Industry Surveys: Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

Industry Surveys
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

June 2016
Stewart Glickman, CFA

Equity Analyst
Performance
Sector Overview
Revenues
Expenses
Profits & Margins
Valuation
ETF Market Flows
Industry Overview
Revenues
Expenses
Profits & Margins
Valuation
Capital Markets
Industry Profile
Industry Trends
How the Industry Operates Contacts

Sales Inquiries & Client Support
Key Industry Ratios and Statistics
800.523.4534
clientsupport@standardandpoors.com
How to Analyze a Company in This Industry
Media Inquiries
Christina Twomey
Glossary 212.542.8033
christina.twomey@mhfi.com
Industry References
S&P Global Market Intelligence
55 Water Street
Comparative Company Analysis New York, NY 10041
Copyright © 2016 S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global Inc. All rights reserved. STANDARD & POOR’S,
S&P, S&P 500, S&P EUROPE 350, STARS, and S&P Capital IQ are registered trademarks of S&P Global.
Topics covered by
Industry Surveys
Aerospace & Defense
Airlines
Automobiles
Banks
Beverages
Biotechnology
Capital Markets
Chemicals
Commercial Services & Supplies
Communications Equipment
Consumer Finance
Electric Utilities
Electronic Equipment
Energy Equipment & Services
Food & Staples Retailing
Food Products
Gas Utilities
Health Care Equipment & Supplies
Health Care Providers & Services
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure
Household Durables
Household Products
Insurance
Internet Software & Services
Information Technology Services
Life Sciences Tools & Services
Machinery
Media
Contributors
Metals & Mining Robert Keiser
Multiline Retail Vice President
Kenneth Leon
Paper & Forest Products Global Director, Equity Research
Pharmaceuticals
Real Estate Investment Trusts Richard Peterson
Road & Rail Director, Capital Markets
Semiconductors & Equipment Todd Rosenbluth
Software Director, ETF Research
Specialty Retail
Technology Hardware Beth Piskora
Senior Director, Content
Telecommunications
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods Sam Stovall
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance Managing Director, U.S. Equity Strategy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 The broader outlook for the oil, gas & consumable fuels industry is negative, in S&P Global
Market Intelligence’s view, despite the recent uptick in crude oil prices to the nearly $50 per-
barrel range.
 Starting in late 2014, the primary fundamentals of supply and demand drove the epic collapse
in crude oil prices. S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks that excess supply remains in play,
albeit not to the same extent as in 2014, given the pullback in US production.
 Although not all of the industry is directly tied to crude oil prices, more than 75% of the
aggregate market capitalization in the industry has its earnings power driven by “upstream”
operations, and benefits from high crude oil and natural gas prices. Conversely, the upstream
suffers when these prices fall.
 Aside from crude oil, the pricing outlook for both natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs)
seems to be in the early stages of a recovery, helped by rising demand from petrochemical
manufacturers. Demand for natural gas appears to be increasing, as is demand for the key
hydrocarbons that are embedded in the NGL stream (such as ethane and propane). Recently,
demand growth struggled to keep up with supply growth, but supply growth may begin to
dissipate in 2016.
 Smaller spaces within the energy sector, such as oil & gas refining & marketing and oil & gas
storage & transportation, offer slightly different fundamentals than do the key upstream-focused
sub-industries, and these niches appear to be neutral to slightly negative in S&P Global Market
Intelligence’s view. Refiners should benefit from the relatively cheap cost of crude acquisition, but
falling price differentials between regions and between crude oil slates will likely weigh on margins,
and an uncertain regulatory environment could delay investment decisions. Waning secular demand
for incremental energy infrastructure will likely hurt the pipeline space, and overbuilding and
concerns over deceleration of dividend growth have been weighing on valuations.
 S&P Global Market Intelligence expects further industry consolidation to continue, particularly
in the upstream space, and especially if crude oil prices remain challenged (relative to the $90 per-
barrel range enjoyed in much of 2011 to 2013). However, we think valuations are rich, and
control premiums will likely be modest.
 S&P Global Market Intelligence expects the industry to experience a continued decline in
revenues in 2016 and the early stirrings of an earnings recovery, before both the top and bottom
lines register improvements in 2017. However, before energy bulls get too excited, we think the
scale of the recovery, if realized, will remain small, even in 2017. We place a higher probability on
a near-term relapse in crude oil prices back into the mid-$30 per-barrel range, than we do on the
probability of a near-term recovery to the $65 per-barrel range. Our view is partly premised on
the potential for non-OPEC producers, especially in the US, to change gears quickly and accelerate
production if prices reach key thresholds. As a result, we are concerned that crude oil prices are
likely to remain range-bound at a range last seen in the early 2000s—between $40/barrel to
$50/barrel, or roughly half the price of what the industry enjoyed for almost a decade.
INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 4

SECTOR OVERVIEW
The energy sector makes up 6.7% of the S&P 1500 and 7.1% of the S&P 500, as of June 3, 2016.
There are two main industries in this sector: energy equipment & services (i.e., oil & gas drilling,
oil & gas equipment & services) and oil, gas & consumable fuels (i.e., integrated oil & gas, oil &
gas exploration & production, oil & gas refining & marketing, oil & gas storage &
transportation, and coal & consumable fuels).
ENERGY SECTOR BREAKDOWN BY MARKET CAPITALIZATION

(as of April 30, 2016)
Energy Equipment
& Services
18%
Oil, Gas &

Consumable Fuels
82%
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.
From a stock price perspective, the energy sector declined 24.4% in 2015 compared with a 1.0%
increase for the S&P 1500 index. However, the sector bounced back in the first five months of
2016, rising 10.5%, much stronger than the broader index’s 3.0% gain.
SECTOR AND INDEX PRICE PERFORMANCE
(values in percent)
SECTOR ------ YEAR ENDED ------ 5-YEAR

2015 2016* CAGR
Consumer Discretionary Sector Index 6.2 1.4 14.0
Consumer Staples Sector Index 3.4 4.2 10.4
Energy Sector Index (24.4) 10.5 (3.4)
Financials Sector Index (2.8) 0.1 8.4
Health Care Sector Index 5.8 (1.1) 14.7
Industrials Sector Index (4.7) 4.9 8.6
Information Technology Sector Index 4.0 2.0 11.3
Materials Sector Index (11.9) 9.3 4.0
Telecommunication Services Sector Index (1.8) 11.4 4.2
Utilities Sector Index (8.0) 13.3 8.0
S&P 500 (0.7) 2.6 9.3
S&P MidCap 400 (3.7) 6.8 8.3
S&P SmallCap 600 (3.4) 5.0 9.2
S&P Composite 1500 (1.0) 3.0 9.2
*Data through May 31, 2016.
5 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

From a profitability perspective, as of June 3, 2016, the energy sector of the S&P 500 index shrank
59.5% in 2015, significantly lagging the modest loss for the S&P 500 (-0.6%). While the energy
sector is likely to have decreased in the first quarter of 2016, it is projected to have only a 3.7%
decline in earnings in the fourth quarter of 2016. Energy companies are likely to continue to be hurt
as oil prices are much lower than they were in 2015, and demand for equipment has diminished.
In this Sector Overview section, all the data are calculated on an aggregated per-share basis,
within the energy sector as a component of the S&P 1500 index constituent universe. The average
is market-weighted, which means that larger companies are more influential than smaller ones.
Sector Revenues
Revenue and Revenue Growth
 The S&P 1500 energy sector is expected to post revenue per share of $339.18 for the 12-month
period ended June 2016 (according to consensus estimates as of May 20, 2016), down 36% from a
year earlier. In comparison, the sector was down 0.5% in the 12-month period ended December 2014.
ENERGY SECTOR REVENUE PER SHARE

(aggregate value weighted per share, $, quarterly)
190 710
160 620
130 530
100 440
70 350
40 260
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Actual Values (right scale) Last 12 Months (left scale)
*Data through first quarter.

 From 2009 to 2012, the sector experienced revenue growth and held relatively steady into 2014
until the fourth quarter, when revenues fell sharply as oil prices declined.
Sector Profit Margins

EBITDA Margin
 The energy sector’s earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA)
margin of 14% for the first quarter of 2016 is down from 18% a year earlier, and it is at the
lowest level since 2006.

EBITDA MARGIN
(in percent)
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Energy Sector of S&P 1500 Composite Index Period Average
 In 2016, it is unlikely that EBITDA margin will approach the 20%-plus range the sector
experienced between 2006 and 2008, when demand for oil was much higher.
 Overall, the lower margins for the energy sector are a concern, especially since lower
commodity prices are not projected to rebound in the near future.
Sector Earnings
 In the fourth quarter of 2014, energy earnings declined 38% compared with the prior-year
period, after rising 21% in the third quarter. In 2015, reported earnings worsened dramatically
and in the first quarter of 2016, a loss per share of $1.79 occurred. Analysts do not expect the
trend to shift toward profitability growth until 2017 at the earliest.
NORMALIZED NET INCOME

(aggregate value weighted per share, $, quarterly)
24 70
20 60
16 50
12 40
8 30
4 20
0 10
(4) 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Actual Values (left scale) Last 12 Months (right scale)


 While the energy sector’s earnings have been volatile, reflecting global economic prospects and
demand for oil, the recent drop-off in profitability has been more abnormal. On a quarterly basis,
the sector’s earnings per share (EPS) mostly ranged between $10 and $15 for four calendar years
ended in 2014.
Sector Balance Sheet

Inventory Turnover
 From an operational perspective, the energy sector’s inventory turnover is a moderate concern,
as the measure has declined notably in recent quarters. In the first quarter of 2016, the turnover
ratio was 7.4x, down from 9.2x a year earlier and 13.7x two years earlier. In 2013, the ratio held
steady between 14.0x and 15.0x.
INVENTORY TURNOVER
(in multiples)
25
20
15
10
5
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Return on Equity
 Return on equity (ROE) for the energy sector declined to -7.7% in the first quarter of 2016
from -2.4% in the first quarter of 2015. For most of the last three years, energy companies had a
low-double-digit ROE, until the past six quarters.

RETURN ON EQUITY
(in percent, quarterly)
40
30
20
10
(10)
(20)
(30)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Debt-To-Capitalization
 On the balance sheet, debt as a percent of capitalization rose to 34.9% in the first quarter of
2016, after edging higher throughout 2015 from a trough of 25.1% in 2010.
TOTAL DEBT-TO-CAPITAL RATIO

(in multiples, quarterly)
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Actual Values Last 12 Months

 While large-cap companies still have strong balance sheets, smaller energy companies have
greater credit risk.

Interest Coverage
 In the first quarter of 2016, the energy sector produced interest coverage of 5.4x, down from
11.2x in the same period in 2015 and 21.2x in the first quarter of 2014. Reduced profitability will
likely affect the ability of many companies to service their debt.
INTEREST COVERAGE
50
40
30
20
10
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Actual Values Last 12 Months

Sector Valuation
Forward P/E
 From a valuation perspective, the energy sector’s forward price-to-earnings (P/E) is projected to
have jumped to 22x in the second quarter of 2016 from 14x a year earlier. In contrast to other
scenarios where investment momentum drives the valuation multiples higher, the cause of the
rising valuation is falling forward-earnings expectations.
FORWARD PRICE-TO-EARNINGS RATIO

(operating diluted EPS excluding one-time or extra items, in multiples, quarterly)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*
Actual Values Forward 12 Months
*Projected values start from second quarter of 2016.


 The projected forward P/Es would be at a premium compared with the broader S&P 1500
index, and would be the highest levels seen by the sector dating back to 2009.
ETF Market Flows and Investing Landscape

 Investors interested in exploring opportunities aligned with the energy sector, or more
specifically, the oil, gas & consumable fuels, may want to consider exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
In recent years, investors have increasingly turned to ETFs when seeking exposure to specific
sectors or industries within the stock market. In addition to market focus, ETFs offer investors
added benefits, such as intraday market liquidity and lower management fees, relative to other
diversified financial instruments.
 In 2015, $18.2 billion was added to all sector ETFs, with $9.8 billion in energy securities. In
the first five months of 2016, energy products saw inflows of $2.7 billion.
SECTOR ETF INFLOWS

(total inflows for the period ended, in $, millions)
SECTOR YEAR ENDED FIRST FIVE

2015 MONTHS, 2016
Consumer Discretionary 3,161 (3,428)
Consumer Staples (711) 1,147
Energy 9,823 2,712
Financials 659 (4,454)
Health Care 7,400 (5,448)
Industrials (4,513) 388
Information Technology 3,601 (4,828)
Materials 475 2,237
REITs 1,692 3,931
Telecommunication Services 13 604
Utilities (3,353) 4,524
Source: State Street Global Advisors.
 Energy Select Sector SPDR (XLE) and Vanguard Energy Index (VDE) are the two largest energy
ETFs. They both have approximately 20% of assets in energy equipment & services companies.
For investors who want even more exposure to equipment & services companies, Market Vectors
Oil Services (OIH), iShares US Oil Equipment & Services (IEZ), and SPDR S&P Oil & Gas
Equipment & Services (XES) are worth looking at.
 XLE had inflows of $991 million in the first five months of 2016, while VDE, OIH, and IEZ
experienced net outflows.

ETFS WITH MEANINGFUL OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS EXPOSURE
COMPANY ETF ASSETS UNDER NET

TICKER NAME MANAGEMENT EXPENSE
(in $, millions) RATIO
XLE Energy Select Sector SPDR 13,958 0.14
VDE Vanguard Energy 3,707 0.10
XOP SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production 1,900 0.35
FXN First Trust Energy AlphaDEX Energy 1,488 0.67
IYE iShares US Energy 1,261 0.45
IEO iShares US Oil & Gas Exploration & Produciton 411 0.35
FENY Fidelity MSCI Energy 410 0.12
RYE Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy 217 0.40
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence ETF Report May 20, 2016.

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Industry Weighting
 The oil, gas & consumable fuels industry is highly consolidated, with the three largest
companies (out of 51 in the S&P 1500) having a combined 53% market-capitalization weighting.
OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS INDUSTRY MARKET-CAP WEIGHTINGS

(as of May 2016)
Occidental Petroleum
4.9%
Exxon Mobil
Others 32.1%
46.8%
Chevron
16.2%
 About 82% of the market capitalization in the industry is comprised of two sub-industries:
integrated oil & gas (53%) and oil & gas exploration & production (29%). Both of these sub-
industries are highly tied to the production of crude oil and natural gas (“upstream” operations),
and as a result, their fortunes typically rise and fall with price movements in these commodities.
The integrated oil & gas sub-industry has a natural hedge with its downstream operations, which
break down the raw products into refined products such as gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel.
Downstream operations typically offer more influence on enterprise-wide revenues than on earnings.
 The remaining 18% of the industry’s market capitalization is comprised largely of two other
sub-industries: oil & gas storage & transportation (8%), which focuses on midstream assets such
as pipelines, processing plants, and terminals; and oil & gas refining & marketing (9%), which
consists of pure-play independent refiners. In midstream, S&P Global Market Intelligence views
prices as less influential than volumes, as most providers tend to be fee-takers. In downstream,
higher crude prices raise the cost of crude oil acquisition and are thus typically an earnings
headwind. Refiners focus on the spread they can obtain from the cost of crude and the value of
the refined products that they can produce with that crude oil.
 Coal & consumable fuels is the remaining sub-industry, with less than 1% of the industry’s
market capitalization. Coal is unique, with key drivers focused around prices and volumes of

thermal coal (used in electricity generation) and metallurgical coal (used in steelmaking). In
addition, this sub-industry is beset with many adverse regulatory developments, such as current or
pending limitations on sulfur and mercury content in coal production.
OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS MARKET-CAP BY SUB-INDUSTRY

(as of May 2016)
Coal and Oil & Gas Refining &

Consumable Fuels Marketing
0.3% 9.3%
Oil & Gas Storage &

Transportation
8.4%
Integrated Oil & Gas
53.2%
Oil & Gas Exploration

& Production
28.9%
 The industry is global in nature, as upstream producers look for reservoirs of crude oil and
natural gas both onshore and offshore in a wide variety of countries. In bigger projects, they often
form consortiums with other upstream players to assist with risk sharing, or, in some countries,
make arrangements with nationalized oil companies (such as Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia, or
Sonangol in Angola). Within the S&P 1500, the midstream companies tend to focus on US
onshore energy infrastructure, while the downstream companies tend to focus on their US-based
refineries. There are overseas-based companies in midstream and downstream, but they are not
part of the S&P 1500.
Industry Revenues
Revenues
 The oil, gas & consumable fuels industry is highly cyclical, and strongly exposed to the price of
crude oil. The industry has experienced several booms and busts in the last 10 years, and recently
entered a new downturn in the fall of 2014. A strong positive revenue trend between 2005 and
2008 ended with the credit crisis and a subsequent collapse in 2009. However, that decline proved
to be short-lived, and the industry registered more than 20% revenue growth in both 2010 and
2011. The industry subsequently struggled in 2012 and 2013, before collapsing in late 2014 and
falling more than 36% in 2015.
 The weighted (market-capitalization based) average compound annual revenue growth rate
(CAGR) per share for the industry was -1.6% between 2006 and 2015, but this historical CAGR
masks those year-to-year movements and reflects the dramatic drop in 2015 (excluding 2015, the
average CAGR would have been 4.1% during that period). S&P Global Market Intelligence

attributes the 1.6% growth rate mainly to improved pricing, coming off the February 2009 lows,
when West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices averaged $35 per barrel, but higher volumes
played a supporting role. However, by late 2011, crude oil prices had largely stabilized in the
$90–$100 per-barrel range.
REVENUE PER SHARE

(aggregate value weighted per share, $)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*


 The revenue drop in 2015 is attributable to the sharp decline in crude oil prices that
commenced in October 2014, in S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view. Looking ahead to 2016,
we expect continued weakness, with a recovery not likely to occur until 2017.
 Oil and gas production volumes have been on the rise for most upstream companies, but the
shale revolution was led by smaller, pure-play exploration and production (E&P) names, as
opposed to the larger “integrateds” (although the integrateds subsequently joined the race). Given
that the revenue chart is market-cap weighted, it should not be a surprise that the chart
movements better reflect price movements than change in volumes, since the largest companies
(ExxonMobil and Chevron Corp.) continue to face difficulties in growing volumes.
 An interesting dynamic of the upstream industry is the notion of the “decline rate.” Every year,
a producing well will produce fewer hydrocarbons than it did in the previous year, partly due to
lower pressure inherent in a well as more and more hydrocarbons move to the surface. In a
conventional well, that decline rate onshore might be 5%, although it varies from reservoir to
reservoir. Offshore declines might be slightly higher. As a result, growing overall production
volumes are more difficult than they may seem at first glance, because such growth would be, by
necessity, net of base declines from existing wells.
 The single biggest development within this industry over the last five years, in S&P Global
Market Intelligence’s view, is the explosion of unconventional oil. Also known as “light tight oil”
(LTO) or shale oil, unconventional oil has proliferated across many regions of the US since its
infancy in 2010. This unconventional onshore US production came with no declines initially, since
the industry was essentially starting from zero, having previously not tried these techniques on

liquids-rich reservoirs. As a result, volume growth in both 2010 and 2011 was high. By 2012, the
extremely high decline rates in LTO wells were catching up with the industry, in our view, which
was still in the early stages of improving drilling efficiency.
 The upstream industry has increasingly shifted its focus on drilling toward liquids and away
from natural gas, given superior returns from liquids plays. In 2015, the average E&P company
generated 57% of its production from liquids plays, and S&P Global Market Intelligence sees that
share rising to 63% by 2017. The two largest integrated oil & gas companies (ExxonMobil and
Chevron)—collectively 48% of industry market capitalization—are expected to generate 58% and
62%, respectively, of their production as liquids in 2017.
Industry Profit Margins

Gross Margin
 After widening in 2006, gross margins in oil, gas & consumable fuels narrowed erratically from the
beginning of 2007 to the end of 2013, before a gradual expansion set in. In the first quarter of 2016,
industry gross margins broached the 32% level for the first time since the fourth quarter of 2008.
 S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks the initial decline in gross margins reflected ongoing
service cost inflation as the industry was in the early stages of developing onshore unconventional
oil prospects. Later, however, we think the industry got better at generating efficiency gains, such
that they were better able to grow production volumes with techniques such as pad drilling,
longer laterals, and more fracking stages during well completions.
 The recent uptick in gross margins is especially interesting, insofar as it comes at a time when
crude oil prices have collapsed. S&P Global Market Intelligence attributes this to a broader effort
to “high-grade” individual company drilling portfolios, whereby companies focus exclusively on
their best reservoirs to mitigate the impact of falling prices as much as possible. Service cost
deflation is likely also a factor.
 Should crude oil price weakness persist, S&P Global Market Intelligence could easily see a
scenario whereby revenues decline but gross margins widen. Since we expect another decline in
revenues for 2016, the focus on drillable prospects is likely to remain stringent this year, which
could result in gross margin expansion. However, given how extensive service cost deflation has
been over the last two years, we think further gross margin improvement is more likely to come
through drill bits rather than through negotiations, as companies get better at using technology to
hone in on the sweetest of drillable sweet spots. It is true that the recent rise in crude prices—a
recovery of more than 80% from the $26 per-barrel range in February 2016 to $48 per barrel in
late May 2016—is a welcome change for producers and service providers alike. However, we do
not think that there is sufficient demand from producers to enable pricing traction on the part of
the service providers. In other words, crude oil prices are “less bad”, as opposed to “attractive”,
in our opinion.

