to $350 million aggregate principal amount of debt
securities. The ability of Northwest Pipeline to utilize their
registration statement to issue debt securities is restricted by
certain covenants of its debt agreements. If the credit rating
of Northwest Pipeline or Transco is below investment grade, they
can only use their shelf registration statements to issue debt
if such debt is guaranteed by us.
Williams Partners L.P. has a shelf registration statement
available for the issuance of approximately $1.2 billion
aggregate principal amount of debt and limited partnership unit
securities.
In addition, at the parent-company level, we have a shelf
registration statement that allows us to issue publicly
registered debt and equity securities as needed. This
registration statement, filed May 19, 2006, replaces our
previously filed shelf registration.
Sources
(Uses) of Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
1,889.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,449.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,487.9
|
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
1,103.2
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
(3,505.5
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(2,321.4
|
)
|
|
|
(819.2
|
)
|
|
|
629.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
671.4
|
|
|
$
|
667.2
|
|
|
$
|
(1,388.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
Activities
Our net cash provided by operating activities in 2006
increased from 2005 due largely to higher operating income at
Midstream, partially offset by a $145 million securities
litigation settlement payment in fourth quarter 2006.
Our 2005 net cash provided by operating activities
decreased slightly from 2004. A primary driver in net
cash provided by operating activities is income from
continuing operations, which increased primarily as a result
of higher gas production volumes and net average realized prices
for production sold. Also contributing to the increase in income
from continuing operations is the reduction in interest expense
due to lower average borrowing levels.
71
Cash payments for interest decreased $224 million from
2004. In addition to the changes in results of operations, net
cash inflows from margin deposits and customer margin deposits
payable decreased significantly from 2004. In 2004, our Power
subsidiary issued a significant number of letters of credit to
replace its cash margin deposits. As the letters of credit were
issued, the counterparties returned our cash margin deposits to
us. Due to fewer letters of credit being issued to replace cash
margin deposits in 2005, we have fewer receipts of margin
deposits than in 2004.
Other, including changes in noncurrent assets and
liabilities, includes contributions to our tax-qualified
pension plans of $42.1 million in 2006, $52.1 million
in 2005 and $136.8 million in 2004. It is our policy to
make annual contributions to our tax-qualified pension plans in
an amount at least equal to the greater of the actuarially
computed annual normal cost plus any unfunded actuarial accrued
liability, amortized over approximately five years, or the
minimum required contribution under existing laws. Additional
amounts may be contributed to increase the funded status of the
plans. In an effort to strengthen our funded status and take
advantage of strong cash flows, we contributed approximately
$26.5 million, $41.1 million and $98.9 million
more than our funding policy required in 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
Financing
Activities
During the first quarter of 2006, we paid $25.8 million in
premiums for early debt retirement costs relating to the debt
conversion previously discussed.
See Overview, within this section, for a discussion of 2006 debt
issuances, debt retirement, and additional financing by Williams
Partners L.P.
During January 2005, we retired $200 million of
6.125 percent notes issued by Transco, which matured
January 15, 2005. In the first quarter of 2005, we received
approximately $273 million in proceeds from the issuance
of common stock purchased under the FELINE PACS equity
forward contracts. During August 2005, we completed an initial
public offering of approximately 40 percent of our interest
in Williams Partners L.P. resulting in net proceeds of
$111 million.
During 2004, we repaid long-term debt through tender offers and
early retirements. We also reduced our debt through our FELINE
PACS exchange. This noncash exchange resulted in payments of
fees and expenses reported as premiums paid on tender offer,
early debt retirements and FELINE PACS exchange.
Quarterly dividends paid on common stock increased from 7.5
cents to 9 cents per common share during the second quarter of
2006 and totaled $206.6 million for year ended
December 31, 2006. For the fourth quarter of 2005,
dividends paid on common stock were 7.5 cents per share and
totaled $143 million for the year ended December 31,
2005.
Investing
Activities
During 2006, capital expenditures totaled $2,509.2 million
and were primarily related to Exploration &
Productions increased drilling activity, mostly in the
Piceance basin, and Northwest Pipelines capacity
replacement project.
