e10vk
UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number 1-4174
The Williams Companies,
Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as
Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
73-0569878
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of
|
|
(IRS Employer
|
Incorporation or
Organization)
|
|
Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
One Williams Center, Tulsa,
Oklahoma
|
|
74172
|
(Address of Principal Executive
Offices)
|
|
(Zip
Code)
|
918-573-2000
(Registrants Telephone
Number, Including Area Code)
Securities registered pursuant
to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Each Exchange
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
on Which Registered
|
|
Common Stock, $1.00 par value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchange
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred Stock Purchase Rights
|
|
New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
5.50% Junior Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2033
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has
filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No
o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated
filer þ Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common
equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price
at which the common equity was last sold, as of the last
business day of the registrants most recently completed
second quarter was approximately $13,912,313,182.
The number of shares outstanding of the registrants common
stock outstanding at February 22, 2007 was 597,861,925.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
|
|
|
Document
|
|
Parts Into Which Incorporated
|
|
Proxy Statement for the Annual
Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 17, 2007 (Proxy
Statement)
|
|
Part III
|
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
FORM 10-K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
DEFINITIONS
We use the following oil and gas measurements in this report:
Bcfe means one billion cubic feet of gas
equivalent determined using the ratio of one barrel of oil or
condensate to six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
British Thermal Unit or BTU means a unit of
energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by
one degree Fahrenheit.
BBtud means one billion BTUs per day.
Dekatherms or Dth or Dt means a unit of
energy equal to one million BTUs.
Mbbls/d means one thousand barrels per day.
Mcfe means one thousand cubic feet of gas
equivalent using the ratio of one barrel of oil or condensate to
six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
Mdt/d means one thousand dekatherms per day.
MMcf means one million cubic feet.
MMcf/d means one million cubic feet per day.
MMcfe means one million cubic feet of gas
equivalent using the ratio of one barrel of oil or condensate to
six thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
MMdt means one million dekatherms or
approximately one trillion BTUs.
MMdt/d means one million dekatherms per
day.
ii
PART I
In this report, Williams (which includes The Williams Companies,
Inc. and, unless the context otherwise requires, all of our
subsidiaries) is at times referred to in the first person as
we, us or our. We also
sometimes refer to Williams as the Company.
WEBSITE
ACCESS TO REPORTS AND OTHER INFORMATION
We file our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K,
proxy statements and other documents electronically with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Exchange Act). You may read
and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the
SECs Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
You may also obtain such reports from the SECs Internet
website at http://www.sec.gov.
Our Internet website is http://www.williams.com. We make
available free of charge on or through our Internet website our
annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K
and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Corporate
Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethics, Board committee charters
and Code of Business Conduct are also available on our Internet
website. We will also provide, free of charge, a copy of any of
our corporate documents listed above upon written request to our
Secretary at Williams, One Williams Center, Suite 4700,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172.
GENERAL
We are a natural gas company originally incorporated under the
laws of the state of Nevada in 1949 and reincorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware in 1987. We were founded in 1908
when two Williams brothers began a construction company in
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
We continue to use Economic Value
Added®
(EVA®)1
as the basis for disciplined decision making around the use of
capital.
EVA®
is a tool that considers both financial earnings and a cost of
capital in measuring performance. It is based on the idea that
earning profits from an economic perspective requires that a
company cover not only all of its operating expenses but also
all of its capital costs. The two main components of
EVA®
are net operating profit after taxes and a charge for the
opportunity cost of capital. We derive these amounts by making
various adjustments to our reported results and financial
position, and by applying a cost of capital. We look for
opportunities to improve
EVA®
because we believe there is a strong correlation between
EVA®
improvement and creation of shareholder value.
Today, we primarily find, produce, gather, process and transport
natural gas. We also manage a wholesale power business. Our
operations are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky
Mountains, Gulf Coast, Southern California and Eastern Seaboard.
In 2006 we focused on continued disciplined growth. During 2006
we:
|
|
|
|
|
Continued to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit;
|
|
|
|
Invested in our natural gas businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position;
|
|
|
|
Continued to increase natural gas production in a responsible
manner;
|
|
|
|
Accelerated additional asset transactions between us and
Williams Partners L.P., our master limited partnership;
|
1 Economic
Value
Added®
(EVA®)
is a registered trademark of Stern, Stewart & Co.
1
|
|
|
|
|
Increased the scale of our gathering and processing business in
key growth basins;
|
|
|
|
Filed new rates to enable our Gas Pipeline segment to remain
competitive and value-creating, and completed a capacity
replacement project;
|
|
|
|
Executed power contracts that reduce risk while adding new
business and strengthening future cash flow potential.
|
Our principal executive offices are located at One Williams
Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. Our telephone number is
918-573-2000.
2006
HIGHLIGHTS
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert our
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures into
our common stock. In January 2006, we converted approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures in exchange for
20.2 million shares of common stock, a $25.8 million
cash premium, and $1.5 million of accrued interest.
In April 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
(Transco) issued $200 million aggregate principal amount of
6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due 2016 to certain
institutional investors in a private debt placement. In October
2006, Transco completed an offer to exchange all of these notes
for substantially identical notes registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In May 2006, our Board of Directors approved a regular quarterly
dividend of 9 cents per share of common stock, which reflects an
increase of 20 percent compared with the 7.5 cents per
share paid in each of the three prior quarters.
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest
Pipeline) issued $175 million aggregate principal amount of
7 percent senior unsecured notes due 2016 to certain
institutional investors in a private debt placement. In October
2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation completed an offer to
exchange all of these notes for substantially identical notes
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000, and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. We
funded our $145 million portion of the settlement with
cash-on-hand
in November 2006, with the balance funded through insurance
proceeds. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second-quarter 2006. This settlement did
not have a material effect on our liquidity position. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity
offering of approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In
December 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a $600 million
private debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a
private equity offering of approximately $350 million of
common and Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. The debt and
equity issued by Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a
component of our consolidated debt balance and minority interest
balance, respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain
gathering, processing and treating assets in the San Juan
Basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
2
On July 31, 2006, and August 1, 2006, we received a
verdict in civil litigation related to a contractual dispute
surrounding certain natural gas processing facilities known as
Gulf Liquids. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$88 million in second quarter 2006 related to this loss
contingency. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
Northwest Pipeline and Transco have each filed a general rate
case with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its pending rate
case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval, which is
expected by mid-2007. The new transportation and storage rates
for both pipelines will be effective, subject to refund, in the
first quarter of 2007.
In December 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed and placed into
service its capacity replacement project in the state of
Washington. The project involved abandoning 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline and replacing it with approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline constructed in four sections along the same pipeline
corridor. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline modified five
existing compressor stations which created additional net
horsepower.
Our property insurance coverage levels and premiums were revised
during the second quarter of 2006. In general, our coverage
levels have decreased while our premiums have increased. These
changes reflect general trends in our industry due to
hurricane-related damages in recent years.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT SEGMENTS
See Note 17 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for information with respect to each segments
revenues, profits or losses and total assets. See Note 9
for information with respect to property, plant and equipment
for each segment.
BUSINESS
SEGMENTS
Substantially all our operations are conducted through our
subsidiaries. To achieve organizational and operating
efficiencies, our activities are primarily operated through the
following business segments:
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production produces,
develops and manages natural gas reserves primarily located in
the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the United
States and is comprised of several wholly owned and partially
owned subsidiaries including Williams Production Company LLC and
Williams Production RMT Company.
|
|
|
|
Gas Pipeline includes our interstate natural
gas pipelines and pipeline joint venture investments organized
under our wholly owned subsidiary, Williams Gas Pipeline
Company, LLC.
|
|
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids includes our
natural gas gathering, treating and processing business and is
comprised of several wholly owned and partially owned
subsidiaries including Williams Field Services Group LLC and
Williams Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. Midstream also includes
Williams Partners L.P., our master limited partnership formed in
2005.
|
|
|
|
Power manages our wholesale power and natural
gas commodity businesses through purchases, sales and other
related transactions, under our wholly owned subsidiary Williams
Power Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries.
|
|
|
|
Other primarily consists of corporate
operations. Other also includes our interest in
Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn).
|
This report is organized to reflect this structure.
Detailed discussion of each of our business segments follows.
3
Exploration &
Production
Our Exploration & Production segment, which is
comprised of several wholly owned and partially owned
subsidiaries, including Williams Production Company LLC and
Williams Production RMT Company (RMT), produces, develops, and
manages natural gas reserves primarily located in the Rocky
Mountain (primarily New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado) and
Mid-Continent (Oklahoma and Texas) regions of the United States.
We specialize in natural gas production from tight-sands
formations and coal bed methane reserves in the Piceance,
San Juan, Powder River, Arkoma, Green River and
Fort Worth basins. Over 99 percent of
Exploration & Productions domestic reserves are
natural gas. Our Exploration & Production segment also
has international oil and gas interests, which include a
69 percent equity interest in Apco Argentina, Inc. (Apco
Argentina), an oil and gas exploration and production company
with operations in Argentina, and a four percent interest in
Petrowayu S.A., a Venezuelan corporation that is the operator of
a 100 percent interest in the La Concepcion block
located in Western Venezuela.
Exploration & Productions primary strategy is to
utilize its expertise in the development of tight-sands, shale,
and coal bed methane reserves. Exploration &
Productions current proved undeveloped and probable
reserves provide us with strong capital investment opportunities
for several years into the future. Exploration &
Productions goal is to drill its existing proved
undeveloped reserves, which comprise over 47 percent of
proved reserves and to drill in areas of probable reserves. In
addition, Exploration & Production provides a
significant amount of equity production that is gathered
and/or
processed by our Midstream facilities in the San Juan basin.
Information for our Exploration & Production segment
relates only to domestic activity unless otherwise noted. We use
the terms gross to refer to all wells or acreage in
which we have at least a partial working interest and
net to refer to our ownership represented by that
working interest.
Gas
reserves and wells
The following table summarizes our U.S. natural gas
reserves as of December 31 (using prices at
December 31 held constant) for the year indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Bcfe)
|
|
|
Proved developed natural gas
reserves
|
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
|
1,643
|
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
Proved undeveloped natural gas
reserves
|
|
|
1,756
|
|
|
|
1,739
|
|
|
|
1,638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total proved natural gas reserves
|
|
|
3,701
|
|
|
|
3,382
|
|
|
|
2,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes our proved natural gas reserves
by basin as of December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
Basin
|
|
Proved Reserves
|
|
|
Piceance
|
|
|
67%
|
|
San Juan
|
|
|
17%
|
|
Powder River
|
|
|
10%
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No major discovery or other favorable or adverse event has
caused a significant change in estimated gas reserves since
year-end 2006. We have not filed on a recurring basis estimates
of our total proved net oil and gas reserves with any
U.S. regulatory authority or agency other than the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the SEC. The estimates furnished
to the DOE have been consistent with those furnished to the SEC,
although Exploration & Production has not yet filed any
information with respect to its estimated total reserves at
December 31, 2006, with the DOE. Certain estimates filed
with the DOE may not necessarily be directly comparable due to
special DOE reporting requirements, such as the requirement to
report gross operated reserves only. The underlying estimated
reserves for the DOE did not differ by more than five percent
from the underlying estimated reserves utilized in preparing the
estimated reserves reported to the SEC.
4
Approximately 98 percent of our year-end 2006 United States
proved reserves estimates were audited in each separate basin by
Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (NSAI). When
compared on a
well-by-well
basis, some of our estimates are greater and some are less than
the estimates of NSAI. However, in the opinion of NSAI, the
estimates of our proved reserves are in the aggregate reasonable
by basin and have been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted petroleum engineering and evaluation principles. These
principles are set forth in the Standards Pertaining to the
Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserve Information
promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. NSAI is
satisfied with our methods and procedures in preparing the
December 31, 2006 reserve estimates and saw nothing of an
unusual nature that would cause NSAI to take exception with the
estimates, in the aggregate, as prepared by us. Reserves
estimates related to properties underlying the Williams Coal
Seam Gas Royalty Trust which comprise another approximately two
percent of our total U.S. proved reserves were prepared by
Miller and Lents, LTD.
Oil and
gas properties
Following is a discussion of our oil and gas properties for our
significant areas.