GROSS MARGINS
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Industry Earnings
Net Margin
 Net margins in oil, gas & consumable fuels were negative in all four quarters of 2015, and
actually got incrementally worse each time. While a negative net margin in and of itself is not
unusual, last year was the first time since at least 2005 that the industry registered multiple
negative net margin quarters in the same calendar year. Although net margins were still negative
in the first quarter of 2016, they were markedly improved over the fourth quarter of 2015, and
this could be a sign of recovery.
 S&P Global Market Intelligence attributes much of the weakness in 2015 to a sizable uptick in
asset write-downs and impairment charges. We estimate that the total amount of asset write-downs
and impairment charges stood at around $154 billion in 2015, more than the roughly $142 billion
on corresponding charges taken from 2005 to 2014. Much of that significant surge in charges likely
stems from the shale revolution that started in 2006 with natural gas, and then in 2010 with crude
oil. Both products suffered in 2015 from an extended price malaise and an expectation for prices to
remain “lower for longer” (as of early 2016, when companies undertook their impairment tests),
and this probably has much to do with the size of these impairment charges.

NET INCOME MARGIN
20
15
10
(5)
(10)
(15)
(20)
(25)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

 Historically, net margins in the industry from early 2006 to the third quarter of 2008 were at
peak levels that would prove difficult to repeat. In that three-year period, net margins ranged from
10.6% in 2006 to 9.4% in 2007, with most of 2008 falling in between. In late 2008, the credit
crisis derailed margins in the fourth quarter and all of 2009. These margins approached peak
levels in 2010 and 2011, but never quite ascended to peak levels, and subsequent years showed a
struggle to escape the low-single digits—until 2015, when margins went negative.
 S&P Global Market Intelligence would not be surprised to see continued negative margins for the
rest of 2016, particularly as the largest names in the industry—the integrated oil and gas names—are
likely to generate lower downstream earnings to help offset the weakness in upstream.
Normalized Diluted EPS

 Normalized earnings per share (EPS) in the oil, gas & consumable fuels industry nearly mirrors
the direction of revenue growth in the industry between 2005 and 2014, but illustrates wider
amplitude. For example, as with revenues, normalized diluted EPS rose strongly in both 2010 and
2011 by 67% and 37%, respectively, versus mid-20% revenue growth in both years. In 2011,
diluted EPS reached its high water mark, with slow declines through 2014, before plummeting to
essentially break-even results in 2015. Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence data, it appears
that EPS trends, for the most part, accentuate the trends seen at the revenue line. A strong revenue
year is accompanied by an even stronger earnings year, but a weak revenue year is accompanied
by a weaker year for earnings.

NORMALIZED DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
(aggregate value weighted per share, $)
25
20
15
10
(5)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017*

 S&P Global Market Intelligence expects an extremely sharp rise in earnings power in 2016, but
that is a bit misleading; the implied percentage gain is not meaningful when the 2015 base year had
effectively zero earnings. More relevant, in our view, is the extent of any recovery in absolute terms in
2017. On this basis, we see the industry’s earnings power improving, but only to the levels last seen in
2003 and 2004, before emerging-market demand helped propel crude oil prices skyward. Hence, our
broader industry view is that this nascent recovery is ongoing, but not especially meaningful, at least
not through 2017.
Industry Balance Sheet

Interest Coverage
 Over the past 10 years, oil, gas & consumable fuels have seen some interesting changes in
interest coverage. After peaking in mid-2008, the ratio of earnings before interest and tax (EBIT)
to interest expense subsequently saw a major decline, to the 7x–8x level in early 2009, before once
again rising into the low 20x range in mid-2011. However, since then, interest coverage has
continued to dwindle, and in the third quarter of 2015, it went negative (-2.4x) for the first time
in at least the last 10 years and stayed negative through the first quarter of 2016.S&P Global
Market Intelligence attributes this change mainly to reductions in EBIT rather than to a major
change in interest expense, although debt levels are indeed rising.

INTEREST COVERAGE
40
30
20
10
(10)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Long-Term Debt-To-Capitalization
 The oil, gas & consumable fuels industry has seen major swings in long-term debt ratios over
the last 10 years, ranging from a low of around 22% in the fourth quarter of 2007 to a high of
about 31% in the first quarter of 2016, and averaging 26%. Perhaps not surprisingly, the industry
is at its peak today, and that 31% mark is about two standard deviations above the period
average. S&P Global Market Intelligence attributes this outlier to two factors. One is the greater
use of debt as companies’ cash generation dwindles. The other factor is the greater use of
impairment charges, reducing the capital on the books to calculate these ratios.
LONG-TERM DEBT-TO-CAPITAL RATIO

32
30
28
26
24
22
20
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*


 S&P Global Market Intelligence expects larger players in the industry to take advantage of
more distressed companies, which typically are smaller and more poorly capitalized, and which
generate weaker cash from operations. As a result, more mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are
likely to occur in the industry, and debt ratios, especially calculated for the industry on a market-
cap weighted basis, are likely to rise.
Industry Valuation
EV/Forward EBITDA
 The oil, gas & consumable fuels industry is experiencing higher valuation levels, based on
enterprise value-to-forward earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization
(EV/EBITDA) ratios.
 In the case of the oil, gas & consumable fuels industry, the average EV/EBITDA valuation in
the first half of 2016 was 70% more than the average since 2006, which suggests that stock prices
have retreated far less than EBITDA estimates have declined. This also suggests that the market
valuation of energy companies implies a V-shaped recovery in crude oil prices that is embedded in
this valuation. As of June 2016, S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view remains relatively bearish
on crude oil prices, and we think that rich valuation in the energy sector is simply too optimistic
on the pace of recovery in earnings power.
 In general, the market indicates that 2015 was a bit of an anomaly in upstream earnings power,
and it is looking at 2016 as a recovery year. S&P Global Market Intelligence views this argument
with trepidation, as it may take much of 2016 to exhaust the excess supply that has created
problems for the industry.
TOTAL ENTERPRISE VALUE-TO-FORWARD EBITDA RATIO

11.5
10.0
8.5
7.0
5.5
4.0
2.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels Industry of S&P 1500 Index Period Average
*Data through second quarter.


Forward P/E
 Similar to EV/forward EBITDA ratios, the forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios for the
industry (where the denominator is now comprised of estimated 2016 earnings) are significantly
above historical averages. S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks these results once again suggest
that stocks are being evaluated based on 2016 expectations. If revenue estimates are any guide,
there will likely be a recovery in earnings in 2016 among upstream producers; however, even
using 2016 numbers, stocks overall look expensive.
Return on Capital
 In S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view, return on capital (ROC) is one of the more
important metrics to determine whether a company is growing shareholder value by exceeding its
cost of capital, or destroying it by falling short.
 Assessing whether the industry is doing a good job at generating ROC seems to depend on
what timeframe is used. The average ROC since 2006 is 14.6%. However, since 2011, the oil, gas
& consumable fuels industry has done a less solid job of generating ROC, with an average of
10.1% ended in the first quarter of 2016. Moreover, as time went on, those ROCs continued to
drop: year-over-year declines since 2012, a meager 5.0% in the fourth quarter of 2014, less than
3.0% in the first half of 2015, and finally, a negative ROC in the subsequent three quarters ended
in the first of 2016. The industry will no doubt eventually recover from the current weakness, but
this recent data suggests that the industry is getting less out of its efforts than it did in the past.
RETURN ON CAPITAL
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(5)
(10)
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels Industry of S&P 1500 Index Period Average

Capital Markets
Energy Sector
 Energy sector merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions involving an S&P 1500 company as
target, buyer, or seller, saw its announced deal value drop to $121.1 billion in 2015, after
climbing to $167.4 billion in 2014 from $53.2 billion in 2013.

 In 2015, the top energy sector M&A deal involving S&P 1500 companies was Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P.’s offer on May 19 to acquire oil & gas storage & transportation firm Williams Cos.,
Inc. in a transaction valued, with assumed liabilities, at $67.2 billion. The deal ranks as the
second-largest energy M&A deal ever involving an S&P 1500 company, according to S&P Global
Market Intelligence data. Only Exxon Corp.’s 1998 purchase of Mobil Corp. for $85.6 billion
was larger.
ENERGY M&A TRANSACTIONS*
$, Billions Count
180 155
150 145
120 135
90 125
60 115
30 105
0 95
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Transaction Amount (left scale) Number of Deals (right scale)
Percent
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Completion Rate
*Involving S&P 1500 companies as target, buyer, or seller.
 Kinder Morgan Inc.’s agreement to acquire the remaining 88.6% stake in Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. on August 9, 2014, in a deal valued at $62.9 billion, was the sector’s leading
transaction for the year. That deal, along with Kinder Morgan’s agreement to acquire the
controlling stake in oil & gas storage & transportation company Kinder Morgan Management
LLC for $10.8 billion, and its purchase of El Paso Pipeline Partners for $8.6 billion, saw Kinder
Morgan account for over 46.0% of energy M&A deal value in 2014, based on transactions
involving S&P 1500 companies.
ENERGY M&A VALUATION RATIOS*
TOTAL ENTERPRISE VALUE-TO-REVENUE MULTIPLE

16
12
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TOTAL ENTERPRISE VALUE-TO-EBITDA MULTIPLE

18
15
12
3
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

 The number of announced energy M&A deals involving S&P 1500 companies as target, buyer,
or seller totaled 121 in 2015—down from 151 in 2014, but up from 117 in 2013.
 Valuations on announced energy M&A deals based on revenue showed erratic performance in
recent years. For 2015, the average multiple for announced deals was 4.9x a target’s revenue,
down from nearly 9.1x revenue in 2014, but up from less than 1.0x revenue in 2013. 
 A typical energy sector M&A announced in 2015, with S&P 1500 companies as target, buyer,
or seller, was valued at 9.4x EBITDA, down from 9.8x in 2014, but up from 4.6x in 2013.

 The completion rate for announced M&A deals in the energy sector, with S&P 1500
involvement, continued a downward trend in 2015, with the completion rate calculated at 68%.
In 2014, less than 71% of the announced deals were finalized that year.

 The top deal in the oil, gas & consumable fuels industry in 2015 involving S&P 1500
companies was Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.’s proposed acquisition of Williams Cos., Inc. in a
transaction valued at $67.2 billion on May 19, 2015. That deal was followed by Noble Energy,
Inc. entering into a definitive agreement to acquire Rosetta Resources, Inc. from SailingStone
Capital Partners, First Pacific Advisors LLC, RS Investment Management Co. LLC, and others for
$2.0 billion in stock on May 10, 2015.
OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS M&A TRANSACTIONS*

$, Billions Count
130 130
110 120
90 110
70 100
50 90
30 80
10 70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Transaction Amount (left scale) Number of Deals (right scale)
Percent
100
90
80
70
60
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Completion Rate


 Announced oil, gas & consumable fuels industry M&A transactions involving S&P 1500
companies saw nearly $124 billion in deal value in 2014. That year’s top deal was Kinder
Morgan, Inc. agreeing to acquire an 88.6% stake in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. in a
deal worth $62.6 billion on August 10, 2014. This transaction accounted for over half of the
entire industry’s deal value.

 The number of announced M&A transactions in the oil, gas & consumable fuel industry
involving S&P 1500 companies dropped to 88 in 2015, marking the fourth consecutive year of
annual declines.
OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS M&A VALUATION RATIOS*
TOTAL ENTERPRISE VALUE-TO-REVENUE MULTIPLE

24
20
16
12
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TOTAL ENTERPRISE VALUE-TO-EBITDA MULTIPLE

20
16
12
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

 A typical oil, gas & consumable fuels industry M&A deal announced in 2015, involving an S&P
1500 company as target, buyer or seller, was valued at 8.8x revenue, down from15.1x in 2014.
 Based on deal value to EBITIDA, a typical announced M&A deal in the oil, gas & consumable
fuels industry in 2015 was valued at 4.3x a target’s EBITDA, down from 10.2x in 2014.
 The completion rate, based on deals announced and completed in the same calendar year,
dropped to 73% in 2015 from 84% in 2014.

RECENT M&A TRANSACTIONS
(top transactions in terms of size for the past six months)
ANNOUNCED CLOSED TARGET BUYERS / SIZE ($M)

DATE DATE INVESTORS
12/7/15 1/7/16 Felix Energy, 80,000 net surface acres, with up to Devon Energy 1,900
10 prospective zones in Anadarko Basin STACK
2/9/16 4/8/16 WPX Energy Rocky Mountain Terra Energy Partners 910
4/11/16 - Marathon Oil Corporation, Wyoming Assets Merit Energy Company 870
5/3/16 - Certain Wattenberg Field Oil and Gas Properties, Synergy Resources 505
Leasehold Mineral Interests and Related Assets
5/5/16 - Chesapeake Energy Corporation, certain oil and Newfield Exploration 470
gas assets in Oklahoma
12/7/15 12/17/15 253,000 net acres in the Powder River Basin Devon Energy 444
5/2/16 - Statoil USA Onshore Properties, non core assets EQT 407
2/24/16 2/24/16 Chesapeake Energy Corporation, remaining FourPoint Energy 385
Western Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Assets
12/31/15 3/9/16 WPX Energy, San Juan Basin Gathering System I Squared Capital Advisors, 285
ISQ Global Infrastructure Fund
2/11/16 - Exxon Mobil Corporation, Aviation Fueling World Fuel Services 260
Operations at 83 International Airport Locations
11/30/15 12/10/15 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Brookfield Infrastructure 242
Partners, Kinder Morgan
4/20/16 - Devon Energy Corporation, Certain Mississippi White Star Petroleum 200
Lime and Woodford Shale Assets
PRIVATE PLACEMENT TRANSACTIONS

(top transaction in terms of size for the past six months)
ANNOUNCED CLOSED TARGET BUYERS / SIZE ($M)

DATE DATE INVESTORS
5/3/16 - Synergy Resources - 80

REGISTRATIONS AND OFFERINGS
(top transactions in terms of size for the past six months)
ISSUER REGISTRATION OFFER PRIMARY TRANSACTION SECURITIES ISSUED SIZE ($M)

FILED DATE* FEATURES
Chesapeake Energy 12/2/15 12/30/15 Fixed-Income Offering Corporate Debt (Non-Convertible) 3,000
Exxon Mobil 2/29/16 2/29/16 Fixed-Income Offering Corporate Debt (Non-Convertible) 2,500
Chevron 5/9/16 5/9/16 Fixed-Income Offering Corporate Debt (Non-Convertible) 2,250
Pioneer Natural Resources 1/5/16 1/5/16 Follow-on Equity Offering Common Stock 1,404
Devon Energy 2/17/16 2/17/16 Follow-on Equity Offering Common Stock 1,294
*Offer date date is only available for a given transaction if a prospectus has been filed with the SEC for that transaction.

CASH BALANCE LEADERS
(latest annual, in $, millions)
COMPANY INDEX TOTAL CASH LONG-TERM TOTAL

NAME CONSTITUENTS & SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS
Chevron S&P 500 Index 11,332 27,110 38,442
Exxon Mobil S&P 500 Index 3,705 20,611 24,316
ConocoPhillips S&P 500 Index 2,368 19,971 22,339
Phillips 66 S&P 500 Index 3,074 12,059 15,133
Williams Companies S&P 500 Index 100 7,403 7,503
Kinder Morgan S&P 500 Index 341 6,313 6,654
Marathon Petroleum S&P 500 Index 1,127 3,622 4,749
Occidental Petroleum S&P 500 Index 3,201 1,434 4,635
Valero Energy S&P 500 Index 4,114 201 4,315
Spectra Energy S&P 500 Index 233 2,569 2,802
Hess S&P 500 Index 2,716 0 2,716
Marathon Oil S&P 500 Index 1,221 1,115 2,336
Devon Energy S&P 500 Index 2,311 1 2,312
Apache S&P 500 Index 1,467 563 2,030

 Of the 51 S&P 1500 oil, gas & consumable fuels companies, only 14 have more than $2 billion
on their individual balance sheets.
ACTIVIST STAKES
(latest annual)
COMPANY INDEX ACTIVIST INVESTORS

NAME CONSTITUENTS (PERCENT OWNED)
CONSOL Energy S&P MidCap 400 Index 38.28
Chesapeake Energy S&P 500 Index 20.28
Williams Companies S&P 500 Index 15.78
Hess S&P 500 Index 8.59
Rex Energy S&P SmallCap 600 Index 8.47
Green Plains S&P SmallCap 600 Index 8.45
Bonanza Creek Energy S&P SmallCap 600 Index 7.38
WPX Energy S&P MidCap 400 Index 7.34
Gulfport Energy S&P MidCap 400 Index 7.34
Pioneer Natural Resources S&P 500 Index 7.02
Cabot Oil & Gas S&P 500 Index 6.77
Southwestern Energy S&P 500 Index 6.33
Range Resources S&P 500 Index 5.82
 Of the 51 S&P 1500 oil, gas & consumable fuels industry companies, only 13 have activist
ownership stakes of more than 5%.

INDUSTRY TRENDS
Crude Oil: Dawn of a New Era or Just Another Head Fake?

The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil has seemingly taken up residency in the $43–49 per-
barrel range, as of June 3, 2016, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). In
the first five months of 2016, oil prices recovered 80% from the $26 per-barrel range in February
2016, hitting $48 per barrel in late May.
A weak US dollar has contributed to high oil prices. As of April 2016, the dollar price return fell
3.2%, according to the Dow Jones FXCM Dollar Index. In the first quarter of 2016, price return
fell 4.3%. Further, oil price gains persisted despite continuing oversupply of crude oil in the US,
particularly in Cushing, Oklahoma. Cushing’s monthly ending oil stocks reached 519.7 million
barrels as of February 2016 (latest available), the highest levels since 1930.
Although, capacity utilization hit a high in March this year, it is expected to decline, even with the
construction of additional storage capacity. On March 4, 2016, Plains All American Pipeline built
three tanks with a total of 810,000 barrels of capacity. The company has also started construction on
540,000 barrels of additional storage capacity, which is estimated for completion in September 2016.
US CRUDE OIL INVENTORIES

(monthly ending stocks excluding SPR*, in million b arrels)
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
*Strategic Petroleum Reserve. †Data through February.