During 2006, we purchased $386.3 million and received
$414.1 million from the sale of auction rate securities.
These instruments are utilized as a component of our overall
cash management program.
In January 2005, Northwest Pipeline received an
$87.9 million contract termination payment, representing
reimbursement of the net book value of the related assets.
In January 2005, we received approximately $54.7 million
proceeds from the sale of our note with Williams Communications
Group, our previously owned subsidiary (WilTel).
During 2005, we received $310.5 million in proceeds from
the Gulfstream recapitalization.
In 2004, we sold all of our restricted investments resulting in
proceeds of $851.4 million. When our $800 million
revolving and letter of credit facility that required
105 percent cash collateral was replaced with a new
revolving credit facility in January 2005, we were no longer
required to hold the restricted investments.
72
In 2004, we had numerous asset sales resulting in proceeds in
2004 of $877.8 million.
Off-balance
sheet financing arrangements and guarantees of debt or other
commitments
In January 2005, we terminated our two unsecured revolving and
letter of credit facilities totaling $500 million and
replaced them with two new facilities that contain similar terms
but fewer restrictions. In September 2005, we also entered into
two new revolving and letter of credit facilities that have a
similar structure. (See Note 11 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
We have provided a guarantee for obligations of Williams
Partners L.P. under the $1.5 billion unsecured revolving
and letter of credit facility.
We have various other guarantees and commitments which are
disclosed in Notes 3, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements. We do not believe these
guarantees or the possible fulfillment of them will prevent us
from meeting our liquidity needs.
Contractual
Obligations
The table below summarizes the maturity dates of our contractual
obligations by period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-
|
|
|
2010-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
$
|
391
|
|
|
$
|
291
|
|
|
$
|
1,385
|
|
|
$
|
5,974
|
|
|
$
|
8,041
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
606
|
|
|
|
1,147
|
|
|
|
1,083
|
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
|
|
8,549
|
|
Capital leases
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Operating leases(1)
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
1,121
|
|
|
|
2,147
|
|
Purchase obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel conversion and other service
contracts(2)(5)
|
|
|
249
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
495
|
|
|
|
2,377
|
|
|
|
3,626
|
|
Other(5)(6)
|
|
|
877
|
|
|
|
1,134
|
|
|
|
1,144
|
|
|
|
2,943
|
(4)
|
|
|
6,098
|
|
Other long-term liabilities,
including current portion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical and financial
derivatives(3)(5)
|
|
|
628
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
1,528
|
|
Other(7)
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
3,052
|
|
|
$
|
3,936
|
|
|
$
|
4,693
|
|
|
$
|
18,432
|
|
|
$
|
30,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes sublease income of $1.2 billion consisting of
$331 million in 2007, $564 million in
2008-2009,
and $258 million in
2010-2011.
Includes a Power tolling agreement that is accounted for as an
operating lease. |
|
(2) |
|
Power has entered into certain contracts giving us the right to
receive fuel conversion services as well as certain other
services associated with electric generation facilities that are
currently in operation throughout the continental United States.
Certain of Powers tolling agreements could be considered
leases pursuant to the guidance in EITF Issue
01-8,
Determining Whether an Arrangement Contains a Lease,
if in the future the agreements are modified for any reason. If
deemed to be a capital lease, the net present value of the fixed
demand payments would be reported on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet consistent with other capital lease obligations, and as an
asset in property, plant and equipment net.