Piceance
basin
The Piceance basin is located in northwestern Colorado. In 2006,
we drilled 494 gross wells of which we operate 477, and
owned working interests in a total of 1,889 gross producing
wells at year-end. We produced a net of approximately
152 Bcfe of natural gas from the Piceance basin during
2006. Our estimated proved reserves in this basin at year-end
2006 were 2,469 Bcfe. The Piceance basin is our largest area of
concentrated development comprising approximately
67 percent of our proved reserves at December 31,
2006. This area has approximately 1,500 undrilled proved
locations in inventory. Within this basin, we are also the owner
and operator of a natural gas gathering and processing system.
In March 2005 we entered into a contract with
Helmerich & Payne for the operation of 10 new
FlexRig®
drilling rigs, each for a term of three years. By December 2006,
all 10 of these rigs were operating in the Piceance basin. We
also have 15 rigs operating in the Piceance basin under contract
with other vendors, for a total of 25 rigs operating in the
Piceance basin by December 2006.
San
Juan basin
The San Juan basin is located in northwest New Mexico and
southwest Colorado. In 2006, we participated in the drilling of
214 gross wells, of which we operate 56 and owned working
interests in a total of 2,864 gross producing wells at
year-end. We produced a net of approximately 56 Bcfe of
natural gas from the San Juan basin during 2006. Our
estimated proved reserves in the San Juan basin at year-end
2006 were 614 Bcfe.
Powder
River basin
The Powder River basin is located in northeast Wyoming. In 2006,
we drilled 858 gross wells of which we operate 449, and
owned working interests in a total of 4,454 gross producing
wells at year-end. We produced a net of approximately
52 Bcfe of natural gas from the Powder River basin during
2006. Our estimated proved reserves in this basin at year-end
2006 were 372 Bcfe. The Powder River basin comprises
approximately 10 percent of our proved reserves at
December 31, 2006. The Powder River basin includes large
areas with multiple coal seam potential, targeting thick coal
bed methane formations at shallow depths. We have a significant
inventory of undrilled locations, providing long-term drilling
opportunities.
Mid-Continent
properties
The Mid-Continent properties are located in the southeastern
Oklahoma portion of the Arkoma basin and the Barnett Shale in
the Fort Worth basin of Texas. In 2006, we drilled
112 gross wells, of which we operate 61 and owned working
interests in a total of 475 gross producing wells at year-end.
We produced a net of approximately 11 Bcfe of natural gas
from the Mid-Continent in 2006. Our estimated proved reserves in
the Arkoma and Fort Worth basins at year-end 2006 were
167 Bcfe.
5
The following table summarizes our leased acreage as of
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Acres
|
|
|
Net Acres
|
|
|
Developed
|
|
|
803,772
|
|
|
|
423,025
|
|
Undeveloped
|
|
|
1,220,422
|
|
|
|
623,538
|
|
At December 31, 2006, we owned working interests in
9,965 gross wells producing hydrocarbons (4,890 net).
Operating
statistics
We focus on lower-risk development drilling. Our drilling
success rate was 99 percent in 2006, 2005 and 2004. The
following tables summarize domestic drilling activity by number
and type of well for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Wells
|
|
Gross Wells
|
|
|
Net Wells
|
|
|
Development:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drilled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
1,783
|
|
|
|
954
|
|
2005
|
|
|
1,627
|
|
|
|
867
|
|
2004
|
|
|
1,395
|
|
|
|
710
|
|
Successful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
1,770
|
|
|
|
948
|
|
2005
|
|
|
1,615
|
|
|
|
859
|
|
2004
|
|
|
1,384
|
|
|
|
706
|
|
Substantially all our natural gas production is currently being
sold to Power at prevailing market prices. Power then resells
the majority of our production to unrelated third parties.
Because we currently have a low-risk drilling program in proven
basins, the main component of risk that we manage is price risk.
We have recently entered into a five-year unsecured credit
agreement with certain banks in order to reduce margin
requirements related to our hedging activities as well as lower
transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any, under this new
facility are dependent on the level of hedging with the banks
and on natural gas reserves value. Exploration &
Production natural gas hedges for 2007 consist of derivative
contracts with Power that hedge 172 BBtud in fixed price
hedges (whole year) and approximately 270 BBtud in NYMEX and
regional collars (whole year) for projected 2007 domestic
natural gas production. Power then enters into offsetting
derivative contracts with unrelated third parties. Our natural
gas production hedges in 2006 consisted of 299 BBtud in fixed
price hedges and 64 BBtud in NYMEX collars and an additional 50
BBtud in regional collars. A collar is a financial instrument
that sets a gas price floor and ceiling for a certain volume of
natural gas. Hedging decisions are made considering the overall
Williams commodity risk exposure and are not executed
independently by Exploration & Production; there are
gas purchase hedging contracts executed on behalf of other
Williams entities which taken as a net position may counteract
Exploration & Production gas sales hedging derivatives.
The following table summarizes our domestic sales and cost
information for the years indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Total net production sold (in Bcfe)
|
|
|
274.4
|
|
|
|
223.5
|
|
|
|
189.4
|
|
Average production costs including
production taxes per thousand cubic feet of gas equivalent
(Mcfe) produced
|
|
$
|
1.02
|
|
|
$
|
.92
|
|
|
$
|
.88
|
|
Average sales price per Mcfe
|
|
$
|
5.24
|
|
|
$
|
6.41
|
|
|
$
|
4.48
|
|
Realized impact of hedging
contracts (Loss)
|
|
$
|
(0.73
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.61
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.32
|
)
|
Acquisitions &
divestitures
Exploration & Production expanded its acreage position
and purchased producing properties in the Fort Worth basin
in north-central Texas through transactions totaling
approximately $64 million.
6
Other
information
In 1993, Exploration & Production conveyed a net
profits interest in certain of its properties to the Williams
Coal Seam Gas Royalty Trust. Substantially all of the production
attributable to the properties conveyed to the trust was from
the Fruitland coal formation and constituted coal seam gas. We
subsequently sold trust units to the public in an underwritten
public offering and retained 3,568,791 trust units then
representing 36.8 percent of outstanding trust units. We
have previously sold trust units on the open market, with our
last sales in June 2005. As of February 1, 2007, we own
789,291 trust units. We sold no additional trust units during
2006.
International
exploration and production interests
We also have investments in international oil and gas interests.
If combined with our domestic proved reserves, our international
interests would make up 4.2 percent of our total proved
reserves.
Gas
Pipeline
We own and operate, through Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
and its subsidiaries, a combined total of approximately
14,400 miles of pipelines with a total annual throughput of
approximately 2,500 trillion British Thermal Units of natural
gas and
peak-day
delivery capacity of approximately 12 MMdt of gas. Gas
Pipeline consists of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
and Northwest Pipeline Corporation. Gas Pipeline also holds
interests in joint venture interstate and intrastate natural gas
pipeline systems including a 50 percent interest in
Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco)
Transco is an interstate natural gas transportation company that
owns and operates a
10,500-mile
natural gas pipeline system extending from Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and the offshore Gulf of Mexico through Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey to the New York City metropolitan
area. The system serves customers in Texas and 11 southeast and
Atlantic seaboard states, including major metropolitan areas in
Georgia, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Pipeline
system and customers
At December 31, 2006, Transcos system had a mainline
delivery capacity of approximately 4.7 MMdt of natural gas
per day from its production areas to its primary markets. Using
its Leidy Line along with market-area storage and transportation
capacity, Transco can deliver an additional 3.5 MMdt of
natural gas per day for a system-wide delivery capacity total of
approximately 8.2 MMdt of natural gas per day.
Transcos system includes 44 compressor stations, five
underground storage fields, two liquefied natural gas (LNG)
storage facilities. Compression facilities at a sea level-rated
capacity total approximately 1.5 million horsepower.
Transcos major natural gas transportation customers are
public utilities and municipalities that provide service to
residential, commercial, industrial and electric generation end
users. Shippers on Transcos system include public
utilities, municipalities, intrastate pipelines, direct
industrial users, electrical generators, gas marketers and
producers. One customer accounted for approximately
10 percent of Transcos total revenues in 2006.
Transcos firm transportation agreements are generally
long-term agreements with various expiration dates and account
for the major portion of Transcos business. Additionally,
Transco offers storage services and interruptible transportation
services under short-term agreements.
Transco has natural gas storage capacity in five underground
storage fields located on or near its pipeline system or market
areas and operates three of these storage fields. Transco also
has storage capacity in an LNG storage facility and operates the
facility. The total usable gas storage capacity available to
Transco and its customers in such underground storage fields and
LNG storage facility and through storage service contracts is
approximately 216 billion cubic feet of gas. In addition,
wholly owned subsidiaries of Transco operate and hold a
35 percent ownership interest in Pine Needle LNG Company,
LLC, an LNG storage facility with 4 billion cubic feet of
storage capacity. Storage capacity permits Transcos
customers to inject gas into storage during the summer and
off-peak periods for delivery during peak winter demand periods.
7
Transco
expansion projects
Leidy
to Long Island Expansion Project
The Leidy to Long Island Expansion Project will involve an
expansion of Transcos existing natural gas transmission
system in Zone 6 from the Leidy Hub in Pennsylvania to Long
Island, New York. The project will provide 100 Mdt/d of
incremental firm transportation capacity, which has been fully
subscribed by one shipper for a 20-year primary term. The
project facilities will include pipeline looping in
Pennsylvania, pipeline looping, replacement and a natural gas
compressor facility in New Jersey and appurtenant facilities in
New York. Transco expects that over three-quarters of the
project expenditures will occur in 2007. Transco filed an
application for FERC authorization of the project in December
2005, which the FERC approved by order issued on May 18,
2006. On October 20, 2006, Transco filed an application to
amend the FERC authorizations to reflect Transcos
ownership of certain appurtenant facilities as part of the
project and to adjust the cost of facilities and rates, which
the FERC approved on January 11, 2007. The estimated
capital cost of the project is approximately $141 million.
The target in-service date for the project is November 1,
2007.
Potomac
Expansion Project
The Potomac Expansion Project will involve an expansion of
Transcos existing natural gas transmission system from
receipt points in North Carolina to delivery points in the
greater Baltimore and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas.
The project will provide 165 Mdt/d of incremental firm
transportation capacity, which has been fully subscribed by
shippers under long-term firm arrangements. The estimated
capital cost of the project is approximately $74 million.
On July 17, 2006, Transco filed an application for FERC
approval of the project. The target in-service date for the
project is November 1, 2007.
Sentinel
Expansion Project
The Sentinel Expansion Project will involve an expansion of
Transcos existing natural gas transmission system from the
Leidy Hub in Clinton County, Pennsylvania and from the Pleasant
Valley Interconnection with Cove Point LNG in Fairfax County,
Virginia to various delivery points requested by the shippers
under the project. The project will provide 142 Mdt/d of
incremental firm transportation capacity, which has been fully
subscribed by the shippers under long-term firm arrangements.
The project facilities will include pipeline looping in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and minor compressor station
modifications. The estimated capital cost of the project
excluding any customer meter station upgrades is approximately
$140 million. In order to accommodate certain shippers,
Transco is planning to place the incremental firm transportation
capacity into service in two phases, the first phase commencing
on November 1, 2008 for 67 Mdt/d of service and the second
phase commencing on November 1, 2009 for an additional 75
Mdt/d of service. The FERC has granted our request for a
pre-application environmental review of the project, soliciting
early input from citizens, governmental entities and other
interested parties. Transco expects to file a formal application
with the FERC in the second quarter of 2007.
8
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes transportation data for the
Transco system for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In trillion British
|
|
|
|
Thermal Units)
|
|
|
Market-area deliveries:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-haul transportation
|
|
|
795
|
|
|
|
755
|
|
|
|
782
|
|
Market-area transportation
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
|
|
817
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total market-area deliveries
|
|
|
1,612
|
|
|
|
1,608
|
|
|
|
1,599
|
|
Production-area transportation
|
|
|
247
|
|
|
|
278
|
|
|
|
317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total system deliveries
|
|
|
1,859
|
|
|
|
1,886
|
|
|
|
1,916
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Daily Transportation
Volumes
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
Average Daily Firm Reserved
Capacity
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
Transcos facilities are divided into eight rate zones.