Source: US Energy Information Administration.
On the other hand, US crude oil production is decreasing. In 2015, production averaged 9.4
million barrels per day (b/d), according to the EIA. The agency expects production to fall further
to an average of 8.6 million b/d in 2016 and 8.2 million b/d in 2017. Meanwhile, US oil-directed
rig counts, which in prior cycles would have been a better proxy for liquids production, were
down 54% in May 20, 2016 (latest count) compared with the prior-year period, according to
Baker Hughes, Inc. (BHI) data. That is an amazing contrast. The industry has simply gotten better

at doing more with less, by cutting drilling times and tweaking completion designs to maximize
the amount of crude oil and/or natural gas that they can lift from the well.
While US shale production is decreasing, output from members of the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) remains consistently high. As of April 2016, OPEC crude output surged
by 330,000 b/d to 32.8 million b/d, supported by a 300,000 b/d contribution from Iran and increased
supplies from Iraq and the UAE, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
There are two primary arguments at work now—one in favor of a hard recovery, and the other in
favor of a protracted downturn. Each will be discussed in turn.
The primary bull argument, in S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view, centers on the decline
rate—a feature of any producing well, whereby a producing well will yield a little less the
following year than it did the year before—partly a function of reduced pressure in the well that
makes it harder to lift more liquid to the surface. The last time we had a major market-share war
over crude oil between the US and Saudi Arabia was in the mid-1980s, when base decline rates
were in the low-single digits. There was no production from unconventional shale plays, because
the technologies that have been harnessed to generate that production (horizontal drilling, coupled
with fracking) had not yet been deployed by the industry in this way.
It is a different story today. The shale revolution has ushered in an era of abundant supply—a far
cry from the “peak oil” theory that was discussed just a decade ago. However, those shale wells,
being impermeable, have far higher decline rates, often in the 60% range after just one year. The
industry has tapped the brakes rather hard on upstream spending, partly from service cost
deflation and partly from reduced activity levels. As existing wells lose some of their productive
capacity, and are less frequently replaced with new wells, theory suggests that, all else being equal,
supply will likely begin to nosedive.
However, the primary bear argument is that all else is not equal. Companies adapt to changing
fundamentals. There is a backlog of approximately 5,000 uncompleted wells waiting to be
brought online. In other words, ironically, companies can put a dent in the price recovery by
building supply back up too quickly when they think prices are recovering.
In isolation, this is an excellent strategy for a given company. However, in aggregate, it raises the
risk that the minute crude oil hits some threshold level (perhaps $60 per barrel), producers will
come out of the shadows to complete new wells, forcing prices south once again, and bringing
continued pain back to the industry. Between these two camps, S&P Global Market Intelligence
thinks the bull case eventually wins out, but we do not see it gaining ground on the bear case for
at least the next 12 months.
What Distinguished This Downturn in the Energy Markets?

The first clue that things might be different this time came in October 2014, when Saudi Arabia
elected to cut its official selling prices (OSPs) to a number of different regions around the world.
Rather than trim production, as has been its wont in recent oil crises, this time Saudi Arabia
elected to wage a market-share war with the burgeoning onshore US shale oil producers. WTI
crude oil prices responded by falling more than 50% in just five months, to about $43 per barrel
from a prior $90 per barrel. Since then, we have seen one short-lived recovery (to the low $60 per-
barrel range), followed by a second relapse to the low $40 per-barrel range.
Most shale oil production occurs in the first few years, making the timing of first production
important. To be fair, there are going to be lags in completing these wells, particularly given that
many fracking crews have been laid off during this crisis, so it is not as if a massive wave of
completions is imminent. However, to the extent that new completions do occur, it will likely put
more downward pressure on crude oil prices as incremental production enters US supply.
Looming Impact on Proved Reserves

Part of the process of estimating year-end proved reserves is determining what fields are economic at
current pricing. For the last several years, prices used in this analysis have been determined by taking
an average of each of the 12 months of the year, and then taking an average of that number. Since
the recent oil crisis only started in October 2014, this calculation, for year-end 2014, yielded nine
months with fairly high prices (in the $90–$100 per-barrel range) and only three months with weak
pricing. As a result, early 2015 revisions proved reserves were not particularly high. However, WTI
crude oil averaged $49 per barrel in 2015—a drop of nearly 50%. Consequently, the revisions made
in early 2016 were more extensive. Based on the numbers year to date, S&P Global Market
Intelligence expects the average-of-monthly-averages to illustrate a small sequential decline in 2016
compared with 2015 (or at least a smaller decline than that from 2014 to 2015). This would likely
hurt estimated proved reserves, especially in the proved undeveloped (PUD) category. An upstream
company’s estimated PUD reserves estimate is based on fields that have not been developed, but that
are expected to be developed in the near future. Weak prices could lead to uneconomic fields that
had previously been deemed economic. This will likely weigh on overall proved reserve estimates
and potentially weigh on upstream valuations.
Borrowing Base Redeterminations

Twice a year, in April and October, upstream companies and their lenders engage in an exercise in
which the banks determine how much liquidity they are willing to lend their client oil and gas
companies. This is known as a borrowing base redetermination. The most recent iteration, in
April 2016, was a little more stringent than that in October 2015. S&P Global Market
Intelligence thinks banks are getting increasingly nervous about their energy exposure, with a
downturn now approaching the two-year mark. As a result, to the extent that energy prices
recover, we think upstream producers may strategically opt for a combination of growth capital
spending and debt reductions.
Not all developments since the start of the oil crisis have been negative for the upstream community.
Many upstream names have benefited from lower drilling and completion costs, as oil services
companies slashed their prices to keep business and avoid layoffs of their workforce, as best as they
could. In addition, many companies have elected to “high-grade” their portfolios, focusing their
drilling efforts only on the plays they think will have the best internal rates of return.
Upstream Meltdown
Capex Weakness: Is the Bottom in Sight in 2016?
Accelerated capital expenditure (capex) cuts among oil companies are likely in 2016, according to
S&P Global Market Intelligence consensus estimates. Large exploration and production (E&P)
companies in North America had initially set a 25% decrease in their capex for 2016, but in
February, these companies slashed capital spending by 50%, according to energy research firm
IHS Herold. Companies with the largest capex cuts for 2016 include Southwestern Energy (79%),
Devon Energy (75%), Continental Resources (63%), and Apache (62%). This trend signifies that
more companies are beginning to live within their means. As of May 2016, the median for E&Ps’
cash flow from operations (CFO) as a percentage of capex was 87%, compared with 105% two
years ago.

CASH FROM OPERATIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
(for the year 2016, E&P median, 1st and 3rd quartiles, monthly, in percent)
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Current
2013 2014 2015 2016 2016
E&P Median 1st Quartile 3rd Quartile
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence Consensus Estimates.
Using S&P Global Market Intelligence consensus data, we see an ongoing divide between our
independent E&P coverage universe (largely composed of US onshore drillers) and our integrated
oil and gas coverage universe (which includes the better-capitalized supermajor oils). Comparing
projected cash for 2016 from operations against projected capital spending for the same year, a
widening free cash flow deficit is likely for the median E&P, in contrast to a still-healthy free cash
flow surplus for the median integrated oil and gas companies. As of May 2016, S&P Global
Market Intelligence thinks that companies in the oil & gas exploration & production sub-industry
will generate revenues amounting to only 93% of their capital spending in 2016. Nonetheless, a
shaky recovery is expected for the oil industry in 2017, although the upstream weakness is the
biggest since the 1980s, but shorter this time around.
Collectively, upstream spending fell about 29% in 2015, based on reported financials for S&P
Global Market Intelligence’s coverage universe, and our consensus estimates suggest (as of May
2016) a drop of an additional 39% in 2016. The 2016 outlook is a marked change from recent
expectations. In May 2015—one year ago—the consensus view for capital spending in 2016
implied a 5% recovery, which indicates that in the 12 months since then, that consensus view has
fallen 44 percentage points, solidly into negative territory, overall. We also note that a second
consecutive year of upstream capital spending, if realized, would be the first time this has occurred
since the mid-1980s. S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks this 39% decline, which is a nominal
number and therefore reflects both service cost deflation and real activity declines, is probably the
bottom before spending recovers. The consensus estimates for 2017 suggest an uptick in capital
spending of about 3.5%—not especially strong, but at least not another decline.
The Substitution Effect: Are There Upstream Shelters in the Storm?

S&P Global Market Intelligence has established a fundamentally bearish view of crude oil
markets, at least through 2016. But what about other commodities, and what about natural gas
and natural gas liquids (NGLs)?

Until recently, natural gas had largely sidestepped the latest oil crisis, but only because it went
through its own crisis back in 2012—one from which it has not yet recovered. Average prices,
which used to be in the $6.00 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu) range from 2005 to2007,
retreated to the $3.00/MMBtu range. However, in December 2015, prices hit a remarkable low of
$1.80 per MMBtu, which is actually worse than the price crash in 2012. Henry Hub spot prices
are expected to average $2.25 per MMBtu in 2016, even lower than the $2.63 average in 2015,
before improving to $3.02 MMBtu in 2017, according to the EIA. In a way, the natural gas crisis
in 2012, when prices briefly dipped below the $2.00/MMBtu mark, was possibly a prequel to the
oil crisis we are seeing now. An excess supply of shale gas was the primary culprit, in much the
same way that an excess supply of shale oil is the primary culprit in the current oil crisis, in S&P
Global Market Intelligence’s view.
Much of shale gas today is not actually obtained in gas-directed drilling; a lot of it comes from
associated gas—natural gas trapped within a liquids-rich reservoir. As companies explore for shale
oil, and with rising environmental restrictions limiting gas flaring (such as in North Dakota), that
incremental natural gas enters supply. To the extent that oil production remains high, S&P Global
Market Intelligence expects natural gas supply to remain high as well—and to limit the ability of
producers to generate attractive prices. Between crude oil and natural gas, even in this
environment, in most cases (based on data from Bentek Energy) internal rates of return remain
higher for crude oil plays.
For NGLs, pricing appears to be on the rise after several years of weakness, as demand is beginning
to show improved signs of life and as supply falters slightly. In our coverage universe of independent
E&Ps, S&P Global Market Intelligence projects that the median E&P will get 12% of its production
in 2016 from NGLs (on a barrel of oil equivalent basis).
Midstream Counterparty Risk

In recent years, US midstream companies—the ones that build pipelines, storage terminals, gas
processing facilities, and so on—have benefited from the rapid surge in US onshore production.
Some of that production came in regions that historically already had infrastructure, but were
overwhelmed; in other cases, production arose in regions where there was no knowledge that
economic volumes of crude oil exist beneath the surface.
We are approaching the point where we think the midstream has committed too much capital,
which raises two risks. One, it is possible that some projects not yet built will never leave the
planning stage, in S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view. Two, for capacity that has already been
built, midstream operators may discover, to their dismay, that volumes are insufficient.
A related major concern with US midstream centers around the business model penchant for paying
out large dividends and funding capital spending needs with elevated borrowing. In our Stock
Appreciation Ranking System coverage universe, the average net debt-to-capitalization ratio for
MLP-structured companies is about 62%—well above the corresponding ratio for pure-play E&Ps.
As long as customer demand for pipeline access remained strong, pipeline companies could raise
funding to build more pipelines. However, as customer demand has slowed, S&P Global Market
Intelligence sees potential for either a deceleration in dividend growth rates or reduced access to
financing, or both.
Further, too much exposure to poor-credit E&P companies can be dangerous. For example, in an
effort to break off long-term agreements with their midstream partners, two large companies,

Quicksilver Resources, Inc. and Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., filed for bankruptcy protection in 2015.
In this current low oil price environment, a domino effect is likely, and midstream companies are
more wary of entering into agreements with debt-laden E&Ps. More alarming, an estimated 175
E&Ps are at risk for bankruptcy in 2016, according to consultancy firm Deloitte.
In March 2016, a US Bankruptcy Court judge made a non-binding ruling that Sabine could legally
renegotiate its contracts with its midstream providers. If this ruling is upheld on appeal, it could
easily encourage substantial contract renegotiations between producers and midstream operators,
in S&P Global Market Intelligence’s view, which will likely result in more bargaining power
shifting to the producers.
As with upstream companies, midstream operators are learning to live within their means.
Dividends and growth capex as a percentage of CFO is projected to drop from 167% in 2015 to
141% in 2016 and 106% in 2017.
DIVIDENDS & GROWTH CAPEX AS A PERCENTAGE OF CASH FROM OPERATIONS

(S&P STARS* universe for oil & gas storage & transportation as of May 25, 2016, in percent)
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
2008–2011 2012–2014 2015 2016† 2017†
*Stock Appreciation Ranking System. †Projected.
Downstream Challenges and Opportunities

Best Days Are Behind, but Still Profitable
Proft margins among oil companies are narrowing, according to company reports in 2015.
ExxonMobil announced earnings of $16.2 billion, a 50% plunge from $32.5 billion in 2014.
Chevron’s earnings dropped 76% to $4.6 billion in 2015. ConocoPhillips fared even worse,
reporting a consolidated earnings loss of $4.4 billion compared with a positive $6.9 billion
earnings in 2014. To cope with the losses, some companies are taking advantage of the current
boom in petrochemicals by investing in more ethane crackers (ethane being a natural byproduct of
shale), according to S&P Global’s energy and metal division, Platts. In particular, the ethane-
heavy Northeast US is the site of 17 announced greenfield projects.

However, there is the risk that the industry is backing the wrong horse when comparing prices of
ethane, propane, and naphtha. Naphtha prices are highly correlated with oil prices; low oil prices
are pushing global naphtha prices down and encouraging steam cracker operators to use naphtha
as feedstock instead of ethane. Further, the value of the co-products (i.e., propylene, gasoil,
hydrogen) for naphtha-based crackers is much higher than the value of the co-products for
ethane-based crackers, according to Platts’ calculations. Meanwhile, propane prices are also
plunging due to oversupply of US natural gas, and this year we could see some of the lowest prices
for liquid propane (LP) gas in recent years, according to an article by The Washington Times
published on January 17, 2016. This is good news for home and business consumers who rely on
LP gas for heating and manufacturing.
Aside from steam crackers, gasoline refineries are undergoing interesting developments as the Tier
3 regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set to take effect in January 1,
2017. Under the Tier 3 program, vehicle gasoline sulfur content must be reduced to an annual
average standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur by 2025. For smaller refineries, the
regulation will start to take effect in 2020. Failure to comply will result in fines and even
prohibition of delivery into markets. This impending regulation is causing automakers to become
concerned about how desulfurization of gasoline reduces octane levels, which in turn makes it
incompatible with high-octane engines. Nonetheless, automakers and refineries see this
development as an opportunity to develop new technologies.
Meanwhile, gasoline refineries are currently enjoying higher margins. In 2015, margins increased
due to growing domestic and global consumption, according to the EIA. Gasoline refinery
margins averaged 48 cents/gallon (gal) in 2015, compared with the previous five-year average of
25 cents/gal, according to the EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook report published in May 2016.
In April 2016, strong demand for gasoline pushed margins to 49 cents/gal, compared with 42
cents/gal in the prior-year period. On the other hand, consumption of distillate fuels, which
includes diesel, fell 1.5% in 2015, and it is forecast to fall a further 2.5% in 2016. Diesel fuel
retail price averaged $2.71/gal in 2015, and it is expected to average $2.27/gal in 2016 before
improving to $2.64/gal in 2017, according to the report.
US Refiners Deal with Too Much of a Good Thing

The astonishing success of the US shale oil play has been the linchpin of the US becoming far less
reliant on imported crude oil than it has in the past. Most of that newly homegrown crude oil is of
the light/sweet variety—meaning that it has high American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity (the
“light” part) and is low in sulfur (the “sweet” reference). Unfortunately for US refiners, most of
them were planning, dating back to perhaps 2004 or 2005, for a marginal barrel that was
increasingly heavy (low API) and increasingly sour (high in sulfur). There are limitations to how
much light/sweet crude oil can be run through a refinery that is not equipped to handle it.
Fortunately, the industry has been ingenious at coming up with new ways to address this problem.
One of them is to blend the light/sweet crude oil with the heavy/sour crude coming from Canada,
and generate a new slate of crude oil that is better disposed to generating refined products out of
it. Another way is to tinker with the equipment and maximize the ability to handle light/sweet.
US Refined Product Exports: Can Foreign Nations Absorb Excess Supply?

The glut of crude oil at home has created a good problem to have: once all of it has been refined
into products for use, how does one find enough consumers willing to buy it? Much of that
light/sweet crude oil generates distillates such as diesel oil, but diesel sees higher demand outside
of the US, such as in Latin America or Europe. Could a rising tide of refined product exports be
the white knight for the industry at large?
In a word, doubtful. S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks diesel exports to Latin America will
remain plentiful, but such exports already account for about 20% of Latin America’s demand,
according to John Auers of Turner Mason & Company. The degree to which incremental supply
exported from the US can displace homegrown diesel supply is probably limited. Europe certainly
represents a large target market, but the US is no longer the only game in town when it comes to
supplying refined products. The Middle East is on the verge of becoming a big name in product
refining, with the Jubail complex (400,000 b/d) now operating. Two others that are collectively
another 800,000 b/d are in the process of being built out. Russia is also becoming a force in
refined product export capability. As a result, we remain somewhat concerned that the market for
refined product exports will become increasingly competitive. Keep in mind that the US already
faces longer shipping times to Europe than either the Middle East or Russia does.
Nonetheless, the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, to be completed on June 2016, is
expected to open bigger doors for US refined products exports. This expansion could shift
international trade routes, enabling ships from the US Gulf Coast to reach Asia two weeks earlier
than it would take to go through the Suez Canal.
Alternatives to Fossil Fuels

With oil dependence and global warming on the top of the international energy agenda,
alternatives to fossil fuel energy are of increased interest. These alternatives include nuclear power,
as well as renewable sources, such as hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, solar (both solar
collectors that transform sunlight into heat, and photovoltaic panels that generate electricity from
sunlight), and wind.
Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source, increasing 2.6% annually. Nuclear energy
is growing 2.3% annually, and it is expected to rise from 4.0% of the global total energy
consumption in 2012 to 6.0% in 2040according to the EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2016.
By 2040, coal, natural gas, and renewable energy sources are forecast to contribute more or less
equal shares (28.0%–29.0%) to global energy generation In terms of electricity production, wind
and hydropower are each expected to account for one-third of the increase in total electricity
generation from renewable sources by 2040. However, solar energy is the fastest-growing market,
at 8.3% annually.
Although most of the supermajors, such as British Petroleum (BP), Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and
Total, are researching and building renewable energy businesses with a long-term view, they have
cut back on R&D spending in recent years. BP dissolved its solar power business in 2011 (two years
later, the company failed to sell its US wind power business); Chevron sold its energy efficiency
operations to Oaktree, a private equity firm, in 2014. Even with a record $329.3 billion of
investments in renewable energy in 2015, companies are becoming hesitant to invest in alternative
energy, choosing to cut R&D expenses on upstream projects to survive the low oil price
environment, according to a Bloomberg article published on January 14, 2016. China dominated
investments in renewable energy in 2015 ($110.5 billion), while the US contributed $56.0 billion.
Greenhouse Gas Concerns

Many chemicals found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as greenhouse gases (GHG), which absorb
infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Given the natural variability of the Earth’s
climate, there is considerable uncertainty about how the climate system reacts to emissions of GHG.
Assessments by the US EIA generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past
century and that human activity has been an important factor. Rising temperatures, in turn, may
produce changes in weather, sea levels, and land use patterns.