See Note 1 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for further information. |
|
(3) |
|
The obligations for physical and financial derivatives are based
on market information as of December 31, 2006. Because
market information changes daily and has the potential to be
volatile, significant changes to the values in this category may
occur. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes one year of annual payments totaling $2 million
for contracts with indefinite termination dates. |
73
|
|
|
(5) |
|
Expected offsetting cash inflows of $7.2 billion at
December 31, 2006, resulting from product sales or net
positive settlements, are not reflected in these amounts. In
addition, product sales may require additional purchase
obligations to fulfill sales obligations that are not reflected
in these amounts. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes $4.5 billion of natural gas purchase obligations
at market prices at our Exploration & Production
segment. The purchased natural gas can be sold at market prices. |
|
(7) |
|
Does not include estimated contributions to our pension and
other postretirement benefit plans. We made contributions to our
pension and other postretirement benefit plans of
$58 million in 2006 and $73 million in 2005. In 2007,
we expect to contribute approximately $57 million to these
plans (see Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements), including $40 million to our tax-qualified
pension plans. There were no minimum funding requirements to our
tax-qualified pension plans in 2006 or 2005, and we do not
expect any minimum funding requirements in 2007. We anticipate
that future contributions will not vary significantly from
recent historical contributions, assuming actual results do not
differ significantly from estimated results for assumptions such
as discount rates, returns on plan assets, retirement rates,
mortality and other significant assumptions, and assuming no
further changes in current and prospective legislation and
regulations. Based on these anticipated levels of future
contributions, we do not expect to trigger any minimum funding
requirements in the future. |
Effects
of Inflation
Our operations in recent years have benefited from relatively
low inflation rates. Approximately 46 percent of our gross
property, plant and equipment is at Gas Pipeline and the
remainder is at other operating units. Gas Pipeline is subject
to regulation, which limits recovery to historical cost. While
amounts in excess of historical cost are not recoverable under
current FERC practices, we anticipate being allowed to recover
and earn a return based on increased actual cost incurred to
replace existing assets. Cost-based regulation, along with
competition and other market factors, may limit our ability to
recover such increased costs. For the other operating units,
operating costs are influenced to a greater extent by both
competition for specialized services and specific price changes
in oil and natural gas and related commodities than by changes
in general inflation. Crude, refined product, natural gas,
natural gas liquids and power prices are particularly sensitive
to OPEC production levels
and/or the
market perceptions concerning the supply and demand balance in
the near future. However, our exposure to these price changes is
reduced through the use of hedging instruments.
Environmental
We are a participant in certain environmental activities in
various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations
and/or
remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently
do not own. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.) We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated
effort with other potentially responsible parties, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or other
governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable
along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities
and solely responsible in others. Current estimates of the most
likely costs of such activities are approximately
$52 million, all of which are recorded as liabilities on
our balance sheet at December 31, 2006. We will seek
recovery of approximately $11 million of the accrued costs
through future natural gas transmission rates. The remainder of
these costs will be funded from operations. During 2006, we paid
approximately $12 million for cleanup
and/or
remediation and monitoring activities. We expect to pay
approximately $17 million in 2007 for these activities.
Estimates of the most likely costs of cleanup are generally
based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of
studies or our experience with other similar cleanup operations.
At December 31, 2006, certain assessment studies were still
in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield
significantly different estimates of most likely costs.
Therefore, the actual costs incurred will depend on the final
amount, type and extent of contamination discovered at these
sites, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA or other
governmental authorities, and other factors.
74
We are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and to the federal
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which require the EPA to issue
new regulations. We are also subject to regulation at the state
and local level. In September 1998, the EPA promulgated rules
designed to mitigate the migration of ground-level ozone in
certain states. In March 2004 and June 2004, the EPA promulgated
additional regulation regarding hazardous air pollutants, which
may impose additional controls. Capital expenditures necessary
to install emission control devices on our Transco gas pipeline
system to comply with rules were approximately $41 million
in 2006 and are estimated to be between $35 million and
$40 million through 2010. The actual costs incurred will
depend on the final implementation plans developed by each state
to comply with these regulations. We consider these costs on our
Transco system associated with compliance with these
environmental laws and regulations to be prudent costs incurred
in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, recoverable
through its rates.
75
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Qualitative
and Quantitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
Our current interest rate risk exposure is related primarily to
our debt portfolio. The majority of our debt portfolio is
comprised of fixed rate debt in order to mitigate the impact of
fluctuations in interest rates. The maturity of our long-term
debt portfolio is partially influenced by the expected lives of
our operating assets.