Five are located in the production area, and three are located
in the market area. Long-haul transportation involves gas that
Transco receives in one of the production-area zones and
delivers to a market-area zone. Market-area transportation
involves gas that Transco both receives and delivers within the
market-area zones. Production-area transportation involves gas
that Transco both receives and delivers within the
production-area zones.
Northwest
Pipeline Corporation (Northwest Pipeline)
Northwest Pipeline is an interstate natural gas transportation
company that owns and operates a natural gas pipeline system
extending from the San Juan basin in northwestern New
Mexico and southwestern Colorado through Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington to a point on the Canadian
border near Sumas, Washington. Northwest Pipeline provides
services for markets in California, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington directly or
indirectly through interconnections with other pipelines.
Pipeline
system and customers
At December 31, 2006, Northwest Pipelines system,
having long-term firm transportation agreements with peaking
capacity of approximately 3.4 MMdt of natural gas per day,
was composed of approximately 3,900 miles of mainline and
lateral transmission pipelines and 41 transmission compressor
stations having a combined sea level-rated capacity of
approximately 473,000 horsepower.
In 2003, we experienced two breaks in a segment of one of our
natural gas pipelines in western Washington. In response to
these breaks, we received Corrective Action Orders from the
Office of Pipeline Safety, elected to idle the pipeline segment
until its integrity could be assured, and began the process of
replacing the capacity served by the pipeline segment.
In September 2005 we received a FERC certificate authorizing us
to construct and operate the Capacity Replacement
Project. This project entailed the abandonment of
approximately 268 miles of the existing
26-inch
pipeline, and the construction of approximately 80 miles of
new 36-inch
pipeline and an additional 10,760 net horsepower of
compression at two existing compressor stations. As of December
2006, all of the facilities were placed in service, and
abandonment of the
26-inch
pipeline was completed.
The rate case we filed on June 30, 2006 seeks to recover,
among other things, the capitalized costs relating to the
Capacity Replacement Project.
In 2006, Northwest Pipeline served a total of 141 transportation
and storage customers. Transportation customers include
distribution companies, municipalities, interstate and
intrastate pipelines, gas marketers and direct industrial users.
The two largest customers of Northwest Pipeline in 2006
accounted for approximately 19.9 percent and
10.9 percent, of its total operating revenues. No other
customer accounted for more than 10 percent of Northwest
Pipelines total operating revenues in 2006. Northwest
Pipelines firm transportation agreements are
9
generally long-term agreements with various expiration dates and
account for the major portion of Northwest Pipelines
business. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline offers interruptible
and short-term firm transportation service.
As a part of its transportation services, Northwest Pipeline
utilizes underground storage facilities in Utah and Washington
enabling it to balance daily receipts and deliveries. Northwest
Pipeline also owns and operates an LNG storage facility in
Washington that provides service for customers during a few days
of extreme demands. These storage facilities have an aggregate
firm delivery capacity of approximately 600 million cubic
feet of gas per day.
Northwest
Pipeline expansion projects
Parachute
Lateral Project
In January 2006, we filed an application with the FERC to
construct a
38-mile
lateral that would provide additional transportation capacity
from the Parachute area to the Greasewood area in northwest
Colorado. The planned lateral would increase capacity by 450
Mdt/d through a
30-inch
diameter line and is estimated to cost $86 million. We
anticipate beginning service on the expansion in March 2007.
Greasewood
Lateral Project
In March 2006, we executed an agreement with a shipper for 200
Mdt/d of capacity on a proposed new lateral to be constructed
from the vicinity of Greasewood, Colorado, to our mainline
system near Sands Springs, Colorado. On February 20, 2007,
following a meeting with representatives of the shipper, we
decided to postpone applying with the FERC for a certificate to
construct the proposed Greasewood Lateral Project. We will be
continuing to work with potential shippers to determine whether
to proceed with the project at a future date.
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes volume and capacity data for the
Northwest Pipeline system for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In trillion British Thermal Units)
|
|
|
Total Transportation Volume
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
673
|
|
|
|
650
|
|
Average Daily Transportation
Volumes
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Average Daily Reserved Capacity
Under Long-Term Base Firm Contracts, excluding peak capacity
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
Average Daily Reserved Capacity
Under Short-Term Firm Contracts(1)
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
.8
|
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Consists primarily of additional capacity created from time to
time through the installation of new receipt or delivery points
or the segmentation of existing mainline capacity. Such capacity
is generally marketed on a short-term firm basis, because it
does not involve the construction of additional mainline
capacity. |
Gulfstream
Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream)
Gulfstream is a natural gas pipeline system extending from the
Mobile Bay area in Alabama to markets in Florida. In December
2001, Gulfstream filed an application with the FERC to allow
Gulfstream to complete the construction of its approved
facilities in phases. In May 2002, the first phase of the
project was placed into service at a cost of approximately
$1.5 billion. The second phase of the project was placed
into service on February 1, 2005. The total capital cost of
both phases of the project is approximately $1.7 billion.
At December 31, 2006, our equity investment in Gulfstream
was $387 million. Gas Pipeline and Spectra Energy (formerly
known as Duke Energy), through their respective subsidiaries,
each hold a 50 percent ownership interest in Gulfstream and
provide operating services for Gulfstream.
10
Gulfstream
expansion projects
Gulfstream has entered into a precedent agreement and a related
firm transportation service agreement pursuant to which, subject
to the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and other
conditions precedent therein, we intend to extend the pipeline
system into South Florida and fully subscribe the remaining 345
Mdt/d of firm capacity on the existing pipeline system on a
long-term basis. The estimated capital cost of this project is
anticipated to be approximately $135 million. Gulfstream
also has executed a precedent agreement and a related firm
transportation service agreement pursuant to which, subject to
the receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and other
conditions precedent therein, we intend to construct and fully
subscribe on a long-term basis the first incremental expansion
of Gulfstreams mainline capacity, increasing the current
mainline capacity of 1.1 MMdt/d to 1.255 MMdt/d. The
project will include the construction of additional pipeline in
Florida and the installation of new compression in Alabama and
Florida. The estimated capital cost of this expansion is
anticipated to be approximately $117 million. No
significant increase in operations personnel is expected as a
result of these two projects.
Midstream
Gas & Liquids
Our Midstream segment, one of the nations largest natural
gas gatherers and processors, has primary service areas
concentrated in the major producing basins in Colorado, New
Mexico, Wyoming, the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela and western
Canada. Midstreams primary businesses natural
gas gathering, treating, and processing; natural gas liquids
(NGL) fractionation, storage and transportation; and oil
transportation fall within the middle of the process
of taking natural gas and crude oil from the wellhead to the
consumer. NGLs, ethylene and propylene are extracted/produced at
our plants, including our Canadian and Gulf Coast olefins
plants. These products are used primarily for the manufacture of
plastics, home heating and refinery feedstock.
Although most of our gas services are performed for a
volumetric-based fee, a portion of our gas processing contracts
are commodity-based and include two distinct types of commodity
exposure. The first type includes Keep Whole
processing contracts whereby we own the NGLs extracted and
replace the lost heating value with natural gas. Under these
contracts, we are exposed to the spread between NGLs and natural
gas prices. The second type consists of Percent of
Liquids contracts whereby we receive a portion of the
extracted liquids with no direct exposure to the price of
natural gas. Under these contracts, we are only exposed to NGL
price movements.
Our Canadian and Gulf Liquids olefin facilities have commodity
exposure. In Canada, we are exposed to the spread between the
price for natural gas and the olefinic products we produce. In
the Gulf Coast, our feedstock for the ethane cracker is ethane
and propane; as a result, we are exposed to the price spread
between ethane and propane and ethylene and propylene. In the
Gulf Coast, we also purchase refinery grade propylene and
fractionate it into polymer grade propylene and propane; as a
result we are exposed to the price spread between those
commodities.
Key variables for our business will continue to be:
|
|
|
|
|
retaining and attracting customers by continuing to provide
reliable services;
|
|
|
|
revenue growth associated with additional infrastructure either
completed or currently under construction;
|
|
|
|
disciplined growth in our core service areas;
|
|
|
|
prices impacting our commodity-based processing and olefin
activities.
|
Domestic
gathering and processing
We own
and/or
operate domestic gas gathering and processing assets primarily
within the western states of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico,
and the onshore and offshore shelf and deepwater areas in and
around the Gulf Coast states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Alabama. These assets consist of approximately
8,200 miles of gathering pipelines, nine processing plants
(one partially owned) and five natural gas treating plants with
a combined daily inlet capacity of nearly 6.2 billion cubic
feet per day. Some of these assets are owned through our
interest in Williams Partners L.P. (see Williams Partners L.P.
section below).
11
Geographically, our Midstream natural gas assets are positioned
to maximize commercial and operational synergies with our other
assets. For example, most of our offshore gathering and
processing assets attach and process or condition natural gas
supplies delivered to the Transco pipeline. Also, our gathering
and processing facilities in the San Juan basin handle
about 85 percent of our Exploration & Production
groups wellhead production in this basin. Both our
San Juan Basin and Southwest Wyoming systems deliver gas
volumes into Northwest Pipelines interstate system.
In addition to these natural gas assets, we own and operate
three crude oil pipelines totaling approximately 270 miles
with a capacity of more than 300,000 barrels per day. This
includes our Mountaineer, Alpine and BANJO crude oil pipeline
systems in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
The BANJO oil pipeline and Seahawk gas pipeline run parallel and
deliver production across two producer-owned spar-type floating
production systems from the Kerr-McGee-operated Boomvang and
Nansen field areas in the western Gulf of Mexico. These
pipelines were placed in service on January 28, 2002.
Our 18 inch oil pipeline, Alpine, which became operational
on December 14, 2003, is our second western gulf crude oil
pipeline. The pipeline extends 96 miles from Garden Banks
Block 668 in the central Gulf of Mexico to our
shallow-water platform at Galveston Area Block A244. From this
platform, the oil is delivered onshore through ExxonMobils
Hoover Offshore Oil Pipeline System under a joint tariff
agreement. This production is coming from the Gunnison field,
which is located in 3,150 feet of water and operated by
Kerr-McGee.
Our Devils Tower floating production system and associated
pipelines were placed in service on May 5, 2004. Initially
built to serve Dominion Exploration & Productions
Devils Tower field, the floating production system is located in
Mississippi Canyon Block 773, approximately 150 miles
south-southwest of Mobile, Alabama. During the fourth quarter of
2005, the platforms service expanded to include tie-backs
of production from the Triton and Goldfinger fields in addition
to the host Devils Tower field. Located in 5,610 feet of
water, it is the worlds deepest dry tree spar. The
platform, which is operated by Dominion on our behalf, is
capable of producing 60 MMcf/d of natural gas and
60 Mbbls/d of oil.
The Devils Tower project includes gas and oil pipelines. The
102-mile
Canyon Chief gas pipeline consists of
18-inch
diameter pipe. The
118-mile
Mountaineer oil pipeline is a combination of 18- and
20-inch
diameter pipe. The gas is delivered into Transcos
pipeline, and processed at our Mobile Bay plant to recover the
NGLs. The oil is transported to ChevronTexacos Empire
Terminal in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. These associated
pipelines are significantly oversized relative to the Devils
Tower spar top-side capacity.
Included in the natural gas assets listed above are the assets
of Discovery Producer Services LLC and its subsidiary Discovery
Gas Transmission Services LLC (Discovery). We own a partial
interest in Discovery and operate its facilities.
Discoverys assets include a cryogenic natural gas
processing plant near Larose, Louisiana, a natural gas liquids
fractionator plant near Paradis, Louisiana and an offshore
natural gas gathering and transportation system.
Gulf
Coast petrochemical and olefins
We own a 5/12 interest in and are the operator for an ethane
cracker at Geismar, Louisiana, with a total production capacity
of 1.3 billion pounds per year of ethylene. We also own an
ethane pipeline system in Louisiana. Our Gulf Liquids New River
LLC (Gulf Liquids) business consists of a propylene splitter and
its related pipeline system.