Many gases exhibit greenhouse properties. Some of these gases (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide) occur in nature, while others, such as gases used for aerosols, are
exclusively manmade. Based on the inventory of US GHG emissions from 1990–2014, (latest
available), 37% of carbon dioxide emissions in the US are from electric power generation,
according to the EPA, followed by transportation at 31%. In 2014, there was a 36% increase in
radiative forcing—the warming effect in the climate—according to the agency.
In August 2015, the EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which establishes GHG emission
rate goals and mass equivalents for each state. The CPP targets to reduce emissions from the
power sector 32% from 2005 levels by 2030. However, in February 2016, the US Supreme Court
issued a stay of the CPP, freezing carbon pollution standards for existing power plants while the
Court of Appeals reviews the rules. The final ruling is not expected until 2017.
Environmental Concerns About Fracking

Environmentalists generally have three major concerns with fracking: the lack of measurement of
GHG emissions in shale production, the lack of transparency in hydraulic fluid chemical disclosure,
and well performance.
 GHG emissions in shale production. Natural gas flaring and venting, used to eliminate waste
gas that is otherwise not usable or transportable, as well as any groundwater contamination, may
be offsetting any impact of lower carbon content versus coal or petroleum. Currently, upstream
companies are not tracking how much methane is being vented or leaked, possibly offsetting some
of the benefits versus coal production. One issue that has arisen with respect to natural gas and
the greenhouse gas effect is the fact that methane, its principal component, is a major GHG.
 Lack of transparency. Historically, one of the main criticisms of the oil and gas industry has
been a lack of transparency. The fracking issue has further damaged this reputation, causing the
industry to lose its license to operate in many regions today (e.g., the State of New York). The
public has begun demanding disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking to better understand the
impact on the environment and human health. The new bill in Texas to disclose fracking fluids is
significant, given the state’s stature as a major oil and gas producer.
 Well performance. A critical process to avoid groundwater contamination is a company’s well

construction, well completion, and water disposal methods. The majority of fracking activities
take place at depths far below existing groundwater sources, making deeper wells safer than
shallow wells, which may be only a few hundred feet below the water table. Well construction
failures, such as faulty cementing and casing, are not limited to offshore wells, and can cause
excessive pressure issues. Insufficient cement or improper casing may also fail to provide aquifers
with protection from contamination. Another concern is what happens to the flow-back water, or
produced water, that comes out of the well after drilling. Presently, companies are trucking water
offsite to treatment facilities for disposal, or retreating and reusing flow-back water for new jobs.
There is currently limited analysis available as to what is in the flow-back water (which may
change materially from its original state after being injected into the Earth) and, consequently, what
impact it has on the environment. Another concern is whether the flow-back water is being placed
in lined pits or enclosed tanks when it is pumped out of the well.
While environmental risks are inherent in fossil fuel drilling, the industry is likely to place a bigger
emphasis on safety and quality control, improving disclosure practices, and implementing better
and more-accountable environmental management systems.

Regulatory Recap: Uncertainty Abounds
There are major regulatory issues and developments that affect every level of the energy value
chain, whether upstream, midstream, or downstream. S&P Global Market Intelligence tackles
each of these in succession.
 Crude oil exports (upstream). For more than 40 years, the US has had an effective ban in place
to prevent the export of crude oil to other nations, with a few minor exceptions, such as exports
to Canada. Now that the US is swimming in incremental light/sweet crude oil, sitting in a mature
market, and with a refining industry showing preference for heavy/sour crude, lifting the ban
seemed to be the logical next step. If the restrictions on crude oil exports were eliminated, the
effects would depend on the level of future domestic production, which in turn would depend on
the characterization of resources and technology, as well as on future crude oil prices, according
to a report released by the EIA in September 2015.
In December 2015, Congress agreed to lift the ban, after which President Barack Obama signed it
into law. In January 2016, the first oil to be exported from the US in 40 years was shipped from
Texas to France, and it will not be long before Latin America and Asia become natural markets,
according to an article in The Wall Street Journal published January 13, 2016.
 Condensate exports (upstream). Before the lifting of the crude oil export ban, the US
Department of Commerce issued two private letters, enabling certain US companies to export
condensate (lightly processed crude oil). This raised an interesting question: how refined does a
refined product need to be? In January 2015, the government published new policy guidance and
emphasized that distillation is the key to classification of lease condensate as a refined product.
The ban on crude oil did not apply to refined products. The US is already a major exporter of
diesel to Latin America. Hence, a refinery could, in theory, add a new stabilizer to its portfolio of
assets, transform crude oil relatively cheaply into condensate, and export the condensate. By the
end of 2015, $1 billion in condensate splitter projects had been built or were under construction,
with another $715 million–$1 billion or more planned, although some may be scaled back or
dropped, according to a Reuters article published December 28, 2015. However, with the lifting
of the crude oil export ban, condensate producers can also export freely now. In general, S&P
Global Market Intelligence does not see a major uptick in crude oil exports given the collapse in
the Brent-WTI crude oil spread, but we do think condensate exports could still be attractive.
 Asset drop-downs (midstream). A court decision in Delaware in April 2015 called into
question the common practice of dropping down assets from a corporate parent to an MLP-
structured subsidiary at allegedly inflated prices. Challenging the process by which the value of
the assets is gauged may transform how assets are sold in the future, and perhaps result in fewer
of these transactions.
 RINs (downstream). Renewable Identification Number (RIN) requirements are set by the
federal government, as part of its plan to introduce E85 fuels into the US marketplace more
broadly. In the past, complications arose from a growing demand for ethanol to be blended into
gasoline, including automobile engine manufacturers concerns about the ability of their engines to
handle too much ethanol. In June 2015, the EPA proposed renewable fuel standards for all
gasoline and diesel motor vehicles produced or imported in 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as a
standard for biomass-based diesel volume for 2017. Ethanol introduces important constraints for
infrastructure—for example, it cannot travel in the same pipelines as water does. Hence, knowing
how much ethanol one will need to blend into gasoline also provides some insight into how much
new pipeline infrastructure one will need to handle that ethanol.

HOW THE INDUSTRY OPERATES
The modern petroleum industry began in 1859 near Titusville, Pennsylvania, where “Colonel”
Edwin Drake (1819–1880) became the first person to drill successfully for oil. In 1901, a huge
gusher blew at Spindletop, a hill in eastern Texas, foreshadowing that state’s future as the hub of
US oil production.
The advent of the automobile created a market for gasoline, which until then had been the
industry’s largest waste byproduct. Meanwhile, demand for kerosene (produced by refining crude
oil) began to decline with the introduction of Thomas Edison’s electric light.
The oil industry has changed significantly over the past century. As worldwide deposits have been
identified, US influence on the global oil market has greatly diminished. In 1934, the US
accounted for 60% of total world oil production. In 2014, the US accounted for just 12.3% of the
world’s total crude oil production, according to the June 2015 issue of the BP Statistical Review of
World Energy. However, US oil production in 2014 increased 1.6 million barrels per day (b/d)
compared with the previous year, the highest growth in the world. The US is the first country ever
to increase its production by at least 1 million b/d for three consecutive years, overtaking Saudi
Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer. This same source noted that fossil fuels (crude oil,
natural gas, and coal) fulfill about 86.3% of the world’s primary energy needs; in addition, they
are used as feedstock by the chemicals, plastics, and pharmaceuticals industries.
The Energy Sector Is Cyclical

Historically, the energy sector has been cyclical in nature. S&P Global Market Intelligence dates
past cycles based on the level of US upstream spending by all market participants. We estimate
that boom periods existed from 1947 to 1957, 1972 to 1981, and 1996 to 2014, and that bust
periods existed from 1958 to 1971 and from 1982 to 1995. However, we think the recent surge in
US onshore production, being relatively low-risk and with increasingly manageable completed
well costs (out of necessity due to falling crude oil prices), could harken for a new era of
abundance in supply, and thus the start of another bear cycle. It remains too early to tell, though,
whether stronger exploration and production (E&P) spending discipline will bring back a
recovery relatively quickly or only after prolonged misery. Many companies are making strides at
improving the well economics of shale plays, either by increasing the number of units obtained
(and thus reducing per-unit costs), or by making the well construction process more efficient.
S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks that the last lengthy energy downturn (1982–1995)
reflected three main factors. First, producers changed their focus, emphasizing return on
investment rather than production growth. Second, with oil and natural gas prices hovering
around much lower than historical averages, industry fundamentals were soft and investor interest
was low. Third, access to low-cost reserves in foreign or US federal lands was limited.
Then the scenario changed, and the sector entered a boom in 1996 (temporarily interrupted by the
1997–1998 Asian economic crisis), reflecting our analysis that producers came under pressure to
replenish their reserves in order to maintain their production targets in the face of rising decline
rates. New technology improved the technical and economic prospects of new projects in harsh
environments, such as Arctic and deepwater finds. Access to certain foreign lands and some
environmentally restricted lands came under review, and oil and gas prices rose and stayed above
historical averages. In order to meet an increase in global demand, huge additions and expansions
to existing energy infrastructure (pipelines, tankers, rigs, and refineries) will be required, as well as
the replacement of outdated existing facilities.
Industry Divisions
The oil and gas business has three major segments: exploration and production (E&P) of oil and
natural gas (the upstream); the transportation, storage, and trading of crude oil, refined products,
and natural gas (the midstream); and refining and marketing of crude oil (the downstream).
Participants include integrated oil and gas companies, and pure-play companies in various areas,
including E&P, midstream services, refining and marketing, and oilfield services and drilling. This
Survey covers all but the last category.
International Integrated Oil and Gas Companies

Integrated oil and gas companies are involved in almost every aspect of the oil and natural gas
business: the upstream, the midstream, and the downstream. Many integrated oil and gas companies
also make and sell petrochemicals. International integrated oil and gas companies conduct their
operations worldwide and are among the largest and most recognized firms in the world.
International integrated oil and gas companies based outside the US include both publicly owned
and state-owned firms. In some countries, local governments retain significant ownership shares in
the otherwise publicly owned oil company domiciled in that nation.
Saudi Aramco, owned by Saudi Arabia, is that nation’s primary source of income and is estimated
to be the largest oil and gas company in the world. The largest publicly owned firms—BP plc,
Chevron Corp., ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell plc, and Total SA—are known as the
“supermajors.” Each has a market capitalization of approximately $100 billion or more.
Major Integrated Oil and Gas Companies

Large integrated oil and gas companies—typically with market capitalization of less than $100
billion—are known as the “majors.” They explore for and develop oil and natural gas worldwide,
but their refining and marketing operations are generally focused on their local markets.
Independent E&P Companies

E&P companies are often referred to as independents because their “upstream” operations are not
integrated with “downstream” operations such as refining or petrochemical production. Most
such firms were spun-off from larger corporations, including railroads, integrated oil and gas
companies, pipeline companies, or utilities. A number of companies originated in a single field and
grew by acquiring smaller competitors or individual properties from larger competitors.
Independents with oil and gas reserves predominantly in the Americas tend to have higher cost
profiles than their international counterparts, because the American continent is a geographically
mature region with many fields in the late stages of their lives. In many cases, these independents
bought their properties from the international integrated oils, which were focused on higher-
return operations abroad.
The independent E&P companies in the North American natural gas sector are cost-competitive,
due to tight supply and demand conditions and a lack of competition from cheaper imports. Thus,
they are key players in North American natural gas. New drilling technologies have also allowed
for more cost-effective onshore crude oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) extraction from previously
economically unviable unconventional resource basins. This has made independent E&P
companies more competitive in North American oil production.

Midstream Services Companies
Services provided to oil and gas producers by the midstream firms include transportation, storage,
and trading of oil, natural gas, and refined products. Many of these companies are structured as
limited partnerships, which confer tax advantages for their unit holders. Major independent
participants include Enterprise Products Partners LP, Kinder Morgan Inc., TransCanada Corp., and
Williams Cos.
Refining and Marketing Companies

These firms refine and sell crude oil products such as gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, motor oil, and
various lubricants. These companies included HollyFrontier Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corp.,
Phillips 66 Co., Tesoro Corp., and Valero Energy Corp. Several large privately held participants
include Koch Industries Inc., PDV America Inc., and Motiva Enterprises LLC.

KEY INDUSTRY RATIOS AND STATISTICS
 Prices of oil, gas, and refined products. As a reflection of supply and demand, and a major
determinant of profits, price is one of the most closely watched factors in the energy business.
Along with sales volumes, prices determine the revenues of upstream oil and gas companies.
 Oil and gas inventories. While oil inventory levels in absolute terms may reflect immediately
available supplies, a measure based on days of forward demand cover (how many days of demand
are covered by current oil inventories) indicates the adequacy of current oil supplies against an
unexpected event. This measure may provide a better indication of oil supply in a market where
demand has recently increased and where further strong growth in demand is projected.
 Growth in GDP. Oil, gas, and refined oil products play a central role in US economic activity,
in addition to providing energy for industry, commerce, and transportation. In turn, economic
growth, as measured by changes in gross domestic product (GDP), influences demand for oil and
natural gas. With oil demand sensitive to changes in income, S&P Global Market Intelligence
thinks that strong economic growth from non-OECD countries, such as China, India, and the
Middle East, will boost global energy demand going forward. (The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a forum in which member countries develop and refine
energy and other policies.)
 Oil and gas supply and demand. A critical factor in assessing the oil industry’s outlook is
supply and demand for oil and natural gas. Statistics may be obtained from a variety of sources,
including research firms such as IHS, government agencies such as the US Energy Information
Administration (EIA), the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), and trade organizations
such as the American Petroleum Institute (API).

HOW TO ANALYZE A COMPANY IN THIS INDUSTRY
When analyzing a particular oil and gas company, begin by looking at general industry factors
(discussed in the “Key Industry Ratios and Statistics” section of this Survey), then examine
company-specific factors.
The fortunes of oil and gas companies are tied to overall supply and demand issues that are
reflected in oil and gas prices. Price changes affect industry sectors differently. For example, high
prices for oil and natural gas benefit the upstream (exploration and production, or E&P)
companies, but hurt the downstream (refiners) in the form of higher costs. For integrated oil
companies, the business diversification between the upstream and downstream tends to mitigate
the effects of oil and gas price fluctuations. Because they are usually more leveraged to the
upstream, such companies generally benefit from higher prices for oil and natural gas.
Company-Specific Factors
Once an outlook for the entire industry or sector has been established, a review of company-specific
factors, both operational and financial, can help to differentiate industry participants by illuminating
their competitive advantages relative to their peers. Factors such as reserve life, reserve replacement,
and finding and development (F&D) costs pertain to upstream participants, while refining and
marketing margins, and feedstock flexibility, are important when analyzing the downstream.
Oil and Gas Producers

The breakdown of a company’s production and reserves in terms of oil or natural gas indicates
the company’s relative sensitivity to the commodities’ prices.
 Production volumes. Is the company’s oil and gas production increasing or declining?
Production volumes tend to fluctuate from year to year, depending on oil and gas price levels.
Oil and natural gas production in North America is generally more sensitive to price than is
international production. S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks one reason for this is that North
America is dominated by independent E&P companies, which usually work from short-term plans
focused on relatively smaller natural gas projects. International oil production, in contrast, is
dominated by the supermajors and national oil companies (NOCs), which tend to work from
long-term plans focused on large projects.
 Reserve replacement. The reserve replacement ratio, calculated as a percentage of production

volume over a given period of time, measures the extent to which a company replenishes its
reserve base as it is depleted by production. If a company replaces more than 100% of its
production volume during a given period of time, its reserves will be larger at the end of the year
than at the beginning. Such increases in the reserve replacement ratio generally come from
discoveries, extensions, improved recoveries, or acquisitions.
E&P companies typically disclose reserve replacement data on a yearly basis. It is important to
make annual comparisons and to review longer-term trends as well.
Note that a new rule from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) came into effect on
January 1, 2010, which allows for a looser interpretation of “reasonable certainty” to determine
proved reserves. This new rule could lead to a significant increase in proven undeveloped reserves
(PUDs), particularly for companies with a large focus on unconventional resource plays, such as
shale gas. Offsetting this trend are downward revisions to prove reserves in 2009 that are

expected from the SEC mandate that the average annual price now be used to calculate
economically viable proved reserves, rather than the historical method of taking year-end prices.
 Upstream performance ratios. Managing the costs of finding, developing, and producing
reserves is of the utmost importance to E&P companies, which produce a commodity product
distinguished by price rather than by brand or perceived quality.
Finding (or exploration) costs reflect the expense of searching for new oil and gas reserves.
Development costs reflect the expense in preparing the reserves for production by obtaining access
to the reserves and building the facilities needed. Production (or lifting) costs reflect the efficiency
of the company’s oil and gas production.
Two common ways of accounting for exploration and development costs are the successful-efforts
method and the full-cost method. In general, under the successful-efforts method, costs for dry
exploration wells are written off, and costs for successful exploratory wells and all development
costs are capitalized and amortized over production. Under the full-cost method, all costs,
incurred in exploration, drilling, and development, are capitalized and amortized.
Finding, developing, and lifting costs are usually expressed in terms of either per barrel of oil
equivalent (boe) or per thousand cubic feet of gas equivalent (Mcfe). As with reserve replacement
ratios, three-year and five-year trends are usually more pertinent than are statistics for a single
year. These costs are reflected in the recycle ratio, which compares the netback to the total costs
incurred in replacing the reserves. In general, international regions outperform the US.
Refiners and Marketers

With only limited company-specific refining and marketing data publicly available, industry
participants make estimates of refining and marketing margins based on the market (spot) prices
of petroleum products.
 Refining margins. The refining margin, expressed on a per-barrel basis, is estimated in broad
terms in the financial markets by the “crack spread.” The crack spread is calculated by the
difference between the spot prices of refined petroleum products and the associated benchmark
crude oil feedstock.
 Marketing margins. Marketing includes efforts from both wholesale and retail sales; retail sales
include contributions from both fuel and merchandise. Wholesale and retail fuel marketing
margins, expressed on a per-barrel basis, reflect the difference between what marketers must pay
to purchase refined petroleum products (either from their own refining operations or from other
refiners) and what they receive for selling them (in the wholesale and/or retail markets). During
periods of high oil prices, these margins can be negative, as marketers can have a hard time
passing a sharp rise in feedstock costs on to their customers.
Evaluating the Financial Statements

Investors use various performance measures to identify firms with the greatest potential for
growth and performance. For peer comparison, performance measures for oil and gas companies
are usually normalized on a “per-barrel” basis (by “oil and gas production” for E&P firms, and
by “refining throughout” for refiners). The first step, however, is to review recent and historical
financial results.

Revenues and Earnings
The sources of a company’s revenues and earnings must be determined. For an integrated oil
company, what percentage of revenues and earnings comes from exploration and production,
from refining and marketing, or from petrochemicals?
Operating Margin
One measure of how efficiently a company functions may be shown in its operating margin,
which is determined by dividing operating income (revenues minus operating expenses) by
revenues. The operating margin indicates the profitability of basic operating activities, before
accounting for interest expense and income taxes.
Capitalization
The ratio of long-term debt-to-capitalization is a measure of a company’s financial leverage.
Because the oil industry is capital intensive, debt ratios for certain industry participants may be
higher than for companies in service-related industries. Due to their more stable cash flows, the
integrated oil companies tend to be less leveraged than are smaller independent exploration and
production companies or refining and marketing companies.
Cash Flow Versus Earnings per Share

A widely watched performance indicator is reported income (income before discontinued and
extraordinary items), which is expressed on a per-share basis as earnings per share (EPS).
However, the significant value of noncash items, such as depreciation and depletion, on the
income statement can distort the reported EPS.
Both earnings and cash flow are subject to various interpretations of accounting rules. The cash
flow statement gives a detailed look at where a company’s cash comes from and where it goes. An
important question to ask is how much of that cash was generated from recurring earnings rather
than various accounting adjustments and nonrecurring items. It is cash flow, not earnings, that
determines whether a company will be able to cover its future spending. Cash flow growth is an
important confirmation of EPS growth. Investors look for consistent growth trends for earnings
and cash flow, and prefer companies that can use their own cash to finance future growth.
Negative cash flow may signal unsustainable cash burn for companies with little growth.
However, if it yields high growth, it may signal a valuable investment.
Performance Ratios
These ratios can provide valuable insight into how well the company manages its resources.
Return on assets (ROA, calculated as net income divided by the average level of total assets during
the period analyzed) shows a company’s ability to use its assets to generate profits. Return on
equity (ROE), obtained by dividing net income by average equity levels during the year in
question, measures a company’s success in investing its capital.
Increasingly, integrated oils are using return on capital employed (ROCE) as a measure of general
management performance in relation to the capital invested in the business. ROCE is usually
calculated by dividing a measure of earnings (recurring earnings, plus minority shareholders’
interest and after-tax interest expense) by the average level of book capital employed (total debt,
plus book equity and minority interest) in the period being analyzed.
Valuation Techniques
Equity valuation is imprecise. While the methods used to value equities differ in technique, they
share a common goal of estimating the stock’s intrinsic value—a measure of the present value
(PV) of the expected future payoffs to shareholders. In our opinion, a combination of two

approaches helps to substantiate the best estimate of a firm’s equity: direct valuation (discounting
of estimated future cash flows, net asset valuation, or options) and relative valuation (market
multiples of comparable companies).
The discounting of estimated future cash flows is theoretically appealing, but the forecasting of
future oil and natural gas prices and discount rates involves considerable uncertainty.
Furthermore, since a large portion of a firm’s cash flow occurs in later years, the choice and
estimation of the terminal value is critical.
What value does the market place on the company? Relative valuation approaches shed light on
what the market will bear. These include multiple valuation methods, which do not forecast cash
flows, but infer the value of a target company by its performance relative to comparable
companies. Critical to the success of these methods is to carefully select firms with business lines
that are similar to those of the target company. Commonly compared ratios are forward stock
price-to-earnings (P/E); forward price-to-cash flow; forward P/E to long-term growth (PEG); and
enterprise value (EV) to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA)
or EV to EBITDAX (EBITDA before exploration expense).
A common relative valuation approach for conglomerates is the sum-of-the-parts method, in

which each business line is valued individually and then weighted according to its contributions to
overall revenues. This approach is useful in valuing integrated oil companies, as the valuation
multiples of their distinct businesses (exploration and production, refining and marketing, and
chemicals) are different.
S&P Global Market Intelligence thinks that, on average, the market yields higher multiples to
rapidly growing companies and lower multiples to stagnant firms. In our view, the market
rewards the large, international integrated companies with higher multiples because their
geographic and business diversification appears to stabilize their earnings by somewhat mitigating
commodity price and geopolitical risk.