The tables below provide information about our interest rate
risk-sensitive instruments as of December 31, 2006 and
2005. Long-term debt in the tables represents principal cash
flows, net of (discount) premium, and weighted-average interest
rates by expected maturity dates. The fair value of our publicly
traded long-term debt is valued using indicative year-end traded
bond market prices. Private debt is valued based on the prices
of similar securities with similar terms and credit ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate
|
|
$
|
381
|
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
1,161
|
|
|
$
|
5,922
|
|
|
$
|
7,863
|
|
|
$
|
8,343
|
|
Interest rate
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
85
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
149
|
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
Interest rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Thereafter(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate
|
|
$
|
104
|
|
|
$
|
381
|
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
6,179
|
|
|
$
|
7,063
|
|
|
$
|
7,952
|
|
Interest rate
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
563
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
647
|
|
|
$
|
647
|
|
Interest rate(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Including unamortized discount and premium. |
|
(2) |
|
The weighted-average interest rate for 2006 is LIBOR plus
1 percent. |
|
(3) |
|
The weighted-average interest rate for 2005 was LIBOR plus
2 percent. |
|
(4) |
|
Excludes capital leases. |
Commodity
Price Risk
We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the market price
of natural gas, electricity, and natural gas liquids, as well as
other market factors, such as market volatility and commodity
price correlations, including correlations between natural gas
and power prices. We are exposed to these risks in connection
with our owned energy-related assets, our long-term
energy-related contracts and our proprietary trading activities.
We manage the risks associated with these market fluctuations
using various derivatives and nonderivative energy-related
contracts. The fair value of derivative contracts is subject to
changes in energy-commodity market prices, the liquidity and
volatility of the markets in which the contracts are transacted,
and changes in interest rates. We measure the risk in our
portfolios using a
value-at-risk
methodology to estimate the potential
one-day loss
from adverse changes in the fair value of the portfolios.
Value at risk requires a number of key assumptions and is not
necessarily representative of actual losses in fair value that
could be incurred from the portfolios. Our
value-at-risk
model uses a Monte Carlo method to simulate hypothetical
movements in future market prices and assumes that, as a result
of changes in commodity prices, there is a 95 percent
probability that the
one-day loss
in fair value of the portfolios will not exceed the value at
risk. The simulation method uses historical correlations and
market forward prices and volatilities. In applying the
value-at-risk
methodology, we do not consider that the simulated hypothetical
movements affect the positions
76
or would cause any potential liquidity issues, nor do we
consider that changing the portfolio in response to market
conditions could affect market prices and could take longer than
a one-day
holding period to execute. While a
one-day
holding period has historically been the industry standard, a
longer holding period could more accurately represent the true
market risk given market liquidity and our own credit and
liquidity constraints.
We segregate our derivative contracts into trading and
nontrading contracts, as defined in the following paragraphs. We
calculate value at risk separately for these two categories.
Derivative contracts designated as normal purchases or sales
under SFAS 133 and nonderivative energy contracts have been
excluded from our estimation of value at risk.
Trading
Our trading portfolio consists of derivative contracts entered
into for purposes other than economically hedging our commodity
price-risk exposure. Our value at risk for contracts held for
trading purposes was approximately $1 million at
December 31, 2006, and $4 million at December 31,
2005. During the year ended December 31, 2006, our value at
risk for these contracts ranged from a high of $4 million
to a low of $1 million.
Nontrading
Our nontrading portfolio consists of derivative contracts that
hedge or could potentially hedge the price risk exposure from
the following activities:
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
Commodity Price Risk Exposure
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
Natural gas sales
|
|
|
|
Midstream
|
|
Natural gas purchases
|
|
|
|
Power
|
|
Natural gas purchases
and sales
|
|
|
Electricity purchases
and sales
|
The value at risk for derivative contracts held for nontrading
purposes was $12 million at December 31, 2006, and
$28 million at December 31, 2005. During the year
ended December 31, 2006, our value at risk for these
contracts ranged from a high of $25 million to a low of
$12 million. Certain of the derivative contracts held for
nontrading purposes are accounted for as cash flow hedges under
SFAS 133. Though these contracts are included in our
value-at-risk
calculation, any change in the fair value of these hedge
contracts would generally not be reflected in earnings until the
associated hedged item affects earnings.