Canada
Our Canadian operations include an olefin liquids extraction
plant located near Ft. McMurray, Alberta and an olefin
fractionation facility near Edmonton, Alberta. Our facilities
extract olefinic liquids from the off-gas produced from third
party oil sands bitumen upgrading and then fractionate, treat,
store, terminal and sell the propane, propylene, butane and
condensate recovered from this process. We continue to be the
only olefins fractionator in Western Canada and the only
treater-processor of oil sands upgrader off-gas. These
operations extract valuable petrochemical feedstocks from
upgrader off-gas streams allowing the upgraders to burn cleaner
natural gas streams
12
and reduce overall air emissions. The extraction plant has
processing capacity in excess of 100 MMcf/d with the
ability to recover in excess of 15 Mbbls/d of NGL products.
Venezuela
Our Venezuelan investments involve gas compression and gas
processing and natural gas liquids fractionation operations. We
own controlling interests and operate three gas compressor
facilities which provide roughly 70 percent of the gas
injections in eastern Venezuela. These facilities help stabilize
the reservoir and enhance the recovery of crude oil by
re-injecting natural gas at high pressures. We also own a
49.25 percent interest in two 400 MMcf/d natural gas
liquids extraction plants, a 50,000 barrels per day natural
gas liquids fractionation plant and associated storage and
refrigeration facilities.
Other
We own interests in
and/or
operate NGL fractionation and storage assets. These assets
include two partially owned NGL fractionation facilities near
Conway, Kansas and Baton Rouge, Louisiana that have a combined
capacity in excess of 167,000 barrels per day. We also own
approximately 20 million barrels of NGL storage capacity in
central Kansas. Some of these assets are owned through our
interest in Williams Partners L.P.
Williams
Partners L.P.
Williams Partners L.P. (Williams Partners) was formed to engage
in the business of gathering, transporting and processing
natural gas and fractionating and storing NGLs. We own
approximately 22.5 percent of Williams Partners. Williams
Partners provides us with an acquisition currency that is
expected to enable growth of our Midstream business. Williams
Partners also creates a vehicle to monetize our qualifying
assets. Such transactions, which are subject to approval by both
our and Williams Partners general partners board of
directors, allow us to retain control of the assets through our
ownership interest in Williams Partners.
During 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired Williams Four
Corners, LLC which includes a
3,500-mile
natural gas gathering system in the San Juan Basin in New
Mexico and Colorado with capacity of nearly 2 billion cubic
feet per day; the Ignacio natural gas processing plant in
Colorado and the Kutz and Lybrook natural gas processing plants
in New Mexico, which have a combined processing capacity of
760 million cubic feet per day; and the Milagro and
Esperanza natural gas treating plants in New Mexico, which are
designed to remove carbon dioxide from up to 750 million
cubic feet of natural gas per day.
In addition, Williams Partners owns a 40 percent equity
investment in the Discovery gathering, transportation,
processing and NGL fractionation system; the Carbonate Trend
sour gas gathering pipeline; three integrated NGL storage
facilities near Conway, Kansas; and a 50 percent interest
in an NGL fractionator near Conway, Kansas.
Expansion
projects
Gathering
and processing
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement to develop new
pipeline capacity for transporting natural gas liquids from
production areas in southwestern Wyoming to central Kansas. The
other party to the agreement reimbursed us for the development
costs we incurred to date for the proposed pipeline and
initially will own 99 percent of the pipeline, known as
Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. We retained a
1 percent interest and have the option to increase our
ownership to 50 percent and become the operator within two
years of the pipeline becoming operational.
Start-up is
planned for early 2008. Additionally, we have agreed to dedicate
our equity NGL volumes from our two Wyoming plants for transport
under a long-term shipping agreement. The terms represent
significant savings compared with the existing tariff and other
alternatives considered.
We are constructing a fifth cryogenic processing train at our
existing gas plant in Opal, Wyoming, which is scheduled for
start-up in
the first quarter of 2007. The expansion is designed to boost
the plants processing capacity by more than
30 percent to 1.45 billion cubic feet per day. Opal
also will be able to recover a total of approximately
67,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids.
13
Gathering
and processing deepwater projects
The deepwater Gulf continues to be an attractive growth area for
our Midstream business. Since 1997, we have invested almost
$1 billion in new midstream assets in the Gulf of Mexico.
These facilities provide both onshore and offshore services
through pipelines, platforms and processing plants. The new
facilities could also attract incremental gas volumes to
Transcos pipeline system in the southeastern United States.
Chevron and Kerr-McGee are dedicating to us the transport of
production from their current and future ownership in a defined
area surrounding the Blind Faith discovery in the deepwater Gulf
of Mexico. To accommodate production from the Blind Faith
acreage and the surrounding blocks, we have agreed to extend our
Canyon Chief and Mountaineer pipelines to the producer-owned
floating production facility. We expect to have the extensions
ready for service in second quarter 2008. The approximately
$200 million project will facilitate a
37-mile
extension of each pipeline. The agreement also creates
opportunities for us to move natural gas from the Blind Faith
discovery through our Mobile Bay, Alabama, processing plant and
our Transco and Gulfstream interstate pipeline systems.
Recovered natural gas liquids from Blind Faith also could be
fractionated at our facilities in Baton Rouge or Paradis,
Louisana.
Customers
and operations
Our domestic gas gathering and processing customers are
generally natural gas producers who have proved
and/or
producing natural gas fields in the areas surrounding our
infrastructure. During 2006, these operations gathered and
processed gas for approximately 220 gas gathering and processing
customers. Our top three gathering and processing customers
accounted for about 44 percent of our domestic gathering
and processing revenue. Our gathering and processing agreements
are generally long-term agreements.
In addition to our gathering and processing operations, we
market NGLs and petrochemical products to a wide range of users
in the energy and petrochemical industries. We provide these
products to third parties from the production at our domestic
facilities. The majority of domestic sales are based on supply
contracts of less than one year in duration. The production from
our Canadian facilities is marketed in Canada and in the United
States.
Our Venezuelan assets were constructed and are currently
operated for the exclusive benefit of Petróleos de
Venezuela S.A. The significant contracts have a remaining term
between 11 and 15 years and our revenues are based on a
combination of fixed capital payments, throughput volumes, and,
in the case of one of the gas compression facilities, a minimum
throughput guarantee. The Venezuelan government has continued
its public criticism of U.S. economic and political policy,
has implemented unilateral changes to existing energy related
contracts, and continues to publicly declare that additional
energy contracts will be unilaterally amended and privately held
assets will be expropriated, indicating that a level of
political risk still remains.
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes our significant operating
statistics for Midstream:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Volumes(1):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Gathering (trillion
British Thermal Units)
|
|
|
1,181
|
|
|
|
1,253
|
|
|
|
1,252
|
|
Domestic Natural Gas Liquid
Production (Mbbls/d)(2)
|
|
|
152
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
155
|
|
Crude Oil Gathering (Mbbls/d)(2)
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
Processing Volumes (trillion
British Termal Units)
|
|
|
833
|
|
|
|
721
|
|
|
|
768
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes volumes associated with partially owned assets that are
not consolidated for financial reporting purposes. |
|
(2) |
|
Annual Average Mbbls/d |
14
Power
Our Power business buys, sells, stores and transports energy and
energy-related commodities, primarily power and natural gas.
Powers focus is not only on its objective of maximizing
expected cash flows, but also on executing new contracts to
hedge its portfolio and providing services that support our
natural gas businesses across Williams. Our contracts include
physical forward purchases and sales, various financial
instruments and structured transactions. Our financial
instruments include exchange-traded futures, as well as
exchange-traded and
over-the-counter
options and swaps. Structured transactions include tolling
contracts, full requirements contracts, tolling resales and heat
rate options.
Tolling contracts represent the most significant portion of our
portfolio. Under the tolling contracts, we have the right to
request a plant owner to convert our fuel (usually natural gas)
to electricity in exchange for a fixed fee. We have the right to
request approximately 7,700 megawatts of electricity under six
tolling agreements. The table below lists the locations and
available capacity of each of our tolling agreements. These
capacity numbers are subject to change, and our contractual
rights to capacity may not reflect actual availability at the
plants.
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Megawatts
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
4,141
|
|
Alabama
|
|
|
844
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
|
758
|
|
New Jersey
|
|
|
766
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
664
|
|
Michigan
|
|
|
545
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7,718
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use portions of the electricity produced under the tolling
agreements to supply obligations under various arrangements such
as power sales, tolling resales, and full requirements
contracts. Under full requirements contracts, we supply the
electricity required by our counterparties to serve their
customers. Through full requirements contracts, we supply
approximately 600 to 1,500 megawatts of electricity to our
customers in Georgia and approximately 515 to 600 megawatts of
electricity to our customers in Pennsylvania. The amount of
electricity we supply under these contracts varies year to year
but is expected to grow annually. Each year, the amount of
electricity we supply is subject to a growth cap.
Through tolling resale agreements, we enter into transactions
that mirror, to varying degrees, some or all of our rights under
our underlying tolling arrangements, which remain in place with
our tolling counterparties. We have resold part of our rights
(1,934 to 3,875 megawatts) under the California tolling
arrangement to two counterparties for periods through 2011.
These volumes include amounts sold under contracts executed in
2007.
We also own two natural gas-fired electric generating plants
located near Bloomfield, New Mexico (60 megawatts, Milagro
facility) and in Hazleton, Pennsylvania (147 megawatts).
In 2006, we managed natural gas throughout North America with
total physical volumes averaging 2.3 billion cubic feet per
day. We use approximately 10 percent of this natural gas to
fuel electric generating plants we own or in which we have
contractual rights. We sell approximately 70 percent of
this natural gas to customers including local distribution
companies, utilities, producers, industrials and other gas
marketers. With the remaining 20 percent, we procure gas
supply for our Midstream operations.
In 2004, we substantially exited our crude oil and refined
products activities.
15
Operating
statistics
The following table summarizes marketing and trading gross sales
volumes, including sales volumes to other segments, for the
periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Marketing and trading physical
volumes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power (thousand megawatt hours)
|
|
|
53,866
|
|
|
|
66,779
|
|
|
|
93,998
|
|
Natural gas (billion cubic feet
per day)
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
Petroleum products (thousand
barrels per day)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50
|
|
In 2006, Power managed 2.3 billion cubic feet per day of
natural gas. The natural gas volumes managed include the
following (in billion cubic feet per day):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Sales to third parties
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
Sales to other segments
|
|
|
.4
|
|
For use in tolling agreements and
by owned generation
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total natural gas managed
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2006, Power had approximately 350
customers compared with approximately 300 customers at the end
of 2005.
Other
At December 31, 2004, we owned approximately
94.7 percent of the Class B Interests and
21.3 percent of the Common Interests in Longhorn Partners
Pipeline LP (Longhorn), which owned a refined petroleum products
pipeline from Houston, Texas to El Paso, Texas. The
Class B Interests are preferred interests but subordinate
to other preferred interests, and the Common Interests are
subordinate to both.
During the first quarter of 2005, Longhorn became fully
operational as deliveries commenced through both the Odessa and
El Paso terminals. However, the pipelines throughput
fell significantly short of management expectations. The primary
driver behind this volume shortfall was the narrowing of the
refined product pricing differentials between the Gulf Coast and
El Paso markets. During the second quarter of 2005,
Longhorn management indicated the shortfall was likely to
continue and that the original business model was no longer
feasible.
As a result of the
other-than-temporary
decline in fair value identified in the second quarter of 2005,
we impaired the Common Interests by $16.2 million and the
Class B shares by $32.7 million. After these
adjustments, the book value of our investment in Longhorn (as of
June 30, 2005) totaled $51.6 million, comprised
of $25.0 million of Common Interests and $26.6 million
of Class B shares.
During the third quarter of 2005, we provided $10 million
of a $50 million fully collateralized bridge loan to fund
operations of Longhorn until an economically feasible
operational alternative was developed. In the fourth quarter of
2005, management of Longhorn concluded that its best alternative
would be to sell the Longhorn assets. Accordingly, they directed
a financial advisor to solicit offers from several entities.
After reviewing the terms and conditions of bids received, our
management determined that a full impairment of our investment
in the Class B and Common Interests was appropriate. This
decision resulted in a December 31, 2005 write-down of the
remaining $38.1 million in book value which had been
further reduced by additional equity losses during the third and
fourth quarters.