GLOSSARY
API gravity (degrees)—An arbitrary scale expressing the gravity (or density) of liquid petroleum products, devised jointly by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Bureau of Standards.
Boe—Acronym for “barrel of oil equivalent”; a unit of measure used to equate oil and natural gas volumes. (See the “Energy
Conversion Factors” table on the previous page for more details.)
Btu—British thermal unit; the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of one pound of water by one degree
Fahrenheit. Used as a common measure of heating value for different fuels.
Crack spread—The spread differential typically used in the financial markets as a measure of the refining margin. It is the
difference between weighted spot prices of refined petroleum products and an associated crude oil feedstock, expressed on a
per-barrel basis.
Decline rate—The falloff in oil or gas production from an oil well or gas field over a given period. For example, a decline rate of
50% reflects a reserve-to-production ratio of two years.
Deepwater—Underwater drilling operations located in depths of 3,000 to 5,000 feet. Ultra-deepwater refers to depths greater
than 5,000 feet.
Development—The preparation of a mineral deposit for commercial production, including construction of access and extraction
facilities.
Development costs—Expenses incurred to obtain access to proven reserves of oil and gas and to provide facilities for
extracting, treating, gathering, and storing.
Distillate—Any of the petroleum fractions produced in conventional distillation operations; includes kerosene, heating oils, and
diesel fuels.
Henry Hub—A pipeline hub on the Louisiana Gulf Coast that is the delivery point for the natural gas futures contract on the
New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
Hydrocarbon—An organic chemical compound of hydrogen and carbon in the gaseous, liquid, or solid phase. The molecular
structure of hydrocarbon compounds varies from simple (e.g., methane, a constituent of natural gas) to very heavy and very
complex (e.g., asphalt).
Lifting—Producing oil and gas from a well by mechanical means (pumps, compressed air, or gas); also refers to tankers and/or
barges taking on cargoes of oil and/or products at a transshipment point.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG)—Natural gas (primarily methane) that has been liquefied by reducing its temperature to –260
degrees Fahrenheit at atmospheric pressure.
Liquefied petroleum gases (LPG)—A group of hydrocarbon-based gases derived from crude oil refining or natural gas
fractionation. They include ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, normal butane, butylene, isobutane, and isobutylene. For
convenience of transportation, these gases are liquefied through pressurization.
Mcf—One thousand cubic feet; the standard measure of natural gas volume. (See the “Energy Conversion Factors” table.)
Natural gas—A naturally occurring mixture of gases found beneath the Earth’s surface, often in association with petroleum; its
largest constituent is methane.
Natural gas liquids (NGL)—The portion of natural gas (including ethane, propane, and butane) that is stripped out as liquids at
the Earth’s surface by special processing facilities.

Netback—Oil and gas revenues, less production and transportation costs, but before selling, general, and administration
expenses.
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)—A cartel formed by nations that are substantial net exporters
of oil. Founded in 1960 by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, OPEC today has 12 member countries and is
headquartered in Vienna, Austria. The cartel has the following stated objectives: to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies
of its member countries; to safeguard its members’ individual and collective interests; to stabilize the price of oil; to provide an
efficient, economic, and regulated petroleum supply to oil-consuming nations; and to provide a fair return on capital (ROC) to
those investing in the petroleum industry.
Proved reserves—Estimated quantities of energy sources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with
reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions. In such reserves, the location, quantity,
and grade of the energy source are usually well established.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil—The global energy industry currently considers the US benchmark for crude oil as
“WTI for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma.” While traders now refer to the “NYMEX Light Sweet Crude” futures contract, the
contract allows delivery of other grades (including six US grades and six non-US grades).

INDUSTRY REFERENCES
PERIODICALS BOOKS
Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) Petroleum Accounting: Principles,

http://cen.acs.org/index.html Procedures & Issues (6th Ed.)
Weekly coverage of worldwide petrochemical industry H.R. Brock, M.Z. Carnes, R. Justice
events. Denton, Texas: Professional Development Institute
Focuses on US financial accounting and reporting for
Fuel Oil News petroleum exploration and production activities.
http://fueloilnews.com
Monthly; covers the petroleum refining industry and the RESEARCH FIRMS
retail gasoline marketing industry.
IHS Inc.
Natural Gas Week http://www.ihs.com
Oil Daily This research company provides comprehensive economic,
Petroleum Intelligence Weekly financial, and political coverage to support planning and
http://www.energyintel.com decision-making.
Daily and weekly newsletters, and special reports on oil
and gas pricing, and developments of domestic and TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
international significance.
American Association of Petroleum
Offshore Geologists (AAPG)
Oil & Gas Journal http://www.aapg.org
http://www.offshore-mag.com Founded in 1917, the AAPG is the world’s largest
http://www.ogj.com professional geological society. It provides publications,
Monthly and weekly journals, respectively, containing conferences and educational opportunities to geoscientists,
analysis, charts, illustrations, and market statistics on the and disseminates current geological information to the
oil and gas industry. public.
Oil and Gas Investor American Fuel & Petrochemical

http://www.oilandgasinvestor.com Manufacturers (AFPM)
Monthly; contains analysis and market statistics on the http://www.afpm.org
petroleum and power industry. Represents US refiners and petrochemical manufacturers.
Formerly called the National Petrochemical & Refiners
Oil Market Report Association.
http://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport
Monthly; covers world oil demand, supply, stocks, prices, American Gas Association (AGA)
and outlook. http://www.aga.org
Trade organization representing the US natural gas
Platts Oil Arbitrage Wire industry. Members are primarily companies involved in the
Platts Oilgram News distribution and transportation of natural gas.
Oilgram Price Report
http://www.platts.com American Petroleum Institute (API)
Daily newsletters reporting on oil and gas developments of http://www.api.org
international significance. S&P Global Platts is a division of Trade association representing all branches of the US
S&P Global. petroleum industry. Publishes statistics covering all aspects
of the oil and gas industry, including weekly inventory
reports for crude oil and petroleum products.

Independent Petroleum Association of
America (IPAA)
http://www.ipaa.org
Represents independent oil and gas companies in the US.
Publishes economic reports covering trends in oil and gas
production, supply, and demand.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://www.eia.gov
Established by Congress in 1977, the EIA is a statistical
agency of the US Department of Energy (DOE). It provides
policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses related to
domestic energy industries.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

http://www.epa.gov
Federal agency that oversees the nation’s environmental
safety; enacts and enforces environmental laws. Many
states also maintain environmental agencies.
International Energy Agency (IEA)

http://www.iea.org
An autonomous agency organized during the oil crisis of
1973–1974, the IEA is an energy forum for 28 of the 30
member countries of the OECD, which have governments
committed to taking joint measures to meet oil supply
emergencies. Members, which include the US, share
energy information, coordinate their energy policies, and
cooperate in the development of rational energy programs.
National Petroleum Council (NPC)

http://www.npc.org
Established in 1946, the NPC is an advisory committee to
the US Secretary of Energy. Its reports have concerned
every aspect of oil and gas operations.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD)
http://www.oecd.org
With 34 member countries, including the US, the OECD is a
forum for these market democracies to discuss, develop,
and refine economic and social policies, including energy
policies.
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting

Countries (OPEC)
http://www.opec.org
Permanent intergovernmental organization of 12 oil-
exporting developing nations that coordinates and unifies
the petroleum policies of its member countries all of which
are substantial net exporters of oil.

COMPARATIVE COMPANY ANALYSIS
Operating Revenues
Million $ CAGR (%) Index Basis (2005 = 100)
Ticker Com pany Yr. End 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2005 10-Yr. 5-Yr. 1-Yr. 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
COAL & CONSUMABLE FUELS‡
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC 1,124.1 1,324.0 1,396.1 1,516.8 1,553.7 1,370.8 NA NA (3.9) (15.1) ** ** ** ** NA
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC 2,922.0 E 3,526.5 E 3,137.6 D,E 5,046.5 E 5,991.2 E 5,163.0 A,E 3,414.9 (1.5) (10.8) (17.1) 86 103 92 148 175
INTEGRATED OIL & GAS‡

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 122,566.0 192,308.0 211,664.0 222,580.0 236,286.0 189,607.0 184,922.0 A (4.0) (8.4) (36.3) 66 104 114 120 128
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 236,810.0 364,763.0 390,247.0 420,714.0 433,526.0 341,578.0 A 328,213.0 (3.2) (7.1) (35.1) 72 111 119 128 132
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC 12,480.0 19,312.0 D 24,455.0 24,172.0 23,939.0 19,045.0 D 15,208.0 (2.0) (8.1) (35.4) 82 127 161 159 157
OIL & GAS REFINING & MARKETING‡

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC 2,965.6 A 3,235.6 3,041.0 A 3,476.9 3,553.7 A 2,133.0 NA NA 6.8 (8.3) ** ** ** ** NA
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 13,237.9 19,764.3 20,160.6 20,090.7 15,439.5 A 8,322.9 3,212.7 15.2 9.7 (33.0) 412 615 628 625 481
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 64,359.0 A 91,132.0 A 93,897.0 76,534.0 73,524.0 57,279.0 NA NA 2.4 (29.4) ** ** ** ** NA
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 85,195.0 146,514.0 A 157,730.0 D 166,089.0 182,133.0 132,872.0 NA NA (8.5) (41.9) ** ** ** ** NA
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 436.5 572.2 D 666.1 D 657.7 410.0 A 301.7 C 396.0 D 1.0 7.7 (23.7) 110 144 168 166 104
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 28,163.0 40,062.0 37,034.0 A,C 32,484.0 29,927.0 20,253.0 16,473.0 5.5 6.8 (29.7) 171 243 225 197 182
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 81,824.0 130,844.0 D,E 138,074.0 E 138,286.0 125,095.0 A 81,342.0 D 81,362.0 A 0.1 0.1 (37.5) 101 161 170 170 154
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 9,787.0 15,153.6 10,086.1 A 9,503.1 9,071.0 7,965.1 3,406.7 11.1 4.2 (35.4) 287 445 296 279 266
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 30,379.7 A 43,386.4 A 41,561.9 38,945.3 34,622.9 A 19,131.1 A 8,733.9 13.3 9.7 (30.0) 348 497 476 446 396
OIL & GAS STORAGE & TRANSPORTATION‡

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 1,334.9 F 1,348.0 F 1,180.5 D,F NA NA NA NA NA NA (1.0) ** ** ** ** NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC 14,403.0 F 16,226.0 A,F 14,070.0 F 9,973.0 A,C 8,264.9 F 8,190.6 F 1,585.8 A,C 24.7 12.0 (11.2) 908 1,023 887 629 521
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 7,763.2 F 12,195.1 D,F 14,602.7 F 12,632.6 D,F 14,805.8 D,F 13,030.1 F 12,676.2 D,F (4.8) (9.8) (36.3) 61 96 115 100 117
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC 5,234.0 5,903.0 F 5,518.0 A,F 5,075.0 D,F 5,351.0 D,F 4,945.0 D,F NA NA 1.1 (11.3) ** ** ** ** NA
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC 7,360.0 7,637.0 A 6,860.0 7,486.0 A 7,930.0 D 9,616.0 12,583.6 (5.2) (5.2) (3.6) 58 61 55 59 63
OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION‡

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC 9,486.0 16,375.0 14,867.0 13,307.0 13,882.0 10,842.0 7,100.0 2.9 (2.6) (42.1) 134 231 209 187 196
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC 6,383.0 D 13,749.0 D 16,402.0 16,947.0 A 16,810.0 A 12,183.0 A 7,457.3 (1.5) (12.1) (53.6) 86 184 220 227 225
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC 206.6 472.3 568.0 704.5 769.4 697.7 288.8 (3.3) (21.6) (56.3) 72 164 197 244 266
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC 292.7 558.6 421.9 231.2 D 112.5 50.1 A NA NA 42.3 (47.6) ** ** ** ** NA
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC 1,357.2 2,173.0 1,746.3 1,204.5 979.9 844.0 682.8 7.1 10.0 (37.5) 199 318 256 176 144
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC 429.2 710.2 520.2 D 368.2 D 202.2 139.5 78.2 18.6 25.2 (39.6) 549 909 666 471 259
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC 12,764.0 20,951.0 17,506.0 12,316.0 11,635.0 9,366.0 4,665.3 A 10.6 6.4 (39.1) 274 449 375 264 249
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC 1,597.3 2,681.0 2,185.8 1,710.8 1,877.6 1,713.4 1,332.4 A 1.8 (1.4) (40.4) 120 201 164 128 141
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC 1,803.6 2,660.1 2,319.9 1,819.8 A,C 1,740.0 D 972.6 A,C 54.9 41.8 13.1 (32.2) 3,283 4,842 4,223 3,313 3,167
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC 29,564.0 52,524.0 54,413.0 57,967.0 D 230,859.0 175,752.0 162,405.0 C,D (15.7) (30.0) (43.7) 18 32 34 36 142

Operating Revenues
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC 116.5 276.5 127.2 179.3 D 203.8 D 160.7 4.3 D 39.0 (6.2) (57.9) 2,691 6,385 2,938 4,140 4,706
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC 1,243.7 2,417.1 2,494.2 2,436.3 2,291.9 1,812.5 A 557.2 8.4 (7.3) (48.5) 223 434 448 437 411
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC 13,145.0 19,566.0 A 10,397.0 9,502.0 11,454.0 9,940.0 10,741.0 2.0 5.7 (32.8) 122 182 97 88 107
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC 763.3 1,344.2 D 1,738.7 D,F 1,617.2 F 1,483.5 F 1,578.5 A,F 1,128.4 D,F (3.8) (13.5) (43.2) 68 119 154 143 131
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC 8,718.3 17,473.5 14,233.0 11,448.8 9,600.0 5,852.8 3,598.5 9.3 8.3 (50.1) 242 486 396 318 267
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC 2,339.8 F 2,469.7 F 1,862.0 D,F 1,641.6 F 1,639.9 F 1,322.7 F 1,253.7 D,F 6.4 12.1 (5.3) 187 197 149 131 131
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC 709.0 670.8 262.2 248.6 D 229.0 127.6 27.4 38.4 40.9 5.7 2,585 2,446 956 907 835
HES [] HESS CORP DEC 6,636.0 D 10,737.0 D 22,284.0 D 37,691.0 38,466.0 33,862.0 22,747.0 (11.6) (27.8) (38.2) 29 47 98 166 169
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC 5,522.0 10,846.0 D 14,501.0 D 15,688.0 14,663.0 D 67,113.0 58,596.0 A (21.0) (39.3) (49.1) 9 19 25 27 25
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC 2,787.1 5,288.9 D 5,312.7 D 28,616.3 D 27,689.3 D 23,401.1 11,680.1 D (13.3) (34.7) (47.3) 24 45 45 245 237
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC 1,557.0 2,288.0 D 1,789.0 D 2,567.0 2,471.0 1,883.0 1,762.0 (1.2) (3.7) (31.9) 88 130 102 146 140
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC 3,043.0 A 4,931.0 4,809.0 D 4,037.0 D 3,568.0 2,904.0 2,095.9 A 3.8 0.9 (38.3) 145 235 229 193 170
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC 275.1 595.0 335.8 311.6 149.4 44.6 NA NA 43.9 (53.8) ** ** ** ** NA
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC 595.3 856.2 D 411.3 D 356.1 396.0 D 347.6 D 332.4 6.0 11.4 (30.5) 179 258 124 107 119
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC 3,142.0 4,325.0 D 3,489.5 A,C 2,811.7 A,C 2,294.1 D 1,803.3 D 2,215.7 D 3.6 11.7 (27.4) 142 195 157 127 104
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC 2,018.6 3,414.3 D 2,935.8 2,349.8 3,159.2 C 2,246.4 D 1,828.2 1.0 (2.1) (40.9) 110 187 161 129 173
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC 1,596.9 2,418.6 1,772.1 1,408.2 C 1,215.5 D 962.3 538.5 11.5 10.7 (34.0) 297 449 329 261 226
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC 1,513.9 2,511.0 2,265.4 1,532.1 1,382.6 937.6 739.4 A 7.4 10.1 (39.7) 205 340 306 207 187
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC 3,133.0 F 4,038.0 A,F 3,371.1 F 2,715.0 F 2,952.9 F 2,610.7 F 676.3 F 16.6 3.7 (22.4) 463 597 498 401 437
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 124.8 104.2 46.2 A 25.0 10.0 2.2 NA NA 125.1 19.8 ** ** ** ** NA
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC 1,888.0 A,C 3,493.0 D 2,761.0 3,189.0 D 3,988.0 D 4,034.0 NA NA (14.1) (45.9) ** ** ** ** NA
OTHER COMPANIES WITH SIGNIFICANT OIL & GAS OPERATIONS

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC 222,894.0 353,568.0 379,136.0 375,580.0 375,517.0 A 297,107.0 A 249,465.0 D (1.1) (5.6) (37.0) 89 142 152 151 151
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 26,465.3 44,263.0 47,220.2 A 39,746.9 38,282.1 A 27,735.3 A 8,606.4 11.9 (0.9) (40.2) 308 514 549 462 445
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC 4,422.0 8,019.0 A 5,858.0 5,160.0 C 8,467.0 C 8,870.0 14,266.0 D (11.1) (13.0) (44.9) 31 56 41 36 59
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC 73,596.9 D 132,970.6 A 158,089.2 A 167,843.3 D 142,206.1 130,799.2 87,308.7 (1.7) (10.9) (44.7) 84 152 181 192 163
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC 97,314.0 143,657.0 141,462.0 A 144,103.0 145,915.0 A,C 120,052.0 56,324.0 5.6 (4.1) (32.3) 173 255 251 256 259
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 266,360.2 367,946.7 373,015.5 352,369.3 318,378.6 A 222,032.6 68,428.2 A 14.6 3.7 (27.6) 389 538 545 515 465
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC 264,960.0 421,105.0 451,235.0 467,153.0 470,171.0 368,056.0 306,731.0 D (1.5) (6.4) (37.1) 86 137 147 152 153
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 10,385.0 14,985.7 17,539.1 14,052.9 14,247.8 10,940.3 5,629.2 6.3 (1.0) (30.7) 184 266 312 250 253
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC 52,551.3 81,105.6 102,115.2 126,883.4 108,173.1 A 89,419.7 57,905.8 (1.0) (10.1) (35.2) 91 140 176 219 187
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC 21,105.6 34,360.8 37,222.0 38,369.1 38,687.1 C 35,865.7 D,E 8,605.0 A 9.4 (10.1) (38.6) 245 399 433 446 450
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 143,421.0 212,018.0 236,523.4 240,379.5 216,065.3 186,397.6 145,204.2 (0.1) (5.1) (32.4) 99 146 163 166 149
Note: Data as originally reported. CAGR-Compound annual grow th rate. ‡S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. †Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. §Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600. #Of the follow ing calendar year.
**Not calculated; data for base year or end year not available. A - This year's data reflect an acquisition or merger. B - This year's data reflect a major merger resulting in the formation of a new company. C - This year's data reflect an accounting change.
D - Data exclude discontinued operations. E - Includes excise taxes. F - Includes other (nonoperating) income. G - Includes sale of leased depts. H - Some or all data are not available, due to a fiscal year change.