Foreign
Currency Risk
We have international investments that could affect our
financial results if the investments incur a permanent decline
in value as a result of changes in foreign currency exchange
rates and/or
the economic conditions in foreign countries.
International investments accounted for under the cost method
totaled $42 million at December 31, 2006, and
$45 million at December 31, 2005. These investments
are primarily in nonpublicly traded companies for which it is
not practicable to estimate fair value. We believe that we can
realize the carrying value of these investments considering the
status of the operations of the companies underlying these
investments. If a 20 percent change occurred in the value
of the underlying currencies of these investments against the
U.S. dollar, the fair value at December 31, 2006,
could change by approximately $8.3 million assuming a
direct correlation between the currency fluctuation and the
value of the investments.
Net assets of consolidated foreign operations whose functional
currency is the local currency are located primarily in Canada
and approximate 6 percent of our net assets at
December 31, 2006 and 2005. These foreign operations do not
have significant transactions or financial instruments
denominated in other currencies. However, these investments do
have the potential to impact our financial position, due to
fluctuations in these local currencies arising from the process
of re-measuring the local functional currency into the
U.S. dollar. As an example, a 20 percent change in the
respective functional currencies against the U.S. dollar
could have changed stockholders equity by
approximately $68 million at December 31, 2006.
77
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
MANAGEMENTS
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING
Williams management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting
(as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and for the
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting. Our internal control system was designed to
provide reasonable assurance to our management and Board of
Directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of
financial statements in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States. Our internal control
over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures
that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets; (ii) provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and
expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorization of our management and board of directors; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition
of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial
statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have
inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined
to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with
respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.
Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods
are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Our management assessed the effectiveness of Williams
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006. In making this assessment, management
used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal
Control Integrated
Framework. Managements assessment included
an evaluation of the design of our internal control over
financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness
of our internal control over financial reporting. Based on our
assessment we believe that, as of December 31, 2006,
Williams internal control over financial reporting is
effective based on those criteria.
Ernst & Young, LLP, our independent registered public
accounting firm, has issued an audit report on our assessment of
the companys internal control over financial reporting. A
copy of this report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
78
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
The Board of
Directors and Stockholders of
The Williams Companies, Inc.
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting, that The Williams Companies, Inc.
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2006, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(the COSO criteria). The Williams Companies, Inc.s
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that The Williams
Companies, Inc. maintained effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on the COSO criteria.
Also, in our opinion, The Williams Companies, Inc. maintained,
in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the
COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheet of The Williams Companies, Inc. as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2006 of The Williams Companies, Inc. and our
report dated February 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified
opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 22, 2007
79
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Williams Companies, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of
The Williams Companies, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and
2005, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2006. Our audits
also included the financial statement schedule listed in the
index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and
schedule are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and schedule 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. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes 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, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of The Williams Companies, Inc. at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the consolidated results of
its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.
As explained in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment and as explained in Note 7 to
the consolidated financial statements, effective
December 31, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plans. Also, as explained in Note 9 to the consolidated
financial statements, effective December 31, 2005, the
Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 47, Accounting
for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of The Williams Companies, Inc.s internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006,
based on criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
February 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 22, 2007
80
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
$
|
1,487.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,269.1
|
|
|
$
|
777.6
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