The management of Longhorn completed an installment sale of the
pipeline during the third quarter of 2006, and as a result we
received full payment of the $10 million secured bridge
loan that we provided to Longhorn during 2005. It is uncertain
whether we will ever receive any payments related to our
Class B Interests or our Common
16
Interests, however any such amounts related to these fully
impaired interests will only be recognized as income when
received.
We continue to receive payments associated with the 2005
transfer of the First Amended and Restated Pipeline Operating
Services Agreement to a third party. The sale of the pipeline
did not impact these ongoing payments which are recognized as
income when received.
Additional
business segment information
Our ongoing business segments are accounted for as continuing
operations in the accompanying financial statements and notes to
financial statements included in Part II.
Operations related to certain assets in Discontinued
Operations sold in 2003 and 2004 have been reclassified
from their traditional business segment to Discontinued
Operations in the accompanying financial statements and
notes to financial statements included in Part II.
Our corporate parent company performs certain management, legal,
financial, tax, consultative, administrative and other services
for our subsidiaries.
Our corporate parent companys principal sources of cash
are from external financings, dividends and advances from our
subsidiaries, investments, payments by subsidiaries for services
rendered, interest payments from subsidiaries on cash advances
and net proceeds from asset sales. The amount of dividends
available to us from subsidiaries largely depends upon each
subsidiarys earnings and operating capital requirements.
The terms of certain of our subsidiaries borrowing
arrangements limit the transfer of funds to our corporate parent.
We believe that we have adequate sources and availability of raw
materials and commodities for existing and anticipated business
needs. In support of our energy commodity activities, primarily
conducted through Power, our counterparties require us to
provide various forms of credit support such as margin, adequate
assurance amounts and pre-payments for gas supplies. Our
pipeline systems are all regulated in various ways resulting in
the financial return on the investments made in the systems
being limited to standards permitted by the regulatory agencies.
Each of the pipeline systems has ongoing capital requirements
for efficiency and mandatory improvements, with expansion
opportunities also necessitating periodic capital outlays.
REGULATORY
MATTERS
Exploration & Production. Our
Exploration & Production business is subject to various
federal, state and local laws and regulations on taxation, the
development, production and marketing of oil and gas, and
environmental and safety matters. Many laws and regulations
require drilling permits and govern the spacing of wells, rates
of production, water discharge, prevention of waste and other
matters. Such laws and regulations have increased the costs of
planning, designing, drilling, installing, operating and
abandoning our oil and gas wells and other facilities. In
addition, these laws and regulations, and any others that are
passed by the jurisdictions where we have production, could
limit the total number of wells drilled or the allowable
production from successful wells, which could limit our reserves.
Gas Pipeline. Gas Pipelines interstate
transmission and storage activities are subject to FERC
regulation under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and under the
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, and, as such, its rates and
charges for the transportation of natural gas in interstate
commerce, its accounting, and the extension, enlargement or
abandonment of its jurisdictional facilities, among other
things, are subject to regulation. Each gas pipeline company
holds certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by
the FERC authorizing ownership and operation of all pipelines,
facilities and properties for which certificates are required
under the NGA. Each gas pipeline company is also subject to the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, as amended, which
regulates safety requirements in the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of interstate natural gas transmission
facilities. FERC Standards of Conduct govern how our interstate
pipelines communicate and do business with their marketing
affiliates. Among other things, the Standards of Conduct require
that interstate pipelines not operate their systems to
preferentially benefit their marketing affiliates.
17
Each of our interstate natural gas pipeline companies
establishes its rates primarily through the FERCs
ratemaking process. Key determinants in the ratemaking process
are:
|
|
|
|
|
costs of providing service, including depreciation expense;
|
|
|
|
allowed rate of return, including the equity component of the
capital structure and related income taxes;
|
|
|
|
volume throughput assumptions.
|
The allowed rate of return is determined in each rate case. Rate
design and the allocation of costs between the demand and
commodity rates also impact profitability. As a result of these
proceedings, certain revenues previously collected may be
subject to refund.
Midstream. For our Midstream segment, onshore
gathering is subject to regulation by states in which we operate
and offshore gathering is subject to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA). Of the states where Midstream gathers gas,
currently only Texas actively regulates gathering activities.
Texas regulates gathering primarily through complaint mechanisms
under which the state commission may resolve disputes involving
an individual gathering arrangement. Although gathering
facilities located offshore are not subject to the NGA (although
offshore transmission pipelines may be), some controversy exists
as to how the FERC should determine whether offshore facilities
function as gathering. These issues are currently before the
FERC. Most gathering facilities offshore are subject to the
OCSLA, which provides in part that outer continental shelf
pipelines must provide open and nondiscriminatory access
to both owner and non-owner shippers.
Midstream also owns and operates two offshore transmission
pipelines that are regulated by the FERC because they are deemed
to transport gas in interstate commerce. Black Marlin Pipeline
Company provides transportation service for offshore Texas
production in the High Island area and redelivers that gas to
intrastate pipeline interconnects near Texas City. Discovery Gas
Transmission LLC provides transportation service for offshore
Louisiana production from the South Timbalier, Grand Isle, Ewing
Bank and Green Canyon (deepwater) areas to an onshore processing
facility and downstream interconnect points with major
interstate pipelines. FERC regulation requires all terms and
conditions of service, including the rates charged, to be filed
with and approved by the Commission before any changes can go
into effect. Currently, Black Marlin has a major rate change
application pending before the Commission to increase its rates
for service.
Our remaining Midstream Canadian assets are regulated by the
Alberta Energy & Utilities Board (AEUB) and Alberta
Environment. The regulatory system for the Alberta oil and gas
industry incorporates a large measure of self-regulation,
providing that licensed operators are held responsible for
ensuring that their operations are conducted in accordance with
all provincial regulatory requirements. For situations in which
non-compliance with the applicable regulations is at issue, the
AEUB and Alberta Environment have implemented an enforcement
process with escalating consequences.
Power. Our Power business is subject to a
variety of laws and regulations at the local, state and federal
levels, including FERC and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission regulation. In addition, electricity and natural gas
markets in California and elsewhere continue to be subject to
numerous and wide-ranging federal and state regulatory
proceedings and investigations. We are also subject to various
federal and state actions and investigations regarding, among
other things, market structure, behavior of market participants,
market prices, and reporting to trade publications. We may be
liable for refunds and other damages and penalties as a result
of ongoing actions and investigations. The outcome of these
matters could affect our creditworthiness and ability to perform
contractual obligations as well as other market
participants creditworthiness and ability to perform
contractual obligations to us.
See Note 15 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for further details on our regulatory matters.
ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS
Our generation facilities, natural gas pipelines, and
exploration and production operations are subject to federal
environmental laws and regulations as well as the state and
tribal laws and regulations adopted by the jurisdictions in
which we operate. We could incur liability to governments or
third parties for any unlawful
18
discharge of oil, gas or other pollutants into the air, soil, or
water, as well as liability for clean up costs. Materials could
be released into the environment in several ways including, but
not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
from a well or drilling equipment at a drill site;
|
|
|
|
leakage from gathering systems, pipelines, transportation
facilities and storage tanks;
|
|
|
|
damage to oil and gas wells resulting from accidents during
normal operations;
|
|
|
|
blowouts, cratering and explosions.
|
Because the requirements imposed by environmental laws and
regulations are frequently changed, we cannot assure you that
laws and regulations enacted in the future, including changes to
existing laws and regulations, will not adversely affect our
business. In addition we may be liable for environmental damage
caused by former operators of our properties.
We believe compliance with environmental laws and regulations
will not have a material adverse effect on capital expenditures,
earnings or competitive position. However, environmental laws
and regulations could affect our business in various ways from
time to time, including incurring capital and maintenance
expenditures, imposing limitations on generation facility
availability, fines and penalties, and creating the need to seek
relief from the FERC for rate increases to recover the costs of
certain capital expenditures and operation and maintenance
expenses (which we believe would be granted).
For a discussion of specific environmental issues, see
Environmental under Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and
Environmental Matters in Note 15 of our Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements.
COMPETITION
Exploration & Production. Our
Exploration & Production segment competes with other
oil and gas concerns, including major and independent oil and
gas companies in the development, production and marketing of
natural gas. We compete in areas such as acquisition of oil and
gas properties and obtaining necessary equipment, supplies and
services. We also compete in recruiting and retaining skilled
employees.
Gas Pipeline. Our Gas Pipeline segment faces
increased competition as a result of various actions taken by
the FERC and several states in which we operate to strengthen
market forces in the natural gas pipeline industry. In a number
of key markets, interstate pipelines are now facing competitive
pressures from other major pipeline systems, enabling local
distribution companies and end users to choose a supplier or
switch suppliers based on the short-term price of gas and the
cost of transportation. We expect competition for natural gas
transportation to continue to intensify in future years due to
increased customer access to other pipelines, rates,
competitiveness among pipelines, customers desire to have
more than one transporter, shorter contract terms, regulatory
developments, and development of LNG facilities particularly in
our market areas. Future utilization of pipeline capacity will
depend on competition from other pipelines and LNG facilities,
use of alternative fuels, the general level of natural gas
demand, and weather conditions.
Suppliers of natural gas are able to compete for any gas markets
capable of being served by pipelines using nondiscriminatory
transportation services provided by the pipeline companies. As
the regulated environment has matured, many pipeline companies
have faced reduced levels of subscribed capacity as contractual
terms expire and customers opt to reduce firm capacity under
contract in favor of alternative sources of transmission and
related services. This situation, known in the industry as
capacity turnback, is forcing the pipeline companies
to evaluate the consequences of major demand reductions in
traditional long-term contracts. It could also result in
significant shifts in system utilization, and possible
realignment of cost structure for remaining customers because
all interstate natural gas pipeline companies continue to be
authorized to charge maximum rates approved by the FERC on a
cost of service basis. Gas Pipeline does not anticipate any
significant financial impact from capacity turnback.
We anticipate that we will be able to remarket most future
capacity subject to future capacity turnback, although
competition may cause some of the remarketed capacity to be sold
at lower rates or for shorter terms.
19
Midstream. In our Midstream segment, we face
regional competition with varying competitive factors in each
basin. Our gathering and processing business competes with other
midstream companies, interstate and intrastate pipelines, master
limited partnerships (MLP), producers and independent gatherers
and processors. We primarily compete with five to ten companies
across all basins in which we provide services. Numerous factors
impact any given customers choice of a gathering or
processing services provider, including rate, location, term,
timeliness of well connections, pressure obligations and
contract structure. We also compete in recruiting and retaining
skilled employees. In 2005 we formed Williams Partners to help
compete against other master limited partnerships for midstream
projects. By virtue of the master limited partnership structure,
Williams Partners provides us with an alternative and low-cost
source of capital. We expect the alternative, low-cost capital
will allow Williams Partners to compete with other MLPs when
pursuing acquisition opportunities of gathering and processing
assets.
Power. In our Power segment, we compete
directly with large independent energy marketers, marketing
affiliates of regulated pipelines and utilities, and natural gas
producers. We also compete with brokerage houses, energy hedge
funds and other energy-based companies offering similar services.
EMPLOYEES
At February 1, 2007, we had approximately
4,313 full-time employees including 972 at the corporate
level, 584 at Exploration & Production, 1,694 at Gas
Pipeline, 928 at Midstream, and 135 at Power. None of our
employees are represented by unions or covered by collective
bargaining agreements.
FINANCIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
See Note 17 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements for amounts of revenues during the last three fiscal
years from external customers attributable to the United States
and all foreign countries. Also see Note 17 of our Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for information relating to
long-lived assets during the last three fiscal years, other than
financial instruments, long-term customer relationships of a
financial institution, mortgage and other servicing rights and
deferred policy acquisition costs, located in the United States
and all foreign countries.
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS/RISK FACTORS AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
FOR PURPOSES OF THE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS OF
THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
Certain matters contained in this report include
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. These statements discuss our expected future results
based on current and pending business operations. We make those
forward-looking statements in reliance on the safe harbor
protections provided under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.