Net Income
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC (204.9) 79.0 52.0 173.7 189.8 33.7 NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC (374.9) 168.8 80.7 388.5 632.5 346.8 580.9 NM NM NM (65) 29 14 67 109

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 4,587.0 19,241.0 21,423.0 26,179.0 26,895.0 19,024.0 14,099.0 (10.6) (24.8) (76.2) 33 136 152 186 191
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 16,150.0 32,520.0 32,580.0 44,880.0 41,060.0 30,460.0 36,130.0 (7.7) (11.9) (50.3) 45 90 90 124 114
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC (8,146.0) (144.0) 5,922.0 4,635.0 6,640.0 4,569.0 5,272.0 NM NM NM (155) (3) 112 88 126

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC 7.1 159.5 43.4 11.8 38.4 48.0 NA NA (31.8) (95.6) ** ** ** ** NA
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 740.1 281.3 735.8 1,727.2 1,023.4 104.0 167.0 16.1 48.1 163.1 443 168 441 1,034 613
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 2,852.0 2,524.0 2,112.0 3,389.0 2,389.0 623.0 NA NA 35.6 13.0 ** ** ** ** NA
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 4,227.0 4,056.0 3,665.0 4,124.0 4,775.0 735.0 NA NA 41.9 4.2 ** ** ** ** NA
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 31.4 86.8 33.9 (2.9) 26.5 3.1 28.7 0.9 59.0 (63.8) 109 302 118 (10) 92
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 1,544.0 872.0 392.0 743.0 546.0 (29.0) 507.0 11.8 NM 77.1 305 172 77 147 108
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 3,990.0 3,694.0 2,720.0 2,083.0 2,097.0 923.0 3,590.0 1.1 34.0 8.0 111 103 76 58 58
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 406.8 559.9 276.0 398.9 132.7 (17.0) 201.1 7.3 NM (27.4) 202 278 137 198 66
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 186.9 221.7 203.1 189.3 194.0 146.9 39.6 16.8 4.9 (15.7) 472 560 513 478 490

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 267.6 268.7 271.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA (0.4) ** ** ** ** NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC 253.0 1,026.0 1,197.0 1,092.0 586.6 (40.6) 552.2 (7.5) NM (75.3) 46 186 217 198 106
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 251.1 319.7 266.5 346.3 358.4 334.6 403.1 (4.6) (5.6) (21.5) 62 79 66 86 89
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC 196.0 1,082.0 1,038.0 938.0 1,159.0 1,043.0 NA NA (28.4) (81.9) ** ** ** ** NA
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC (571.0) 2,110.0 441.0 723.0 803.0 (1,091.0) 317.4 NM NM NM (180) 665 139 228 253

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC (6,692.0) (1,750.0) 801.0 2,391.0 (2,649.0) 761.0 2,471.0 NM NM NM (271) (71) 32 97 (107)
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC (22,348.0) (4,886.0) 2,232.0 2,001.0 4,584.0 3,032.0 2,623.7 NM NM NM (852) (186) 85 76 175
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC (487.8) 15.1 (192.7) 0.6 30.7 80.5 23.8 NM NM NM (2,049) 63 (810) 2 129
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC (745.5) 17.0 69.6 44.6 12.7 14.6 NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC (113.9) 104.5 279.8 131.7 122.4 103.4 148.4 NM NM NM (77) 70 188 89 82
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC (1,157.9) 222.3 21.9 51.2 36.6 9.9 10.6 NM NM NM NM 2,090 206 481 344
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC (14,685.0) 1,917.0 724.0 (769.0) 1,742.0 1,774.0 948.3 NM NM NM (1,549) 202 76 (81) 184
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC (2,408.9) 507.2 564.7 353.8 529.9 574.8 328.3 NM NM NM (734) 154 172 108 161
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC 65.9 538.2 238.9 408.2 460.6 183.0 2.0 42.2 (18.5) (87.8) 3,373 NM NM NM NM
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC (4,428.0) 5,738.0 7,978.0 7,411.0 12,436.0 11,358.0 13,640.0 NM NM NM (32) 42 58 54 91

Net Income
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC (335.0) (21.9) (9.7) 59.2 63.5 49.7 (4.4) NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC (4,385.4) 635.5 409.6 525.4 573.3 271.7 166.5 NM NM NM (2,634) 382 246 316 344
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC (14,454.0) 1,607.0 (20.0) (185.0) 2,134.0 2,333.0 2,930.0 NM NM NM (493) 55 (1) (6) 73
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC (945.7) 99.6 193.1 253.6 259.6 290.8 172.9 NM NM NM (547) 58 112 147 150
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC (4,524.5) 2,915.5 2,197.1 570.3 1,091.1 160.7 1,259.6 NM NM NM (359) 231 174 45 87
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC 85.2 385.6 298.7 183.4 479.8 227.7 258.6 (10.5) (17.9) (77.9) 33 149 116 71 186
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC (1,224.9) 247.4 153.2 71.8 108.4 47.4 10.9 NM NM NM NM 2,271 1,406 659 995
HES [] HESS CORP DEC (3,008.0) 1,692.0 3,798.0 2,025.0 1,703.0 2,125.0 1,242.0 NM NM NM (242) 136 306 163 137
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC (2,204.0) 969.0 1,593.0 1,582.0 1,707.0 2,568.0 3,051.0 NM NM NM (72) 32 52 52 56
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC (2,255.8) 1,025.0 888.1 964.0 740.9 798.1 837.9 NM NM NM (269) 122 106 115 88
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC (3,362.0) 650.0 108.0 (1,184.0) 539.0 523.0 348.0 NM NM NM (966) 187 31 (340) 155
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC (2,441.0) 1,214.0 907.0 965.0 453.0 725.0 645.7 NM NM NM (378) 188 140 149 70
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC (975.4) 163.7 53.1 72.3 40.6 6.9 NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC (68.3) 107.3 (26.5) (144.8) 3.1 7.2 41.5 NM NM NM (165) 259 (64) (349) 7
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC (266.0) 1,041.0 (388.8) 137.1 411.3 475.4 423.7 NM NM NM (63) 246 (92) 32 97
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC (149.4) (409.5) 159.4 128.3 267.2 283.0 258.2 NM NM NM (58) (159) 62 50 103
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC (713.7) 634.4 115.7 13.0 42.7 (239.3) 111.0 NM NM NM (643) 571 104 12 38
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC (447.7) 666.1 170.9 (54.2) 215.4 196.8 151.9 NM NM NM (295) 438 113 (36) 142
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC (4,556.0) 924.0 703.5 (707.1) 637.8 604.1 147.8 NM NM NM (3,083) 625 476 (479) 432
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 18.0 28.9 9.6 12.1 (11.6) (10.8) NA NA NM (37.5) ** ** ** ** NA
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC (1,639.0) 129.0 (1,185.0) (245.0) (282.0) (1,282.0) NA NA NM NM ** ** ** ** NA

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC (6,482.0) 3,780.0 23,451.0 11,582.0 25,700.0 (3,719.0) 22,157.0 NM NM NM (29) 17 106 52 116
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 3,125.4 9,702.3 9,326.7 10,223.1 11,162.4 8,243.9 3,137.9 (0.0) (17.6) (67.8) 100 309 297 326 356
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC (5,165.0) 3,392.0 236.0 (2,794.0) 128.0 1,499.0 2,829.0 NM NM NM (183) 120 8 (99) 5
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC (8,339.7) 1,562.2 7,110.0 5,535.5 8,899.5 8,383.4 10,406.8 NM NM NM (80) 15 68 53 86
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC (8,450.0) (7,367.0) 11,094.0 11,034.0 20,121.0 19,184.0 10,186.0 NM NM NM (83) (72) 109 108 198
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 5,482.9 17,273.0 21,408.2 18,511.1 21,125.4 21,210.9 16,525.2 (10.4) (23.7) (68.3) 33 105 130 112 128
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC 1,939.0 14,874.0 16,371.0 26,592.0 30,918.0 20,127.0 25,618.0 (22.7) (37.4) (87.0) 8 58 64 104 121
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 505.5 (111.6) 339.5 (245.3) 151.9 419.9 229.3 8.2 3.8 NM 220 (49) 148 (107) 66
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC (4,235.3) 2,927.2 6,578.0 12,388.1 13,201.1 6,465.1 4,556.4 NM NM NM (93) 64 144 272 290
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC (1,441.6) 2,326.5 3,676.8 2,794.7 4,232.9 2,685.6 1,068.1 NM NM NM (135) 218 344 262 396
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 5,087.0 4,244.0 11,629.5 14,101.1 15,925.7 14,026.7 14,533.7 (10.0) (18.4) 19.9 35 29 80 97 110
Note: Data as originally reported. CAGR-Compound annual grow th rate. ‡S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. †Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. §Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600.
#Of the follow ing calendar year. **Not calculated; data for base year or end year not available.

Return on Revenues (%) Return on Assets (%) Return on Equity (%)
Ticker Com pany Yr. End 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC NM 6.0 3.7 11.5 12.2 NM 3.5 2.2 7.4 9.0 NM 7.6 5.4 20.7 29.6
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC NM 4.8 2.6 7.7 10.6 NM 1.5 0.7 3.1 5.1 NM 3.3 1.8 10.3 19.3

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 3.7 10.0 10.1 11.8 11.4 1.7 7.4 8.8 11.8 13.6 3.0 12.7 15.0 20.3 23.8
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 6.8 8.9 8.3 10.7 9.5 4.7 9.3 9.6 13.5 13.0 9.4 18.7 19.2 28.0 27.3
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC NM NM 24.2 19.2 27.7 NM NM 8.9 7.5 11.8 NM NM 14.2 11.9 18.9

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC 0.2 4.9 1.4 0.3 1.1 0.4 9.5 3.0 0.9 2.7 0.9 23.8 8.4 2.4 7.7
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 5.6 1.4 3.6 8.6 6.6 8.4 2.9 7.2 16.7 14.6 13.7 4.9 12.2 30.7 34.7
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 4.4 2.8 2.2 4.4 3.2 7.8 8.6 7.6 12.8 9.8 23.8 23.3 18.7 32.0 26.9
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 5.0 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.6 8.7 8.2 7.5 9.0 10.8 18.9 18.6 17.2 18.7 19.4
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 7.2 15.2 5.1 NM 6.5 7.2 19.6 8.1 NM 6.5 9.5 27.6 12.9 NM 10.7
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 5.5 2.2 1.1 2.3 1.8 9.4 5.8 3.3 7.2 5.9 31.9 19.9 9.2 18.8 15.9
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 4.9 2.8 2.0 1.5 1.7 8.9 8.0 5.9 4.8 5.2 19.4 18.4 14.5 12.1 13.3
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 4.2 3.7 2.7 4.2 1.5 7.1 10.0 6.9 15.8 5.1 33.6 55.6 30.6 46.1 17.7
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.9 6.2 9.9 12.6 12.7 13.3 15.8

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 20.0 19.9 23.0 NA NA 2.9 3.5 NA NA NA 6.5 6.6 NA NA NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC 1.8 6.3 8.5 10.9 7.1 0.3 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.0 0.7 4.4 8.9 12.7 17.4
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 3.2 2.6 1.8 2.7 2.4 1.6 1.9 1.6 2.3 2.7 54.1 21.8 11.9 15.9 15.3
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC 3.7 18.3 18.8 18.5 21.7 0.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 4.2 2.7 13.0 11.9 11.0 14.6
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC NM 27.6 6.4 9.7 10.1 NM 5.4 1.7 3.5 3.9 NM 30.9 9.2 22.1 17.7

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC NM NM 5.4 18.0 NM NM NM 1.5 4.6 NM NM NM 3.8 12.3 NM
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC NM NM 13.6 11.8 27.3 NM NM 3.6 3.4 9.4 NM NM 6.9 6.7 17.7
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC NM 3.2 NM 0.1 4.0 NM 0.7 NM 0.0 1.3 NM 1.5 NM 0.0 2.6
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC NM 3.0 16.5 19.3 11.3 NM 1.0 5.5 5.3 2.2 NM 2.4 11.3 8.1 2.9
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC NM 4.8 16.0 10.9 12.5 NM 2.0 5.8 2.9 2.9 NM 4.8 12.9 6.2 6.2
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC NM 31.3 4.2 13.9 18.1 NM 8.7 1.1 3.0 2.7 NM 22.9 3.1 9.3 7.6
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC NM 9.1 4.1 NM 15.0 NM 4.2 1.3 NM 4.0 NM 13.0 4.3 NM 12.2
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC NM 18.9 25.8 20.7 28.2 NM 6.3 8.3 6.0 10.8 NM 11.9 15.1 10.7 18.5
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC 3.7 20.2 10.3 22.4 26.5 0.5 5.0 2.6 5.3 7.5 1.1 11.9 6.6 12.7 17.2
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC NM 10.9 14.7 12.8 5.4 NM 4.9 6.8 5.5 8.0 NM 11.0 15.9 13.1 18.6

Return on Revenues (%) Return on Assets (%) Return on Equity (%)
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC NM NM NM 33.0 31.1 NM NM NM 9.4 10.3 NM NM NM 13.3 15.8
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC NM 26.3 16.4 21.6 25.0 NM 5.2 3.6 4.9 6.0 NM 11.5 7.9 10.6 12.5
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC NM 8.2 NM NM 18.6 NM 3.4 NM NM 5.8 NM 7.6 NM NM 10.5
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC NM 7.4 11.1 15.7 17.5 NM 1.6 3.0 4.4 5.4 NM 3.2 7.0 9.9 11.3
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC NM 16.7 15.4 5.0 11.4 NM 8.9 7.6 2.2 4.7 NM 17.6 15.3 4.4 9.5
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC 3.6 15.6 16.0 11.2 29.3 0.7 3.5 3.2 2.1 6.0 1.8 8.9 7.8 5.1 14.4
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC NM 36.9 58.4 28.9 47.4 NM 7.8 7.2 6.3 21.5 NM 11.4 9.6 8.2 25.7
HES [] HESS CORP DEC NM 15.8 17.0 5.4 4.4 NM 4.2 8.8 4.9 4.6 NM 7.2 16.6 10.2 9.7
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC NM 8.9 11.0 10.1 11.6 NM 2.7 4.5 4.7 4.2 NM 4.8 8.5 8.9 8.3
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC NM 19.4 16.7 3.4 2.7 NM 6.0 5.1 6.1 5.2 NM 11.9 10.1 10.9 8.7
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC NM 28.4 6.0 NM 21.8 NM 6.9 1.3 NM 6.5 NM 19.0 3.8 NM 14.8
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC NM 24.6 18.9 23.9 12.7 NM 5.8 4.9 5.7 3.0 NM 12.4 10.4 12.4 6.4
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC NM 27.5 15.8 23.2 27.2 NM 9.2 3.9 7.5 6.6 NM 23.5 8.8 13.4 8.7
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC NM 12.5 NM NM 0.8 NM 4.9 NM NM 0.2 NM 10.2 NM NM 0.5
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC NM 24.1 NM 4.9 17.9 NM 7.6 NM 1.1 3.9 NM 13.7 NM 2.5 8.6
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC NM NM 5.4 5.5 8.5 NM NM 1.7 1.6 3.8 NM NM 4.8 3.9 8.5
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC NM 26.2 6.5 0.9 3.5 NM 7.9 1.6 0.2 0.8 NM 21.6 4.9 0.5 1.9
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC NM 26.5 7.5 NM 15.6 NM 11.9 3.8 NM 6.6 NM 34.2 11.3 NM 16.1
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC NM 22.9 20.9 NM 21.6 NM 8.0 9.5 NM 9.2 NM 22.3 21.1 NM 18.4
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 14.5 27.7 20.7 48.6 NM 3.0 7.8 4.7 13.1 NM 4.2 11.9 6.3 16.1 NM
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC NM 3.7 NM NM NM NM 1.5 NM NM NM NM 3.1 NM NM NM

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC NM 1.1 6.2 3.1 6.8 NM 1.3 7.7 3.9 9.1 NM 3.1 18.9 10.1 24.9
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 11.8 21.9 19.8 25.7 29.2 3.0 9.3 10.6 15.2 20.2 5.2 16.5 17.6 22.3 30.0
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC NM 42.3 4.0 NM 1.5 NM 16.0 1.3 NM 0.4 NM 45.7 4.5 NM 0.8
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC NM 1.2 4.5 3.3 6.3 NM 0.9 3.8 3.0 4.9 NM 2.0 9.0 7.4 12.7
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC NM NM 7.8 7.7 13.8 NM NM 3.4 3.4 6.4 NM NM 7.0 6.4 11.3
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 2.1 4.7 5.7 5.3 6.6 1.4 4.5 5.8 5.7 7.6 3.0 9.2 12.0 11.2 14.0
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC 0.7 3.5 3.6 5.7 6.6 0.6 4.2 4.6 7.5 9.3 1.2 8.5 8.9 14.9 19.5
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 4.9 NM 1.9 NM 1.1 10.9 NM 5.7 NM 3.3 17.7 NM 12.3 NM 5.5
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC NM 3.6 6.4 9.8 12.2 NM 2.1 4.6 9.2 11.1 NM 5.3 11.3 23.8 31.4
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC NM 6.8 9.9 7.3 10.9 NM 3.3 4.9 3.7 5.9 NM 6.2 9.4 7.2 11.3
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 3.5 2.0 4.9 5.9 7.4 2.2 1.8 5.0 6.4 7.9 5.6 4.5 11.9 15.3 18.9
Note: Data as originally reported. ‡S&P 1500 index group. []Company included in the S&P 500. †Company included in the S&P MidCap 400. §Company included in the S&P SmallCap 600. #Of the follow ing calendar year.