1,347.7
|
|
|
|
1,412.8
|
|
|
|
1,362.3
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids
|
|
|
4,124.7
|
|
|
|
3,232.7
|
|
|
|
2,882.6
|
|
Power
|
|
|
7,462.4
|
|
|
|
9,093.9
|
|
|
|
9,272.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
Intercompany eliminations
|
|
|
(2,636.0
|
)
|
|
|
(2,452.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1,866.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
|
12,461.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
9,973.6
|
|
|
|
10,871.0
|
|
|
|
10,751.7
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
|
|
|
449.2
|
|
|
|
325.4
|
|
|
|
355.5
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
(51.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment costs and expenses
|
|
|
10,443.5
|
|
|
|
11,257.6
|
|
|
|
11,055.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
132.1
|
|
|
|
145.5
|
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
|
529.7
|
|
|
|
568.4
|
|
|
|
223.9
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
430.3
|
|
|
|
542.2
|
|
|
|
557.6
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids
|
|
|
631.3
|
|
|
|
446.6
|
|
|
|
552.2
|
|
Power
|
|
|
(223.8
|
)
|
|
|
(236.8
|
)
|
|
|
86.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
(14.5
|
)
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
(132.1
|
)
|
|
|
(145.5
|
)
|
|
|
(119.8
|
)
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
(167.3
|
)
|
|
|
(9.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income
|
|
|
1,070.0
|
|
|
|
1,171.1
|
|
|
|
1,285.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest accrued
|
|
|
(676.1
|
)
|
|
|
(671.7
|
)
|
|
|
(834.4
|
)
|
Interest capitalized
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
Investing income
|
|
|
173.0
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
48.0
|
|
Early debt retirement costs
|
|
|
(31.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(282.1
|
)
|
Minority interest in income of
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(40.0
|
)
|
|
|
(25.7
|
)
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)
|
Other income net
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
27.1
|
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
539.1
|
|
|
|
531.3
|
|
|
|
224.5
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
206.3
|
|
|
|
213.9
|
|
|
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
315.3
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
308.5
|
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
.56
|
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.52
|
|
|
|
.55
|
|
|
|
.31
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
.52
|
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares (thousands)
|
|
|
595,053
|
|
|
|
570,420
|
|
|
|
529,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.51
|
|
|
|
.53
|
|
|
|
.31
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
.51
|
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares (thousands)
|
|
|
608,627
|
|
|
|
605,847
|
|
|
|
535,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
81
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,597.2
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
91.6
|
|
|
|
92.9
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable (net
of allowance of $15.9 million in 2006 and
$86.6 million in 2005)
|
|
|
1,212.9
|
|
|
|
1,613.8
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
241.4
|
|
|
|
272.6
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
1,878.2
|
|
|
|
5,299.7
|
|
Margin deposits
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
349.2
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
337.2
|
|
|
|
241.0
|
|
Other current assets and deferred
charges
|
|
|
232.8
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
6,322.0
|
|
|
|
9,697.3
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
866.0
|
|
|
|
887.8
|
|
Property, plant and
equipment net
|
|
|
14,180.7
|
|
|
|
12,409.2
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
2,384.9
|
|
|
|
4,656.9
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
1,011.4
|
|
|
|
1,014.5
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
602.9
|
|
|
|
740.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
$
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
1,148.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,360.6
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
1,241.4
|
|
|
|
1,123.1
|
|
Customer margin deposits payable
|
|
|
128.7
|
|
|
|
320.7
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
1,782.9
|
|
|
|
5,523.2
|
|
Long-term debt due within one year
|
|
|
392.1
|
|
|
|
122.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,693.6
|
|
|
|
8,450.2
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
7,622.0
|
|
|
|
7,590.5
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
2,879.9
|
|
|
|
2,508.9
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
2,043.8
|
|
|
|
4,331.1
|
|
Other liabilities and deferred
income
|
|
|
1,009.1
|
|
|
|
920.3
|
|
Contingent liabilities and
commitments (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interests in consolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,080.8
|
|
|
|
214.1
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock (960 million
shares authorized at $1 par value; 602.8 million
shares issued at December 31, 2006, and 579.1 million
shares issued at December 31,2005)
|
|
|
602.8
|
|
|
|
579.1
|
|
Capital in excess of par value
|
|
|
6,605.7
|
|
|
|
6,327.8
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(1,034.0
|
)
|
|
|
(1,135.9
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
(60.1
|
)
|
|
|
(297.8
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,114.4
|
|
|
|
5,468.7
|
|
Less treasury stock, at cost
(5.7 million shares of common stock in 2006 and 2005)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
6,073.2
|
|
|
|
5,427.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
$
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
82
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Excess of
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Par Value
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Balance, December 31,
2003
|
|
$
|
524.0
|
|
|
$
|
5,195.1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,426.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,102.1
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Other comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized losses on cash flow
hedges, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.7
|
)
|
Net unrealized appreciation on
marketable equity securities, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<