All statements, other than statements of historical facts,
included in this report which address activities, events or
developments that we expect, believe or anticipate will exist or
may occur in the future, are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements can be identified by various forms of
words such as anticipates, believes,
could, may, should,
continues, estimates,
expects, forecasts, might,
planned, potential,
projects, scheduled or similar
expressions. These forward-looking statements include, among
others, statements regarding:
|
|
|
|
|
amounts and nature of future capital expenditures;
|
|
|
|
expansion and growth of our business and operations;
|
|
|
|
business strategy;
|
20
|
|
|
|
|
estimates of proved gas and oil reserves;
|
|
|
|
reserve potential;
|
|
|
|
development drilling potential;
|
|
|
|
cash flow from operations;
|
|
|
|
seasonality of certain business segments;
|
|
|
|
power, natural gas and natural gas liquids prices and demand.
|
Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions,
uncertainties and risks that could cause future events or
results to be materially different from those stated or implied
in this document. Many of the factors that will determine these
results are beyond our ability to control or project. Specific
factors which could cause actual results to differ from those in
the forward-looking statements include:
|
|
|
|
|
availability of supplies (including the uncertainties inherent
in assessing and estimating future natural gas reserves), market
demand, volatility of prices, and increased costs of capital;
|
|
|
|
inflation, interest rates, fluctuation in foreign exchange, and
general economic conditions;
|
|
|
|
the strength and financial resources of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
development of alternative energy sources;
|
|
|
|
the impact of operational and development hazards;
|
|
|
|
costs of, changes in, or the results of laws, government
regulations including proposed climate change legislation,
environmental liabilities, litigation, and rate proceedings;
|
|
|
|
changes in the current geopolitical situation;
|
|
|
|
risks related to strategy and financing, including restrictions
stemming from our debt agreements and our lack of investment
grade credit ratings;
|
|
|
|
risk associated with future weather conditions and acts of
terrorism.
|
Given the uncertainties and risk factors that could cause our
actual results to differ materially from those contained in any
forward-looking statement, we caution investors not to unduly
rely on our forward-looking statements. We disclaim any
obligations to and do not intend to update the above list to
announce publicly the result of any revisions to any of the
forward-looking statements to reflect future events or
developments.
In addition to causing our actual results to differ, the factors
listed above and referred to below may cause our intentions to
change from those statements of intention set forth in this
report. Such changes in our intentions may also cause our
results to differ. We may change our intentions, at any time and
without notice, based upon changes in such factors, our
assumptions, or otherwise.
Because forward-looking statements involve risks and
uncertainties, we caution that there are important factors, in
additions to those listed above, that may cause actual results
to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking
statements. These factors include the following:
RISK
FACTORS
You should carefully consider the following risk factors in
addition to the other information in this report. Each of these
factors could adversely affect our business, operating results,
and financial condition as well as adversely affect the value of
an investment in our securities.
21
Risks
Inherent to our Industry and Business
The
long-term financial condition of our natural gas transmission
and midstream businesses is dependent on the continued
availability of natural gas supplies in the supply basins that
we access, demand for those supplies in our traditional markets,
and market demand for natural gas.
The development of the additional natural gas reserves that are
essential for our gas transmission and midstream businesses to
thrive requires significant capital expenditures by others for
exploration and development drilling and the installation of
production, gathering, storage, transportation and other
facilities that permit natural gas to be produced and delivered
to our pipeline systems. Low prices for natural gas, regulatory
limitations, or the lack of available capital for these projects
could adversely affect the development and production of
additional reserves, as well as gathering, storage, pipeline
transmission and import and export of natural gas supplies,
adversely impacting our ability to fill the capacities of our
gathering, transmission and processing facilities. Additionally,
in some cases, new LNG import facilities built near our markets
could result in less demand for our gathering and transmission
facilities.
Estimating
reserves and future net revenues involves uncertainties.
Negative revisions to reserve estimates and oil and gas price
declines may lead to decreased earnings, losses or impairment of
oil and gas assets.
Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating
underground accumulations of oil and gas that cannot be measured
in an exact manner. Reserves that are proved
reserves are those estimated quantities of crude oil,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids that geological and
engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty are
recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing
economic and operating conditions, but should not be considered
as a guarantee of results for future drilling projects.
The process relies on interpretations of available geological,
geophysical, engineering and production data. There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proved
reserves and in projecting future rates of production and timing
of developmental expenditures, including many factors beyond the
control of the producer. The reserve data included in this
report represent estimates. In addition, the estimates of future
net revenues from our proved reserves and the present value of
such estimates are based upon certain assumptions about future
production levels, prices and costs that may not prove to be
correct over time.
Quantities of proved reserves are estimated based on economic
conditions in existence during the period of assessment. Lower
oil and gas prices may have the impact of shortening the
economic lives of certain fields because it becomes uneconomic
to produce all recoverable reserves on such fields, which
reduces proved property reserve estimates.
If negative revisions in the estimated quantities of proved
reserves were to occur, it would have the effect of increasing
the rates of depreciation, depletion and amortization on the
affected properties, which would decrease earnings or result in
losses through higher depreciation, depletion and amortization
expense. The revisions may also be sufficient to trigger
impairment losses on certain properties which would result in a
further non-cash charge to earnings. The revisions could also
possibly affect the evaluation of Exploration &
Productions goodwill for impairment purposes.
Our
past success rate for drilling projects and the historic
performance of our exploration and production business is no
predictor of future performance.
Our past success rate for drilling projects in 2006 should not
be considered a predictor of future performance.
Performance of our exploration and production business is
affected in part by factors beyond our control (any of which
could cause the results of this business to decrease
materially), such as:
|
|
|
|
|
regulations and regulatory approvals;
|
|
|
|
availability of capital for drilling projects which may be
affected by other risk factors discussed in this report;
|
|
|
|
cost-effective availability of drilling rigs and necessary
equipment;
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
availability of skilled labor;
|
|
|
|
availability of cost-effective transportation for products;
|
|
|
|
market risks (including price risks and competition) discussed
in this report.
|
Our
drilling, production, gathering, processing and transporting
activities involve numerous risks that might result in
accidents, and other operating risks and hazards.
Our operations are subject to all the risks and hazards
typically associated with the development and exploration for,
and the production and transportation of oil and gas. These
operating risks include, but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
blowouts, cratering and explosions;
|
|
|
|
uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids;
|
|
|
|
fires;
|
|
|
|
formations with abnormal pressures;
|
|
|
|
pollution and other environmental risks;
|
|
|
|
natural disasters.
|
In addition, there are inherent in our gas gathering, processing
and transporting properties a variety of hazards and operating
risks, such as leaks, spills, explosions and mechanical problems
that could cause substantial financial losses. In addition,
these risks could result in loss of human life, significant
damage to property, environmental pollution, impairment of our
operations and substantial losses to us. In accordance with
customary industry practice, we maintain insurance against some,
but not all, of these risks and losses, and only at levels we
believe to be appropriate. The location of certain segments of
our pipelines in or near populated areas, including residential
areas, commercial business centers and industrial sites, could
increase the level of damages resulting from these risks. In
spite of our precautions, an event could cause considerable harm
to people or property, and could have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition and results of operations,
particularly if the event is not fully covered by insurance.
Accidents or other operating risks could further result in loss
of service available to our customers. Such circumstances could
materially impact our ability to meet contractual obligations
and retain customers, with a resulting impact on our results of
operations.
Costs
of environmental liabilities and complying with existing and
future environmental regulations could exceed our current
expectations.
Our operations are subject to extensive environmental regulation
pursuant to a variety of federal, provincial, state and
municipal laws and regulations. Such laws and regulations
impose, among other things, restrictions, liabilities and
obligations in connection with the generation, handling, use,
storage, extraction, transportation, treatment and disposal of
hazardous substances and wastes, in connection with spills,
releases and emissions of various substances into the
environment, and in connection with the operation, maintenance,
abandonment and reclamation of our facilities.
Compliance with environmental laws requires significant
expenditures, including for clean up costs and damages arising
out of contaminated properties. In addition, the possible
failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations might
result in the imposition of fines and penalties. We are
generally responsible for all liabilities associated with the
environmental condition of our facilities and assets, whether
acquired or developed, regardless of when the liabilities arose
and whether they are known or unknown. In connection with
certain acquisitions and divestitures, we could acquire, or be
required to provide indemnification against, environmental
liabilities that could expose us to material losses, which may
not be covered by insurance. In addition, the steps we could be
required to take to bring certain facilities into compliance
could be prohibitively expensive, and we might be required to
shut down, divest or alter the operation of those facilities,
which might cause us to incur losses. Although we do not expect
that the costs of complying with current environmental laws will
have a material adverse effect on
23
our financial condition or results of operations, no assurance
can be given that the costs of complying with environmental laws
in the future will not have such an effect.
We make assumptions and develop expectations about possible
expenditures related to environmental conditions based on
current laws and regulations and current interpretations of
those laws and regulations. If the interpretation of laws or
regulations, or the laws and regulations themselves, change, our
assumptions may change. Our regulatory rate structure and our
contracts with customers might not necessarily allow us to
recover capital costs we incur to comply with the new
environmental regulations. Also, we might not be able to obtain
or maintain from time to time all required environmental
regulatory approvals for certain development projects. If there
is a delay in obtaining any required environmental regulatory
approvals or if we fail to obtain and comply with them, the
operation of our facilities could be prevented or become subject
to additional costs, resulting in potentially material adverse
consequences to our results of operations.
Our
operating results for certain segments of our business might
fluctuate on a seasonal and quarterly basis.
Revenues from certain segments of our business, including gas
transmission and the sale of electric power, can have seasonal
characteristics. In many parts of the country, demand for power
peaks during the summer months, with market prices also peaking
at that time. In other areas, demand for power peaks during the
winter. In addition, demand for natural gas and other fuels
peaks during the winter. As a result, our overall operating
results in the future might fluctuate substantially on a
seasonal basis. Demand for natural gas and other fuels could
vary significantly from our expectations depending on the nature
and location of our facilities and pipeline systems and the
terms of our power sale agreements and natural gas transmission
arrangements relative to demand created by unusual weather
patterns. Additionally, changes in the price of natural gas
could benefit one of our business units, but disadvantage
another. For example, our Exploration & Production
business may benefit from higher natural gas prices, and Power,
which uses gas as a fuel source, may not.
Risks
Related to the Current Geopolitical Situation
Our
investments and projects located outside of the United States
expose us to risks related to the laws of other countries, and
the taxes, economic conditions, fluctuations in currency rates,
political conditions and policies of foreign governments. These
risks might delay or reduce our realization of value from our
international projects.
We currently own and might acquire
and/or
dispose of material energy-related investments and projects
outside the United States. The economic and political conditions
in certain countries where we have interests or in which we
might explore development, acquisition or investment
opportunities present risks of delays in construction and
interruption of business, as well as risks of war,
expropriation, nationalization, renegotiation, trade sanctions
or nullification of existing contracts and changes in law or tax
policy, that are greater than in the United States. The
uncertainty of the legal environment in certain foreign
countries in which we develop or acquire projects or make
investments could make it more difficult to obtain non-recourse
project financing or other financing on suitable terms, could
adversely affect the ability of certain customers to honor their
obligations with respect to such projects or investments and
could impair our ability to enforce our rights under agreements
relating to such projects or investments. Recent events in
certain South American countries, particularly the proposed
nationalization of certain energy-related assets in Venezuela,
could have a material negative impact on our results of
operations. We may not receive adequate compensation, or any
compensation, if our assets in Venezuela are nationalized.
Operations and investments in foreign countries also can present
currency exchange rate and convertibility, inflation and
repatriation risk. In certain situations under which we develop
or acquire projects or make investments, economic and monetary
conditions and other factors could affect our ability to convert
to U.S. dollars our earnings denominated in foreign
currencies. In addition, risk from fluctuations in currency
exchange rates can arise when our foreign subsidiaries expend or
borrow funds in one type of currency, but receive revenue in
another. In such cases, an adverse change in exchange rates can
reduce our ability to meet expenses, including debt service
obligations. Foreign currency risk can also arise when the
revenues received by our foreign subsidiaries are not in
U.S. dollars. In such cases, a strengthening of the
U.S. dollar or a weakening of the foreign currency could
reduce the amount of
24
cash and income we receive from these foreign subsidiaries. We
have put contracts in place designed to mitigate our most
significant foreign currency exchange risks. We have some
exposures that are not hedged and which could result in losses
or volatility in our results of operations.