Debt as a % of
Current Ratio Debt / Capital Ratio (%) Net Working Capital
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.9 35.9 31.4 39.7 43.6 51.0 612.5 565.4 294.9 397.4 210.7
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.4 36.5 36.7 37.6 44.5 46.8 NM NM 971.5 NM 623.5

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 16.3 12.0 10.5 7.3 6.7 379.0 233.1 116.4 56.1 50.0
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 8.8 5.2 3.1 3.8 4.7 NM NM NM NM NM
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 21.1 15.3 12.1 13.2 12.1 268.9 121.5 240.2 318.9 163.3

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.6 33.5 30.4 43.0 39.7 46.8 93.6 100.0 214.5 267.3 229.0
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.7 1.8 15.3 14.6 13.1 16.9 17.6 177.0 68.9 44.9 47.5 59.8
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 41.9 34.1 20.3 19.6 23.3 380.6 239.5 115.8 69.2 136.6
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 23.3 22.5 17.9 21.0 1.2 187.2 140.0 97.2 127.0 23.1
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 9.1 9.0 4.6 3.7 3.4 0.0 0.0 17.5 26.5 29.7 0.0 0.0 54.4 109.4 120.9
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 38.7 43.4 34.7 23.7 22.3 228.9 264.6 147.2 90.4 142.2
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 21.0 17.5 19.4 21.3 23.9 95.2 87.1 101.7 142.6 206.3
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 2.4 1.7 1.3 1.8 1.8 51.3 52.1 51.1 30.0 42.6 152.4 204.4 267.0 91.2 147.5
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 27.7 26.1 20.7 18.7 16.7 50.1 46.9 34.5 31.3 24.6

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 2.7 0.7 0.4 NA NA 40.4 26.1 17.3 NA NA 354.4 NM NM NA NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 54.7 54.2 65.6 64.1 72.2 NM NM NM NM NM
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.7 96.1 92.4 76.8 75.4 66.9 NM NM NM NM NM
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 51.2 48.0 47.6 43.9 45.3 NM NM NM NM NM
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.1 69.7 60.8 57.5 58.6 70.8 NM NM NM NM NM

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.4 46.3 34.2 29.6 31.1 36.2 NM NM 929.9 473.7 741.1
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC 2.0 1.8 1.4 0.9 1.0 70.7 24.1 18.8 22.4 15.8 459.3 408.8 580.6 NM NM
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC 1.9 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 59.4 41.1 45.6 44.4 37.0 622.3 497.6 NM NM NM
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC 0.9 1.1 1.5 0.5 0.8 80.9 48.1 38.6 18.7 1.1 NM NM 572.1 NM NM
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.0 41.6 37.0 26.0 25.1 24.6 NM NM NM NM NM
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 73.9 53.4 51.2 62.3 58.9 NM NM NM NM NM
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 82.9 34.7 40.0 40.2 35.0 NM 696.8 NM NM NM
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC 2.6 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 32.0 19.3 14.4 14.0 9.0 222.4 964.8 NM NM NM
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC 2.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 28.0 34.4 41.6 40.0 34.3 464.0 NM NM NM NM
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1 31.6 25.0 23.8 27.8 23.2 NM 633.9 541.2 360.2 NM

Debt as a % of
Current Ratio Debt / Capital Ratio (%) Net Working Capital
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC 0.5 0.3 4.5 5.1 2.6 32.7 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 NM NM 0.0 0.0 0.0
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC 0.9 1.3 0.6 2.5 1.0 60.9 29.6 29.7 29.9 28.4 NM NM NM 335.1 NM
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 60.5 26.1 23.9 24.6 18.6 NM NM 589.3 284.9 232.5
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC 0.9 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.8 21.1 23.3 32.0 29.2 32.2 NM 289.3 NM NM NM
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3 27.5 19.4 22.0 25.1 23.3 860.8 290.6 488.0 887.0 684.7
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC 2.8 2.3 2.4 1.5 2.1 35.5 38.1 38.2 41.0 41.3 192.0 263.6 340.2 886.4 285.5
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC 1.0 0.8 2.6 1.9 2.9 31.7 22.3 12.1 20.7 0.3 NM NM 91.4 274.7 2.5
HES [] HESS CORP DEC 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 24.0 19.6 16.7 23.6 21.9 368.5 322.4 265.6 NM NM
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 25.7 18.5 22.6 23.9 19.2 845.1 NM NM NM NM
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 35.4 20.6 22.6 17.6 2.4 NM NM NM 321.0 40.1
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 63.7 35.0 47.4 45.1 38.2 NM NM NM NM NM
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 37.7 32.2 28.2 26.3 30.5 NM NM NM NM NM
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.7 130.4 46.4 44.2 39.0 11.6 NM NM NM NM NM
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.9 27.0 34.5 37.7 44.3 37.9 NM NM 584.5 NM NM
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.5 24.0 20.4 24.7 32.2 25.1 185.2 342.1 554.7 NM 540.9
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC 1.5 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.3 27.3 29.0 37.8 40.3 26.0 703.7 337.8 NM NM 928.9
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 42.8 40.8 49.6 48.5 38.9 NM NM NM NM NM
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.9 49.1 42.7 41.5 42.5 32.7 NM NM NM NM NM
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC 0.6 0.2 0.9 1.1 1.1 67.4 27.2 27.4 29.0 19.5 NM NM NM NM NM
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 2.3 0.7 2.2 1.7 1.0 11.8 10.9 15.0 2.9 0.0 83.8 NM 73.1 27.6 0.0
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.4 44.4 31.6 28.1 18.4 17.2 NM 345.5 NM NM 290.2

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 30.2 26.8 21.8 22.5 21.7 291.1 194.4 169.8 116.1 265.1
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 1.7 1.4 1.1 2.1 1.9 24.8 20.9 18.3 8.5 6.3 234.7 283.2 465.9 32.8 29.3
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.7 48.0 40.4 56.4 57.8 27.1 NM NM 498.4 252.8 360.4
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 24.8 22.2 24.3 22.6 27.0 186.2 112.1 118.7 130.7 901.4
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.8 63.0 50.2 40.2 32.1 27.3 750.7 610.1 609.9 373.3 258.0
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 26.7 23.7 20.9 21.3 15.0 NM NM NM NM NM
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 23.5 17.2 15.9 12.8 14.2 235.8 282.6 359.1 168.5 178.0
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.0 9.0 3.4 7.1 0.9 0.0 NM NM NM NM
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.2 38.6 31.2 28.0 20.1 23.6 234.0 271.3 230.2 517.9 414.0
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.4 22.8 19.3 16.4 16.7 17.2 440.0 224.5 249.6 216.2 262.3
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 29.8 30.2 22.7 20.6 21.9 230.8 187.1 151.5 120.4 133.0

Price / Earnings Ratio (High-Low) Dividend Payout Ratio (%) Dividend Yield (High-Low, %)
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 17 - 7 24 - 17 8- 5 8- 5 NM 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 66 - 43 NM- 75 23 - 15 20 - 11 NM 34 107 37 15 2.3 - 0.4 0.8 - 0.5 1.4 - 1.0 2.4 - 1.6 1.4 - 0.8

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 46 - 28 13 - 10 11 - 10 9- 7 8- 6 174 41 35 26 23 6.2 - 3.8 4.2 - 3.1 3.6 - 3.1 3.7 - 3.0 3.6 - 2.8
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 24 - 17 14 - 11 14 - 12 10 - 8 10 - 8 75 36 33 22 22 4.3 - 3.1 3.1 - 2.6 2.9 - 2.4 2.8 - 2.3 2.8 - 2.1
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC NM- NM NM- NM 14 - 11 19 - 13 14 - 8 NM NM 35 38 23 4.7 - 3.5 4.0 - 2.7 3.3 - 2.6 3.0 - 2.0 2.8 - 1.6

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC NM- 90 11 - 4 14 - 5 31 - 9 12 - 8 211 5 6 0 0 2.3 - 1.2 1.3 - 0.5 1.1 - 0.4 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 14 - 8 38 - 25 16 - 11 6- 3 6- 3 34 230 87 37 21 4.3 - 2.4 9.2 - 6.1 8.2 - 5.4 12.9 - 6.5 6.7 - 3.4
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 11 - 7 11 - 8 14 - 9 6- 3 7- 4 22 21 23 12 7 3.0 - 1.9 2.5 - 1.9 2.6 - 1.7 4.0 - 1.9 1.7 - 0.9
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 12 - 7 12 - 9 13 - 8 8- 4 NA - NA 28 26 22 7 NA 3.8 - 2.3 3.0 - 2.1 2.6 - 1.7 1.6 - 0.8 NA - NA
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 16 - 10 10 - 3 12 - 4 NM- NM 8- 5 0 0 0 NM 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 10 - 5 12 - 7 23 - 14 9- 4 8- 5 15 16 31 5 0 2.9 - 1.5 2.4 - 1.4 2.3 - 1.4 1.3 - 0.6 0.0 - 0.0
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 9- 5 9- 6 10 - 7 9- 5 8- 4 21 15 17 17 8 3.9 - 2.3 2.5 - 1.8 2.6 - 1.7 3.4 - 1.9 1.8 - 1.0
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 12 - 7 8- 6 13 - 8 7- 3 15 - 7 32 50 19 62 0 4.3 - 2.7 8.7 - 6.4 2.5 - 1.5 20.2 - 8.8 0.0 - 0.0
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 22 - 13 16 - 11 16 - 12 18 - 13 16 - 11 9 5 5 6 5 0.7 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.3 0.4 - 0.3 0.4 - 0.3 0.5 - 0.3

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 41 - 21 NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA 31 NA NA NA NA 1.5 - 0.8 NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC NM- NM 49 - 35 36 - 28 35 - 26 39 - 28 NM 191 136 116 89 13.6 - 4.3 5.5 - 3.9 4.8 - 3.8 4.4 - 3.3 3.1 - 2.3
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 43 - 16 47 - 28 48 - 31 30 - 23 25 - 16 204 139 115 76 63 12.9 - 4.7 4.9 - 3.0 3.8 - 2.4 3.2 - 2.6 4.0 - 2.5
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC NM- 74 27 - 20 24 - 17 22 - 18 18 - 13 510 85 79 80 60 6.9 - 3.8 4.2 - 3.2 4.5 - 3.3 4.3 - 3.5 4.6 - 3.4
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC NM- NM 20 - 13 60 - 48 32 - 22 25 - 16 NM 67 221 102 57 11.7 - 4.0 5.2 - 3.3 4.6 - 3.7 4.6 - 3.2 3.5 - 2.3

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC NM- NM NM- NM 62 - 47 19 - 12 NM- NM NM NM 34 8 NM 2.4 - 1.1 1.4 - 0.9 0.7 - 0.5 0.6 - 0.4 0.6 - 0.4
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC NM- NM NM- NM 17 - 12 23 - 15 11 - 6 NM NM 14 13 5 2.8 - 1.4 1.7 - 0.9 1.1 - 0.8 0.9 - 0.6 0.8 - 0.4
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC NM- NM 96 - 24 NM- NM NM- NM 79 - 48 NM 0 NM 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM NM- 39 33 - 16 26 - 11 48 - 39 NM 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC NM- NM NM- NM 60 - 35 81 - 46 76 - 31 NM 32 9 13 10 0.5 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.1 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.1
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC NM- NM 14 - 6 89 - 36 25 - 15 47 - 19 NM 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC NM- NM 16 - 9 40 - 22 NM- NM 15 - 9 NM 18 48 NM 10 4.9 - 0.8 2.1 - 1.1 2.1 - 1.2 2.6 - 1.3 1.1 - 0.7
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC NM- NM 26 - 16 17 - 9 22 - 11 19 - 8 NM 11 8 11 6 0.8 - 0.5 0.7 - 0.4 0.9 - 0.5 1.0 - 0.5 0.7 - 0.3
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC NM- NM 30 - 16 54 - 34 29 - 19 25 - 14 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC NM- NM 19 - 13 12 - 9 13 - 9 9- 6 NM 61 42 44 29 7.2 - 4.2 4.7 - 3.3 4.8 - 3.6 5.2 - 3.4 4.5 - 3.2

Price / Earnings Ratio (High-Low) Dividend Payout Ratio (%) Dividend Yield (High-Low, %)
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC NM- NM NM- NM NM- NM 17 - 10 17 - 13 NM NM NM 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 6.0 - 4.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC NM- NM 10 - 3 18 - 14 16 - 10 18 - 7 NM 14 0 0 0 10.9 - 2.0 4.1 - 1.3 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC NM- NM 21 - 13 NM- NM NM- NM 18 - 10 NM 24 NM NM 13 3.4 - 1.4 1.8 - 1.2 1.7 - 1.3 1.6 - 1.0 1.3 - 0.7
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC NM- NM 66 - 39 34 - 17 17 - 11 18 - 10 NM 34 22 16 15 0.2 - 0.1 0.9 - 0.5 1.3 - 0.6 1.4 - 1.0 1.5 - 0.8
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC NM- NM 22 - 15 23 - 14 58 - 39 29 - 16 NM 10 9 31 15 1.0 - 0.7 0.6 - 0.4 0.7 - 0.4 0.8 - 0.5 1.0 - 0.5
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC NM- 84 44 - 29 48 - 29 51 - 36 23 - 13 21 5 6 72 27 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 2.0 - 1.4 2.0 - 1.2
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC NM- NM 26 - 13 35 - 18 32 - 12 17 - 8 NM 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
HES [] HESS CORP DEC NM- NM 19 - 11 8- 5 11 - 7 17 - 9 NM 18 6 7 8 2.1 - 1.3 1.6 - 1.0 1.3 - 0.8 1.0 - 0.6 0.9 - 0.5
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC NM- NM 30 - 17 17 - 13 16 - 10 23 - 8 NM 56 32 30 33 5.6 - 2.2 3.3 - 1.9 2.4 - 1.9 2.9 - 1.9 4.2 - 1.5
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC NM- NM 12 - 8 15 - 12 13 - 9 20 - 11 NM 23 26 74 29 6.6 - 2.7 3.0 - 1.9 2.2 - 1.7 8.5 - 5.6 2.7 - 1.4
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC NM- NM 10 - 5 41 - 24 NM- NM 19 - 9 NM 0 0 NM 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 24 - 13 31 - 20 19 - 14 39 - 26 NM 20 22 17 31 2.5 - 1.3 1.6 - 0.9 1.1 - 0.7 1.2 - 0.9 1.2 - 0.8
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC NM- NM 6- 2 21 - 14 24 - 12 51 - 20 NM 0 0 0 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 23 - 9 NM- NM NM- NM NM- NM NM 0 NM NM 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC NM- NM 33 - 18 NM- NM NM- 70 31 - 17 NM 1 NM 7 2 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.0 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.1
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC NM- NM NM- NM 38 - 29 49 - 34 30 - 16 NM NM 9 11 5 0.7 - 0.3 0.4 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC NM- NM 25 - 14 NM- 86 NM- NM NM- NM NM 4 23 200 62 0.8 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.2 0.4 - 0.2
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC NM- NM 9- 3 37 - 20 NM- NM 26 - 16 NM 1 4 NM 3 0.6 - 0.2 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 0.3 - 0.1 0.2 - 0.1
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC NM- NM 19 - 10 20 - 16 NM- NM 27 - 17 NM 0 0 NM 0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 71 - 42 37 - 21 67 - 31 21 - 9 NM- NM 0 0 0 0 NM 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 43 - 16 NM- NM NM- NM NM- NM NM 0 NM NM NM 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC NM- NM 43 - 28 7- 5 13 - 10 6- 4 NM 190 29 54 21 8.2 - 5.5 6.7 - 4.4 5.5 - 4.5 5.5 - 4.1 5.0 - 3.4
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 25 - 14 9- 6 11 - 7 10 - 7 11 - 6 105 34 35 24 26 7.5 - 4.2 5.9 - 3.6 4.7 - 3.2 3.2 - 2.4 4.5 - 2.4
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC NM- NM 5- 2 64 - 52 NM- NM NM- NM NM 6 209 NM 471 6.0 - 1.9 2.4 - 1.1 4.1 - 3.3 4.7 - 3.3 4.5 - 2.3
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC NM- NM 64 - 37 13 - 10 16 - 12 11 - 7 NM 334 74 88 57 7.3 - 5.4 8.9 - 5.2 7.3 - 5.5 7.3 - 5.4 8.7 - 5.2
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC NM- NM NM- NM 12 - 7 19 - 10 14 - 7 NM NM 14 31 41 0.0 - 0.0 8.0 - 2.3 2.0 - 1.2 3.0 - 1.6 6.0 - 2.9
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 46 - 21 16 - 10 13 - 8 15 - 12 14 - 10 85 56 40 50 46 4.0 - 1.9 5.6 - 3.5 4.8 - 3.2 4.3 - 3.3 4.8 - 3.4
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC NM- 71 18 - 13 14 - 12 9- 7 8- 6 616 79 68 40 34 8.7 - 5.6 6.1 - 4.5 5.7 - 4.9 5.6 - 4.6 5.8 - 4.3
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 14 - 6 NM- NM 10 - 6 NM- NM 30 - 15 0 NM 17 NM 73 0.0 - 0.0 3.6 - 2.3 2.8 - 1.7 3.2 - 1.9 4.8 - 2.5
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC NM- NM 35 - 17 13 - 10 7- 6 7- 5 NM 187 55 27 28 6.8 - 4.2 10.9 - 5.4 5.7 - 4.2 4.9 - 3.7 5.7 - 3.9
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC NM- NM 27 - 17 15 - 11 21 - 14 18 - 8 NM 58 28 28 16 3.7 - 2.6 3.5 - 2.1 2.6 - 1.9 1.9 - 1.3 1.9 - 0.9
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 26 - 19 40 - 26 12 - 9 9- 7 9- 6 124 169 61 48 44 6.6 - 4.8 6.5 - 4.3 6.8 - 5.0 7.1 - 5.2 7.8 - 4.8

Earnings per Share ($) Tangible Book Value per Share ($) Share Price (High-Low, $)
CLD § CLOUD PEAK ENERGY INC DEC (3.36) 1.30 0.86 2.89 3.16 14.48 16.36 15.87 14.72 11.73 9.36 - 1.95 22.43 - 8.91 20.30 - 14.25 22.31 - 13.65 24.69 - 15.91
CNX † CONSOL ENERGY INC DEC (1.64) 0.73 0.35 1.71 2.79 20.53 23.14 21.85 17.33 15.90 34.56 - 6.30 48.30 - 31.64 39.23 - 26.25 39.51 - 26.41 56.32 - 30.56

CVX [] CHEVRON CORP DEC 2.46 10.21 11.18 13.42 13.54 78.67 80.03 75.50 67.75 58.92 113.00 - 69.58 135.10 - 100.15 127.83 - 108.74 118.53 - 95.73 110.01 - 86.68
XOM [] EXXON MOBIL CORP DEC 3.85 7.60 7.37 9.70 8.43 41.10 J 41.51 J 40.14 J 36.84 J 32.61 J 93.45 - 66.55 104.76 - 86.19 101.74 - 84.79 93.67 - 77.13 88.23 - 67.03
OXY [] OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP DEC (10.64) (0.18) 7.35 5.72 8.16 31.89 45.37 54.18 49.68 46.39 83.74 - 63.60 105.64 - 72.32 99.42 - 77.21 106.68 - 72.43 117.89 - 66.36

GPRE § GREEN PLAINS INC DEC 0.19 4.37 1.44 0.39 1.09 19.98 20.12 16.54 15.14 14.10 34.04 - 17.13 46.28 - 18.02 20.00 - 7.51 12.00 - 3.57 13.00 - 8.34
HFC † HOLLYFRONTIER CORP DEC 3.91 1.42 3.66 8.41 6.46 16.21 16.28 18.45 18.25 13.70 54.73 - 30.15 53.42 - 35.31 59.20 - 38.98 47.39 - 23.96 38.90 - 19.92
MPC [] MARATHON PETROLEUM CORP DEC 5.29 4.42 3.35 4.97 3.35 16.01 16.76 16.80 16.16 12.13 60.38 - 37.62 48.97 - 37.32 46.37 - 30.02 31.72 - 15.12 23.72 - 13.18
PSX [] PHILLIPS 66 DEC 7.78 7.15 5.97 6.55 7.61 35.74 31.88 30.76 26.79 NA 94.12 - 57.33 87.98 - 64.02 77.29 - 50.12 54.32 - 28.75 NA - NA
REX § REX AMERICAN RESOURCES CORP # JAN 4.31 10.70 4.17 (0.35) 2.90 46.82 44.31 34.48 30.22 30.31 67.99 - 43.50 110.65 - 37.33 49.93 - 17.12 33.95 - 14.43 22.71 - 13.35
TSO [] TESORO CORP DEC 12.53 6.79 2.90 5.33 3.86 31.94 24.30 30.33 28.96 24.33 119.67 - 64.16 79.49 - 46.40 65.75 - 39.85 45.41 - 20.77 29.61 - 17.43
VLO [] VALERO ENERGY CORP DEC 8.00 7.00 4.99 3.77 3.70 43.06 40.20 J 36.04 32.28 29.09 73.88 - 43.45 59.69 - 42.53 50.54 - 33.00 34.49 - 19.12 31.12 - 16.40
WNR † WESTERN REFINING INC DEC 4.28 6.17 3.35 4.42 1.46 (0.80) (2.66) (6.03) 9.98 8.68 51.31 - 31.83 48.36 - 35.29 42.52 - 25.62 31.27 - 13.58 21.75 - 10.09
INT † WORLD FUEL SERVICES CORP DEC 2.66 3.13 2.85 2.66 2.74 14.48 13.67 14.23 12.12 12.35 58.50 - 33.83 49.80 - 35.01 45.20 - 34.57 49.15 - 33.65 43.59 - 29.53

CPGX [] COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP INC DEC 0.81 0.85 0.86 NA NA 5.20 NA NA NA NA 33.00 - 16.95 NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA NA - NA
KMI [] KINDER MORGAN INC DEC 0.10 0.89 1.15 1.16 0.83 3.49 3.35 (13.44) (10.50) (4.16) 44.71 - 14.22 43.18 - 30.81 41.49 - 32.30 40.25 - 30.51 32.25 - 23.51
OKE [] ONEOK INC DEC 1.19 1.53 1.29 1.68 1.71 (3.25) (2.03) 5.59 5.53 5.93 51.53 - 18.84 71.19 - 43.36 62.23 - 39.39 49.79 - 39.32 43.59 - 27.26
SE [] SPECTRA ENERGY CORP DEC 0.29 1.61 1.55 1.44 1.78 3.54 5.14 5.50 6.68 5.60 38.47 - 21.43 43.12 - 32.50 37.11 - 26.86 32.27 - 26.55 31.33 - 22.80
WMB [] WILLIAMS COS INC DEC (0.76) 2.93 0.65 1.17 1.36 (5.17) (3.74) 3.77 3.52 3.03 61.38 - 20.95 59.77 - 37.77 38.68 - 31.25 37.56 - 26.21 33.47 - 21.90