Risks
Related to Strategy and Financing
Our
debt agreements impose restrictions on us that may adversely
affect our ability to operate our business.
Certain of our debt agreements contain covenants that restrict
or limit among other things, our ability to create liens, sell
assets, make certain distributions, repurchase equity and incur
additional debt. In addition, our debt agreements contain, and
those we enter into in the future may contain, financial
covenants and other limitations with which we will need to
comply. Our ability to comply with these covenants may be
affected by many events beyond our control, and we cannot assure
you that our future operating results will be sufficient to
comply with the covenants or, in the event of a default under
any of our debt agreements, to remedy that default.
Our failure to comply with the covenants in our debt agreements
and other related transactional documents could result in events
of default. Upon the occurrence of such an event of default, the
lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under a
particular facility to be immediately due and payable and
terminate all commitments, if any, to extend further credit. An
event of default or an acceleration under one debt agreement
could cause a cross-default or cross-acceleration of another
debt agreement. Such a cross-default or cross-acceleration could
have a wider impact on our liquidity than might otherwise arise
from a default or acceleration of a single debt instrument. If
an event of default occurs, or if other debt agreements
cross-default, and the lenders under the affected debt
agreements accelerate the maturity of any loans or other debt
outstanding to us, we may not have sufficient liquidity to repay
amounts outstanding under such debt agreements.
Our
lack of investment grade credit ratings increases our costs of
doing business in certain ways and attainment of an investment
grade rating is within the control of independent third
parties.
Because we do not have an investment grade credit rating, our
transactions in each of our businesses require greater credit
assurances, both to be given from, and received by, us to
satisfy credit support requirements. In addition, we are more
vulnerable to the impact of market disruptions or a further
downgrade of our credit rating that might further increase our
cost of borrowing or further impair our ability to access
capital markets. Such disruptions could include:
|
|
|
|
|
economic downturns;
|
|
|
|
deteriorating capital market conditions generally;
|
|
|
|
declining market prices for electricity and natural gas;
|
|
|
|
terrorist attacks or threatened attacks on our facilities or
those of other energy companies;
|
|
|
|
the overall health of the energy industry, including the
bankruptcy or insolvency of other companies.
|
Credit rating agencies perform independent analysis when
assigning credit ratings. Given the significant changes in
capital markets and the energy industry over the last few years,
credit rating agencies continue to review the criteria for
attaining investment grade ratings and make changes to those
criteria from time to time. Our goal is to attain investment
grade ratios. However, there is no guarantee that the credit
rating agencies will assign us investment grade ratings even if
we meet or exceed their criteria for investment grade ratios.
Long-term
power generation purchase contracts without corresponding
long-term purchase sale contracts might expose us to
fluctuations in the wholesale power markets and negatively
affect our results of operations.
We have entered into agreements with certain power generation
facilities to purchase all or a substantial portion of their
generation capacity. These facilities operate as
merchant facilities, many without corresponding
long-term power sales agreements, and therefore are exposed to
market fluctuations. Without the benefit of such
25
long-term power sales agreements, we cannot be sure that we will
be able to sell any or all of the power generated by these
facilities at commercially attractive rates or that these power
generation relationships will be profitable.
We sell all or a portion of the energy, capacity and other
products from certain generation facilities to wholesale power
markets, including energy markets operated by independent system
operators, or ISOs, or regional transmission organizations, or
RTOs, as well as wholesale purchasers. We are not subject to
traditional cost-based regulation, therefore we sell electric
generation capacity, power and ancillary services to wholesale
purchasers at prices determined by the market. As a result, we
are not guaranteed any rate of return on our capital investments
through mandated rates, and our revenues and results of
operations depend upon current and forward market prices for
power.
Prices
for electricity, natural gas liquids, natural gas and other
commodities are volatile and this volatility could adversely
affect our financial results, cash flows, access to capital and
ability to maintain existing businesses.
Our revenues, operating results, future rate of growth and the
value of our power and gas businesses depend primarily upon the
prices we receive for electricity, natural gas liquids, natural
gas, or other commodities, and the differences between prices of
these commodities. Prices also affect the amount of cash flow
available for capital expenditures and our ability to borrow
money or raise additional capital. In particular, market prices
for power, generation capacity and ancillary services tend to
fluctuate substantially. Unlike other commodities, electricity
can only be stored on a very limited basis and generally must be
produced concurrently with its use. As a result, market prices
for electricity are subject to significant volatility from
supply and demand imbalances, especially in the day-ahead and
spot markets.
The markets for electricity, natural gas liquids, and natural
gas are likely to continue to be volatile. Wide fluctuations in
prices might result from relatively minor changes in the supply
of and demand for these commodities, market uncertainty and
other factors that are beyond our control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
worldwide and domestic supplies of and demand for electricity,
natural gas, petroleum, and related commodities;
|
|
|
|
turmoil in the Middle East and other producing regions;
|
|
|
|
terrorist attacks on production or transportation assets;
|
|
|
|
weather conditions;
|
|
|
|
the level of consumer demand;
|
|
|
|
the development of federal and state power markets, including
actions of ISOs and RTOs;
|
|
|
|
the price and availability of other types of fuels;
|
|
|
|
the availability of pipeline capacity;
|
|
|
|
supply disruptions, including plant outages and transmission
disruptions;
|
|
|
|
the price and level of foreign imports;
|
|
|
|
domestic and foreign governmental regulations and taxes;
|
|
|
|
volatility in the natural gas markets;
|
|
|
|
the overall economic environment;
|
|
|
|
the credit of participants in the markets where products are
bought and sold.
|
We
might not be able to successfully manage the risks associated
with selling and marketing products in the wholesale energy
markets.
Our portfolio of derivative and other energy contracts consists
of wholesale contracts to buy and sell commodities, including
contracts for electricity, natural gas, natural gas liquids and
other commodities that are
26
settled by the delivery of the commodity or cash throughout the
United States. If the values of these contracts change in a
direction or manner that we do not anticipate or cannot manage,
it could negatively affect our results of operations. In the
past, certain marketing and trading companies have experienced
severe financial problems due to price volatility in the energy
commodity markets. In certain instances this volatility has
caused companies to be unable to deliver energy commodities that
they had guaranteed under contract. If such a delivery failure
were to occur in one of our contracts, we might incur additional
losses to the extent of amounts, if any, already paid to, or
received from, counterparties. In addition, in our businesses,
we often extend credit to our counterparties. Despite performing
credit analysis prior to extending credit, we are exposed to the
risk that we might not be able to collect amounts owed to us. If
the counterparty to such a financing transaction fails to
perform and any collateral that secures our counterpartys
obligation is inadequate, we will suffer a loss.
If we are unable to perform under our energy agreements, we
could be required to pay damages. These damages generally would
be based on the difference between the market price to acquire
replacement energy or energy services and the relevant contract
price. Depending on price volatility in the wholesale energy
markets, such damages could be significant.
Risks
Related to Regulations that Affect our Industry
Our
natural gas sales, transmission, and storage operations are
subject to government regulations and rate proceedings that
could have an adverse impact on our results of
operations.
Our interstate natural gas sales, transmission, and storage
operations conducted through our Gas Pipelines business are
subject to the FERCs rules and regulations in accordance
with the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Natural Gas Policy Act
of 1978. The FERCs regulatory authority extends to:
|
|
|
|
|
transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate
commerce;
|
|
|
|
rates and charges;
|
|
|
|
construction;
|
|
|
|
acquisition, extension or abandonment of services or facilities;
|
|
|
|
accounts and records;
|
|
|
|
depreciation and amortization policies;
|
|
|
|
operating terms and conditions of service.
|
Regulatory actions in these areas can affect our business in
many ways, including decreasing tariff rates and revenues,
decreasing volumes in our pipelines, increasing our costs and
otherwise altering the profitability of our business.
The FERC has taken certain actions to strengthen market forces
in the natural gas pipeline industry that have led to increased
competition throughout the industry. In a number of key markets,
interstate pipelines are now facing competitive pressure from
other major pipeline systems, enabling local distribution
companies and end users to choose a transmission provider based
on considerations other than location.
Competition
in the markets in which we operate may adversely affect our
results of operations.
We have numerous competitors in all aspects of our businesses,
and additional competitors may enter our markets. Other
companies with which we compete may be able to respond more
quickly to new laws or regulations or emerging technologies, or
to devote greater resources to the construction, expansion or
refurbishment of their facilities than we can. In addition,
current or potential competitors may make strategic acquisitions
or have greater financial resources than we do, which could
affect our ability to make investments or acquisitions. There
can be no assurance that we will be able to compete successfully
against current and future competitors and any failure to do so
could have a material adverse effect on our businesses and
results of operations.
27
Expiration
of firm transportation agreements.
A substantial portion of the operating revenues of our Gas
Pipelines are generated through firm transportation agreements
that expire periodically and must be renegotiated and extended
or replaced. We cannot give any assurance as to whether any of
these agreements will be extended or replaced or that the terms
of any renegotiated agreements will be as favorable as the
existing agreements. Upon the expiration of these agreements,
should customers turn back or substantially reduce their
commitments, we could experience a negative effect to our
results of operations.
Our
revenues might decrease if we are unable to gain adequate,
reliable and affordable access to transmission and distribution
assets due to regulation by the FERC and regional authorities of
wholesale market transactions for electricity and natural
gas.
We depend on transmission and distribution facilities owned and
operated by utilities and other energy companies to deliver the
electricity and natural gas we buy and sell in the wholesale
market. If transmission is disrupted, if capacity is inadequate,
or if credit requirements or rates of such utilities or energy
companies are increased, our ability to sell and deliver
products might be hindered. The FERC has issued power
transmission regulations that require wholesale electric
transmission services to be offered on an open-access,
non-discriminatory basis. Although these regulations are
designed to encourage competition in wholesale market
transactions for electricity, some companies may fail to provide
fair and equal access to their transmission systems or may not
provide sufficient transmission capacity to enable other
companies to transmit electric power.
In addition, the independent system operators who oversee the
transmission systems in regional power markets, such as
California, have in the past been authorized to impose, and
might continue to impose, price limitations and other mechanisms
to address volatility in the power markets. These types of price
limitations and other mechanisms might adversely impact the
profitability of our wholesale power marketing and trading.
Given the extreme volatility and lack of meaningful long-term
price history in many of these markets and the imposition of
price limitations by regulators, ISOs, RTOs or other marker
operators, we can offer no assurance that we will be able to
operate profitably in all wholesale power markets or that our
results of operations will not be adversely affected by the
actions of these parties.
Our
businesses are subject to complex government regulations. The
operation of our businesses might be adversely affected by
changes in these regulations or in their interpretation or
implementation.
Existing regulations might be revised or reinterpreted, new laws
and regulations might be adopted or become applicable to us or
our facilities, and future changes in laws and regulations might
have a detrimental effect on our business. Over the past few
years, certain restructured energy markets have experienced
supply problems and price volatility. In some of these markets,
proposals have been made by governmental agencies and other
interested parties to re-regulate areas of these markets which
have previously been deregulated. Various forms of market
controls and limitations including price caps and bid caps have
already been implemented and new controls and market
restructuring proposals are in various stages of development,
consideration and implementation. We cannot assure you that
changes in market structure and regulation will not adversely
affect our business and results of operations. We also cannot
assure you that other proposals to re-regulate will not be made
or that legislative or other attention to these restructured
energy markets will not cause the deregulation process to be
delayed or reversed or otherwise adversely affect our business
and results of operations.
The
outcome of pending rate cases to set the rates we can charge
customers on certain of our pipelines might result in rates that
do not provide an adequate return on the capital we have
invested in those pipelines.
We have filed rate cases with the FERC to request changes to the
rates we charge on Northwest Pipeline and Transco. Although we
have a pending settlement of our Northwest Pipeline rate case,
we must still obtain approval of the settlement. Therefore, the
outcome of both rate cases remains uncertain. There is a risk
that rates set by the FERC will be lower than is necessary to
provide us with an adequate return on the capital we have
invested in these
28
assets. There is also the risk that higher rates will cause our
customers to look for alternative ways to transport their
natural gas.