APC [] ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP DEC (13.18) (3.47) 1.58 4.76 (5.32) 12.76 25.97 32.15 29.87 24.63 95.94 - 44.50 113.51 - 71.00 98.47 - 73.60 88.70 - 56.42 85.50 - 57.11
APA [] APACHE CORP DEC (59.16) (12.72) 5.53 4.95 11.75 6.56 68.66 80.92 73.58 69.38 71.87 - 35.79 104.57 - 54.34 94.84 - 67.91 112.09 - 74.50 134.13 - 73.04
BBG § BILL BARRETT CORP DEC (10.10) 0.31 (4.06) 0.01 0.66 11.35 21.39 21.03 25.02 25.95 13.36 - 2.75 29.73 - 7.54 30.69 - 15.50 36.44 - 15.42 52.13 - 31.96
BCEI § BONANZA CREEK ENERGY INC DEC (15.57) 0.42 1.73 1.12 0.32 4.21 17.93 16.28 14.42 13.37 30.81 - 3.72 62.94 - 16.36 57.47 - 28.23 29.03 - 12.62 15.50 - 12.39
COG [] CABOT OIL & GAS CORP DEC (0.28) 0.25 0.67 0.31 0.29 4.85 5.19 5.29 5.07 5.04 35.64 - 14.94 41.78 - 27.75 40.34 - 23.40 25.59 - 14.42 22.50 - 9.17
CRZO § CARRIZO OIL & GAS INC DEC (22.50) 4.90 0.54 1.29 0.94 7.61 23.92 18.51 14.57 12.89 56.77 - 27.79 70.49 - 31.70 47.87 - 19.49 31.62 - 19.03 44.17 - 18.02
CHK [] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP DEC (22.43) 1.93 0.73 (1.46) 2.47 (1.39) 20.87 19.47 18.83 20.57 21.49 - 3.56 31.49 - 16.41 29.06 - 16.32 26.09 - 13.32 35.95 - 22.00
XEC [] CIMAREX ENERGY CO DEC (25.92) 5.79 6.48 4.08 6.17 22.96 44.30 39.03 32.96 28.44 132.18 - 85.00 150.71 - 92.38 113.03 - 56.96 87.85 - 46.19 117.95 - 50.80
CXO [] CONCHO RESOURCES INC DEC 0.54 4.89 2.28 3.96 4.49 53.56 46.49 35.49 32.86 28.42 134.13 - 85.87 148.61 - 77.22 122.81 - 78.58 116.82 - 76.17 110.89 - 63.20
COP [] CONOCOPHILLIPS DEC (3.58) 4.63 6.47 5.95 9.04 32.17 42.16 42.49 39.33 47.56 70.11 - 41.10 87.09 - 60.84 74.59 - 56.38 78.29 - 50.62 81.80 - 58.65

Earnings per Share ($) Tangible Book Value per Share ($) Share Price (High-Low, $)
MCF § CONTANGO OIL & GAS CO DEC (17.67) (1.15) (0.64) 3.84 4.05 12.27 29.64 27.58 30.36 27.23 33.17 - 5.73 50.44 - 28.07 48.80 - 33.22 65.08 - 38.10 69.75 - 51.54
DNR † DENBURY RESOURCES INC DEC (12.57) 1.82 1.12 1.36 1.45 3.55 12.51 11.08 10.20 9.18 9.53 - 1.72 18.59 - 6.04 19.65 - 15.62 21.37 - 13.13 26.03 - 10.20
DVN [] DEVON ENERGY CORP DEC (35.55) 3.93 (0.06) (0.47) 5.12 3.17 35.95 36.06 37.44 38.15 70.48 - 28.00 80.63 - 51.76 66.92 - 50.81 76.34 - 50.89 93.56 - 50.74
EGN † ENERGEN CORP DEC (12.43) 1.37 2.67 3.52 3.60 36.78 46.84 39.36 37.14 33.79 77.12 - 39.99 90.66 - 53.78 89.92 - 44.46 58.24 - 40.13 65.44 - 37.22
EOG [] EOG RESOURCES INC DEC (8.29) 5.36 4.07 1.07 2.08 23.54 32.30 28.23 24.45 23.49 101.36 - 68.15 118.89 - 80.63 94.15 - 56.03 62.25 - 41.24 60.72 - 33.40
EQT [] EQT CORP DEC 0.56 2.54 1.98 1.23 3.21 33.29 J 30.23 J 26.74 J 24.01 J 24.04 J 92.79 - 47.10 111.47 - 74.37 94.42 - 56.84 62.74 - 43.69 73.10 - 43.18
GPOR † GULFPORT ENERGY CORP DEC (12.27) 2.90 1.98 1.28 2.22 18.82 26.81 24.07 16.68 11.37 52.28 - 20.21 75.75 - 36.56 69.81 - 35.24 40.73 - 15.79 38.09 - 18.72
HES [] HESS CORP DEC (10.61) 5.57 11.28 5.98 5.05 66.46 71.18 70.24 55.29 47.68 79.00 - 47.04 104.50 - 63.80 85.15 - 53.06 67.86 - 39.67 87.40 - 46.66
MRO [] MARATHON OIL CORP DEC (3.26) 1.42 2.26 2.24 2.40 27.23 30.46 27.04 25.12 23.60 31.53 - 12.11 41.92 - 24.28 38.18 - 29.47 35.49 - 23.17 54.33 - 19.13
MUR [] MURPHY OIL CORP DEC (12.94) 5.73 4.73 4.97 3.83 30.85 48.30 46.65 46.68 45.10 52.00 - 21.26 68.43 - 43.57 72.38 - 58.01 65.60 - 43.29 78.16 - 40.41
NFX [] NEWFIELD EXPLORATION CO DEC (21.18) 4.76 0.80 (8.80) 4.03 8.43 28.35 21.70 20.54 29.10 41.34 - 22.31 45.43 - 22.90 32.55 - 19.57 42.47 - 23.56 77.93 - 34.42
NBL [] NOBLE ENERGY INC DEC (6.07) 3.36 2.53 2.71 1.28 24.02 26.61 23.62 21.23 18.46 53.67 - 29.13 79.63 - 42.11 78.01 - 50.93 52.73 - 38.42 50.63 - 32.96
NOG § NORTHERN OIL & GAS INC DEC (16.08) 2.70 0.85 1.16 0.66 (3.13) 12.62 10.02 9.23 7.84 9.51 - 3.36 17.43 - 4.79 17.90 - 11.80 28.00 - 13.73 33.98 - 13.25
PDCE § PDC ENERGY INC DEC (1.74) 3.00 (0.82) (5.23) 0.13 32.06 31.68 27.13 23.22 28.10 64.99 - 37.62 70.44 - 27.91 73.93 - 33.39 40.26 - 19.33 49.60 - 15.08
PXD [] PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES CO DEC (1.79) 7.17 (2.86) 1.10 3.45 54.20 55.77 44.36 43.70 42.60 181.97 - 105.83 234.60 - 127.31 227.42 - 107.29 119.19 - 77.41 106.07 - 58.63
QEP † QEP RESOURCES INC DEC (0.85) (2.28) 0.89 0.72 1.51 22.33 23.23 18.87 17.97 18.34 24.04 - 11.02 35.90 - 18.15 34.24 - 26.24 35.61 - 24.34 45.20 - 23.56
RRC [] RANGE RESOURCES CORP DEC (4.29) 3.81 0.71 0.08 0.26 16.30 20.50 14.78 14.51 14.85 65.53 - 20.79 95.41 - 51.83 85.49 - 61.25 73.94 - 52.34 77.24 - 44.20
SM † SM ENERGY CO DEC (6.61) 9.91 2.57 (0.83) 3.38 27.21 J 33.89 J 23.80 21.21 22.72 60.28 - 18.06 90.38 - 29.41 94.00 - 52.67 84.40 - 39.44 88.50 - 53.45
SWN [] SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO DEC (12.25) 2.63 2.01 (2.03) 1.84 5.85 13.15 10.26 8.65 11.37 29.61 - 5.00 49.16 - 26.75 40.46 - 31.62 36.87 - 25.63 49.25 - 30.94
SYRG § SYNERGY RESOURCES CORP AUG 0.19 0.38 0.17 0.26 (0.45) 5.06 3.61 2.88 1.97 1.36 13.50 - 7.90 14.11 - 8.05 11.40 - 5.34 5.39 - 2.40 4.90 - 2.20
WPX † WPX ENERGY INC DEC (7.04) 0.63 (5.91) (1.23) (1.43) 11.60 21.20 20.44 26.43 28.82 14.65 - 5.03 26.79 - 10.01 23.69 - 14.03 19.74 - 13.22 23.42 - 17.01

BP BP PLC -ADR DEC (2.12) 1.23 7.43 3.65 8.16 27.44 32.30 37.37 33.06 31.03 43.85 - 29.35 53.48 - 34.88 48.65 - 39.99 48.34 - 36.25 49.50 - 33.62
CEO CNOOC LTD -ADR DEC 7.00 21.76 20.89 22.90 24.99 127.80 131.08 120.10 111.02 92.51 175.60 - 97.40 202.33 - 124.16 226.77 - 155.27 234.00 - 171.58 271.94 - 141.27
ECA ENCANA CORP DEC (6.28) 4.58 0.32 (3.79) 0.17 3.97 9.13 4.73 4.85 19.98 14.73 - 4.65 24.83 - 11.44 20.55 - 16.48 24.29 - 17.02 35.22 - 17.64
E ENI SPA -ADR DEC (4.63) 0.87 3.93 3.05 4.90 29.74 37.71 41.33 39.83 31.89 39.33 - 29.01 55.70 - 32.60 52.27 - 39.65 49.65 - 36.59 53.80 - 32.44
PBR PETROLEO BRASILEIRO SA ADR DEC (1.30) (1.12) 1.70 1.70 3.08 9.53 17.14 20.41 19.65 20.23 10.55 - 3.72 20.94 - 6.01 20.50 - 12.03 32.60 - 17.27 42.75 - 20.76
PTR PETROCHINA CO LTD -ADR DEC 3.00 9.44 11.70 10.11 11.54 94.13 101.27 100.03 91.20 85.17 136.98 - 63.60 150.80 - 94.75 146.68 - 99.28 153.35 - 116.35 158.83 - 111.29
RDS.A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC -ADR DEC 0.61 4.72 5.20 8.50 9.96 48.86 52.25 55.61 58.13 52.76 67.16 - 43.26 83.42 - 60.84 73.00 - 62.65 74.52 - 60.62 77.97 - 57.97
SHI SINOPEC SHANGHAI PETRO -ADR DEC 4.68 (1.03) 3.14 (2.27) 1.41 27.69 23.97 26.42 23.83 26.37 67.80 - 28.21 35.30 - 22.73 32.16 - 19.13 27.62 - 16.43 42.03 - 21.49
STO STATOIL ASA -ADR DEC (1.33) 0.92 2.07 3.89 4.15 9.65 12.43 13.69 13.09 9.81 21.72 - 13.35 31.95 - 15.76 27.01 - 20.02 28.95 - 22.00 29.67 - 20.12
SU SUNCOR ENERGY INC DEC (1.00) 1.59 2.45 1.81 2.69 17.97 22.99 24.22 23.80 22.38 33.49 - 24.20 43.49 - 26.56 37.00 - 26.83 37.37 - 25.95 48.53 - 22.55
TOT TOTAL SA -ADR DEC 2.17 1.87 5.14 6.25 7.08 33.51 33.24 36.01 35.08 32.01 55.86 - 40.93 74.22 - 48.43 62.45 - 45.93 57.06 - 41.75 64.44 - 40.00
J-This amount includes intangibles that cannot be identified.
The analysis and opinion set forth in this publication are provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence and are prepared separately from any other analytic activity of Standard & Poor’s.
In this regard, S&P Global Market Intelligence has no access to nonpublic information received by other units of Standard & Poor’s.
The accuracy and completeness of information obtained from third-party sources, and the opinions based on such information, are not guaranteed.

(the “Intermediaries” or “Distributors”). Intermediaries are not acting as
Disclosure agents or representatives of S&P Global Market Intelligence. In Territories
S&P Global Market Intelligence’ Industry Surveys Reports (the “Industry where an Intermediary distributes S&P Global Market Intelligence’s
Surveys”) have been prepared and issued by S&P Global Market Industry Surveys, the Intermediary, and not S&P Global Market
Intelligence and/or one of its affiliates. In the United States and United Intelligence, is solely responsible for complying with all applicable
Kingdom, the Industry Surveys are distributed by Standard & Poor’s regulations, laws, rules, circulars, codes, and guidelines established by
Financial Services LLC; in Hong Kong, by Standard & Poor’s Investment local and/or regional regulatory authorities, including laws in connection
Advisory Services (HK) Limited, which is regulated by the Hong Kong with the distribution of third-party investment research, licensing
Securities Futures Commission; in Singapore, by McGraw-Hill Financial requirements, supervisory and record keeping obligations that the
Singapore Pte. Limited, which is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Intermediary may have under the applicable laws and regulations of the
Singapore; in Malaysia, by Standard & Poor’s Malaysia Sdn Bhd, which is territories where it distributes the Industry Surveys.
regulated by the Securities Commission of Malaysia; in Australia, by
Standard & Poor’s Information Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, which is Industry Surveys are not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use
regulated by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission; and in by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any
Japan, by McGraw-Hill Financial Japan KK, which is registered by Kanto locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution,
Financial Bureau. publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or
which would subject S&P Global Market Intelligence or its affiliates to
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, any registration or licensing requirements in such jurisdiction.
model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part
thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or Industry Surveys are not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use
distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval by, any person or entity who is not in a class qualified to receive Industry
system, without the prior written permission of S&P Global Market Surveys (e.g., a qualified person and/or investor), as defined by the local
Intelligence or its affiliates (collectively, S&P Global). The Content shall laws or regulations in the country or jurisdiction where the person is
not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P Global and domiciled, a citizen or resident of, or the entity is legally registered or
any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, domiciled.
employees, or agents (collectively S&P Global Parties) do not guarantee
the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P S&P Global Market Intelligence’ Industry Surveys are not intended for
Global Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or distribution in or directed to entities, residents or investors in: Burma,
otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of Cuba, Crimea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria.
the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the
user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P GLOBAL For residents of Australia: Industry Surveys are issued and/or distributed
PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED in Australia by SPIS. Any express or implied opinion contained in an
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY Industry Survey is limited to “General Advice” and based solely on
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A consideration of the investment merits of the financial product(s) alone.
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, The information in an Industry Survey has not been prepared for use by
SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S retail investors and has been prepared without taking account of any
FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE particular investor’s financial or investment objectives, financial situation
CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR or needs. Before acting on any advice, any investor using the advice should
HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Global Parties consider its appropriateness having regard to their own or their clients’
be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, objectives, financial situation and needs. Investors should obtain a Product
compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, Disclosure Statement relating to the product and consider the statement
legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost before making any decision or recommendation about whether to acquire
profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection the product. Each opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any
with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such investment decision made by or on behalf of any adviser and any such
damages. adviser must accordingly make their own assessment taking into account
an individual’s particular circumstances.
S&P Global keeps certain activities of its divisions separate from each
other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their SPIS holds an Australian Financial Services License Number 258896.
respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P Global may Please refer to the SPIS Financial Services Guide for more information at:
have information that is not available to other S&P Global divisions. S&P www.spcapitaliq.com/financialservicesguide
Global has established policies and procedures to maintain the
confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection For residents of China: Industry Surveys are not distributed in or directed
with each analytical process. to residents in The People’s Republic of China. Neither S&P Global
Market Intelligence nor its affiliates target investors in China.
S&P Global offers a wide range of services to, or relating to, many
organizations, including issuers or underwriters of securities or obligors, For residents of Kuwait: The Distributor, and not S&P Global Market
investment advisers, broker-dealers, investment banks, other financial Intelligence, is responsible for complying with all relevant licensing
institutions, and financial intermediaries. As a result, S&P Global may requirements as set forth by the Kuwait Capital Markets Law (“CML”)
receive fees or other economic benefits from organizations whose securities and Kuwait Capital Markets Authority (“CMA”) and with all relevant
or services it may recommend, analyze, rate, include in model portfolios, rules and regulations set out in the CML and CMA rule books.
evaluate, price, or otherwise address.
For residents of Malaysia: All queries in relation to Industry Surveys
The Industry Surveys are not intended to be investment advice and do not should be referred to Ahmad Halim at ahmad.halim@spglobal.com.
constitute any form of invitation or inducement by S&P Global Market
Intelligence to engage in investment activity. This material is not intended For residents of Mexico: S&P Global Market Intelligence is not regulated
as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other or supervised by the Mexican National Banking and Securities
financial instrument. Any opinions expressed herein are given in good Commission (“CNBV”). S&P Global Market Intelligence has a licensed
faith, are subject to change without notice, and are only current as of the rating agency affiliate in Mexico (Standard & Poor’s, S.A. De C.V.), of
stated date of their issue. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of which S&P Global maintains firewalls and seeks to avoid conflicts of
future results. interest, pursuant to approved policies.
For details on the S&P Global conflict-of-interest policies, please visit: For residents of Qatar: The Distributor, and not S&P Global Market
http://www.spcapitaliq.com/disclaimers/s-p-global-equity-research-reports Intelligence, is responsible for complying with all relevant licensing
requirements as set forth by the Qatar Financial Markets Authority or the
Notice to all Non U.S. Residents: Qatar Central Bank, and with all relevant rules and regulations set out in
S&P Global Market Intelligence’s Industry Surveys may be distributed in the Qatar Financial Markets Authority’s rule book, including third party
certain localities, countries and/or jurisdictions (“Territories”) by branded investment research distribution of securities that are admitted for
independent third parties or independent intermediaries and/or distributors trading on a Qatari securities exchange (Admitted Securities).

Industry Surveys: Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industry Surveys: Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Industry Surveys

Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels

Stewart Glickman, CFA

How the Industry Operates Contacts

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 4

ENERGY SECTOR BREAKDOWN BY MARKET CAPITALIZATION

Oil, Gas &

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

SECTOR ------ YEAR ENDED ------ 5-YEAR

5 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

ENERGY SECTOR REVENUE PER SHARE

Actual Values (right scale) Last 12 Months (left scale)

*Data through first quarter.

Sector Profit Margins

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 6

Energy Sector of S&P 1500 Composite Index Period Average

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

NORMALIZED NET INCOME

Actual Values (left scale) Last 12 Months (right scale)

*Data through first quarter.

7 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

Sector Balance Sheet

Energy Sector of S&P 1500 Composite Index Period Average

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 8

Energy Sector of S&P 1500 Composite Index Period Average

*Data through first quarter.

TOTAL DEBT-TO-CAPITAL RATIO

Actual Values Last 12 Months

*Data through first quarter.

9 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

Actual Values Last 12 Months

*Data through first quarter.

FORWARD PRICE-TO-EARNINGS RATIO

Actual Values Forward 12 Months

*Projected values start from second quarter of 2016.

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 10

ETF Market Flows and Investing Landscape

SECTOR ETF INFLOWS

SECTOR YEAR ENDED FIRST FIVE

11 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

COMPANY ETF ASSETS UNDER NET

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 12

OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS INDUSTRY MARKET-CAP WEIGHTINGS

13 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS MARKET-CAP BY SUB-INDUSTRY

Coal and Oil & Gas Refining &

Oil & Gas Storage &

Oil & Gas Exploration

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 14

REVENUE PER SHARE

*Projected values start from second quarter of 2016.

15 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

Industry Profit Margins

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 16

*Data through first quarter.

17 OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 INDUSTRY SURVEYS

*Data through first quarter.

Normalized Diluted EPS

INDUSTRY SURVEYS OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLE FUELS / JUNE 2016 18

*Projected values start from second quarter of 2016.

Industry Balance Sheet