Legal
and regulatory proceedings and investigations relating to the
energy industry and capital markets have adversely affected our
business and may continue to do so.
Public and regulatory scrutiny of the energy industry and of the
capital markets has resulted in increased regulation being
either proposed or implemented. Such scrutiny has also resulted
in various inquiries, investigations and court proceedings in
which we are a named defendant. Both the shippers on our
pipelines and regulators have rights to challenge the rates we
charge under certain circumstances. Any successful challenge
could materially affect our results of operations.
Certain inquiries, investigations and court proceedings are
ongoing and continue to adversely affect our business as a
whole. We might see these adverse effects continue as a result
of the uncertainty of these ongoing inquiries and proceedings,
or additional inquiries and proceedings by federal or state
regulatory agencies or private plaintiffs. In addition, we
cannot predict the outcome of any of these inquiries or whether
these inquiries will lead to additional legal proceedings
against us, civil or criminal fines or penalties, or other
regulatory action, including legislation, which might be
materially adverse to the operation of our business and our
revenues and net income or increase our operating costs in other
ways. Current legal proceedings or other matters against us
arising out of our ongoing and discontinued operations including
environmental matters, disputes over gas measurement, royalty
payments, shareholder class action suits, regulatory appeals and
similar matters might result in adverse decisions against us.
The result of such adverse decisions, either individually or in
the aggregate, could be material and may not be covered fully or
at all by insurance.
Risks
Related to Accounting Standards
Potential
changes in accounting standards might cause us to revise our
financial results and disclosures in the future, which might
change the way analysts measure our business or financial
performance.
Accounting irregularities discovered in the past few years
across various industries have forced regulators and legislators
to take a renewed look at accounting practices, financial
disclosures, companies relationships with their
independent registered public accounting firms and retirement
plan practices. We cannot predict the ultimate impact of any
future changes in accounting regulations or practices in general
with respect to public companies or the energy industry or in
our operations specifically.
In addition, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) or
the SEC could enact new accounting standards that might impact
how we are required to record revenues, expenses, assets,
liabilities and equity.
Risks
Related to Market Volatility and Risk Measurement and Hedging
Activities
Our
risk measurement and hedging activities might not be effective
and could increase the volatility of our results.
We manage our commodity price risk for our unregulated
businesses as a whole. Although we have systems in place that
use various methodologies to quantify risk, these systems might
not always be followed or might not always be effective.
Further, such systems do not in themselves manage risk,
particularly risks outside of our control, and adverse changes
in energy commodity market prices, volatility, adverse
correlation of commodity prices, the liquidity of markets,
changes in interest rates and other risks discussed in this
report might still adversely affect our earnings, cash flows and
balance sheet under applicable accounting rules, even if risks
have been identified.
In an effort to manage our financial exposure related to
commodity price and market fluctuations, we have entered into
contracts to hedge certain risks associated with our assets and
operations, including our long-term tolling agreements. In these
hedging activities, we have used fixed-price, forward, physical
purchase and sales contracts, futures, financial swaps and
option contracts traded in the
over-the-counter
markets or on exchanges, as well as long-term structured
transactions when feasible. Nevertheless, no single hedging
arrangement can adequately address all risks present in a given
contract. For example, a forward contract that would be
effective
29
in hedging commodity price volatility risks would not hedge the
tolling contracts counterparty credit or performance risk.
Therefore, unhedged risks will always continue to exist. While
we attempt to manage counterparty credit risk within guidelines
established by our credit policy, we may not be able to
successfully manage all credit risk and as such, future cash
flows and results of operations could be impacted by
counterparty default.
Our use of hedging arrangements through which we attempt to
reduce the economic risk of our participation in commodity
markets could result in increased volatility of our reported
results and could also result in reported cash flows in future
years not reflecting the realization of increases in the fair
value of derivatives that have already been reflected in our
income statements. Changes in the fair values (gains and losses)
of derivatives that qualify as hedges under
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities,
(SFAS 133) to the extent that such hedges are not
fully effective in offsetting changes to the value of the hedged
commodity, as well as changes in the fair value of derivatives
that do not qualify as hedges under SFAS 133, must be
recorded in our income. This creates the risk of volatility in
earnings even if no economic impact to the Company has occurred
during the applicable period. During the period from 2002 to
2004 when our Power business was for sale, most changes in the
fair value of derivatives used in our Power business were
reflected in our earnings as net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains. As a result, in future periods if the cash benefits
associated with those hedges are actually realized, the value
will not be reflected as earnings on our income statement,
having already been recorded as earnings in prior years.
The impact of changes in market prices for natural gas on the
average gas prices received by us may be reduced based on the
level of our hedging strategies. These hedging arrangements may
limit our potential gains if the market prices for natural gas
were to rise substantially over the price established by the
hedge. In addition, our hedging arrangements expose us to the
risk of financial loss in certain circumstances, including
instances in which:
|
|
|
|
|
production is less than expected;
|
|
|
|
a change in the difference between published price indexes
established by pipelines in which our hedged production is
delivered and the reference price established in the hedging
arrangements is such that we are required to make payments to
our counterparties;
|
|
|
|
the counterparties to our hedging arrangements fail to honor
their financial commitments.
|
Risks
Related to Employees, Outsourcing of Non-Core Support
Activities, and Technology
Institutional
knowledge residing with current employees nearing retirement
eligibility might not be adequately preserved.
In certain segments of our business, institutional knowledge
resides with employees who have many years of service. As these
employees reach retirement age, we may not be able to replace
them with employees of comparable knowledge and experience. In
addition, we may not be able to retain or recruit other
qualified individuals and our efforts at knowledge transfer
could be inadequate. If knowledge transfer, recruiting and
retention efforts are inadequate, access to significant amounts
of internal historical knowledge and expertise could become
unavailable to us.
Failure
of the outsourcing relationships might negatively impact our
ability to conduct our business.
Some studies indicate a high failure rate of outsourcing
relationships. Although we have taken steps to build a
cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with our
outsourcing providers and to closely monitor their performance,
a deterioration in the timeliness or quality of the services
performed by the outsourcing providers or a failure of all or
part of these relationships could lead to loss of institutional
knowledge and interruption of services necessary for us to be
able to conduct our business.
30
Our
ability to receive services from outsourcing provider locations
outside of the United States might be impacted by cultural
differences, political instability, or unanticipated regulatory
requirements in jurisdictions outside the United
States.
Certain of our accounting, information technology, application
development, and helpdesk services are currently provided by an
outsourcing provider from service centers outside of the United
States. The economic and political conditions in certain
countries from which our outsourcing providers may provide
services to us present similar risks of business operations
located outside of the United States previously discussed,
including risks of interruption of business, war, expropriation,
nationalization, renegotiation, trade sanctions or nullification
of existing contracts and changes in law or tax policy, that are
greater than in the United States.
Our
current information technology infrastructure is aging and may
adversely affect our ability to conduct our
business.
Limited capital spending for information technology
infrastructure during
2001-2003
resulted in an aging server environment that may be less
efficient, may require more personnel and capital resources to
maintain and upgrade than more current systems, and may not be
adequate for our current business needs. While efforts are
ongoing to update the environment, the current age and condition
of equipment could result in loss of internal and external
communications, loss of data, inability to access data when
needed, excessive software downtime (including downtime for
critical software applications), and other disruptions that
could have a material adverse impact on our business and results
of operations.
Risks
Related to Weather, other Natural Phenomena and Business
Disruption
Our
assets and operations can be adversely affected by weather and
other natural phenomena.
Our assets and operations, including those located offshore, can
be adversely affected by hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and
other natural phenomena and weather conditions including extreme
temperatures, making it more difficult for us to realize the
historic rates of return associated with these assets and
operations.
Acts
of terrorism could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Our assets and the assets of our customers and others may be
targets of terrorist activities that could disrupt our business
or cause significant harm to our operations, such as full or
partial disruption to our ability to generate, produce, process,
transmit, transport or distribute electricity, natural gas or
natural gas liquids. Acts of terrorism as well as events
occurring in response to or in connection with acts of terrorism
could cause environmental repercussions that could result in a
significant decrease in revenues or significant reconstruction
or remediation costs, which could have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
We own property in 32 states plus the District of Columbia
in the United States and in Argentina, Canada and Venezuela.
Powers primary assets are its term contracts, related
systems and technological support. In addition, affiliates of
Power own the Hazelton and Milagro generating facilities
described above. In our Gas Pipeline and Midstream segments, we
generally own our facilities, although a substantial portion of
our pipeline and gathering facilities is constructed and
maintained pursuant to
rights-of-way,
easements, permits, licenses or consents on and across
properties owned by others. In our Exploration &
Production segment, the majority of our ownership interest in
exploration and production properties is held as working
interests in oil and gas leaseholds.
31
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
The information called for by this item is provided in
Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
of this report, which information is incorporated by reference
into this item.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
Executive
Officers of the Registrant
The name, age, period of service, and title of each of our
executive officers as of February 22, 2007, are listed
below.
|
|
|
Alan S. Armstrong |
|
Senior Vice President, Midstream |
|
|
Age: 44 |
|
|
Position held since February 2002. |
|
|
|
From 1999 to February 2002, Mr. Armstrong was Vice
President, Gathering and Processing for Midstream. From 1998 to
1999 he was Vice President, Commercial Development for Midstream. |
|
James J. Bender |
|
Senior Vice President and General Counsel |
|
|
Age 50 |
|
|
Position held since December 2002. |
|
|
|
Prior to joining us, Mr. Bender was Senior Vice President
and General Counsel with NRG Energy, Inc., a position held since
June 2000, prior to which he was Vice President, General Counsel
and Secretary of NRG Energy Inc. since June 1997. NRG Energy,
Inc. filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition during 2003 and its
plan of reorganization was approved in December 2003. |
|
Donald R. Chappel |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
Age: 55 |
|
|
Position held since April 2003. |
|
|
|
Prior to joining us, Mr. Chappel during 2000 founded and
served as chief executive officer of a development business in
Chicago, Illinois through April 2003, when he joined us.
Mr. Chappel joined Waste Management, Inc. in 1987 and held
various financial, administrative and operational leadership
positions, including twice serving as chief financial officer,
during 1997 and 1998 and most recently during 1999 through
February 2000. |
|
Ralph A. Hill |
|
Senior Vice President, Exploration & Production |
|
|
Age: 47 |
|
|
Position held since December 1998. |
|
|
|
Mr. Hill was vice president of the exploration and
production unit from 1993 to 1998 as well as Senior Vice
President Petroleum Services from 1998 to 2003. |
|
William E. Hobbs |
|
Senior Vice President, Power |
|
|
Age: 47 |
|
|
Position held since October 2002. |
|
|
|
From February 2000 to October 2002, Mr. Hobbs was President
and Chief Executive Officer of Williams Energy
Marketing & Trading. From 1997 to February 2000, he
served as a Vice President of various Williams subsidiaries. |
32
|
|
|
Michael P. Johnson, Sr. |
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer |
|
|
Age: 59 |
|
|
Position held since May 2004. |
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson was named our Senior Vice President of Human
Resources and Administration in April 1999. Prior to joining us
in December 1998, he held officer level positions, such as Vice
President of Human Resources, Vice President for Corporate
People Strategies, and Vice President Human Resource Services,
for Amoco Corporation from 1991 to 1998. |
|
Steven J. Malcolm |
|
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
|
|
Age: 58 |
|
|
Position held since September 2001. |
|
|
|
Mr. Malcolm was elected Chief Executive Officer of Williams
in January 2002 and Chairman of the Board in May 2002. He was
elected President and Chief Operating Officer in September 2001.
Prior to that, he was our Executive Vice President from May
2001, President and Chief Executive Officer of our subsidiary
Williams Energy Services, LLC, since December 1998 and the
Senior Vice President and General Manager of our subsidiary,
Williams Field Services Company, since November 1994. |
|
Phillip D. Wright |
|
Senior Vice President, Gas Pipeline |
|
|
Age: 51 |
|
|
Position held since January 2005. |
|
|
|
From October 2002 to January 2005, Mr. Wright served as
Chief Restructuring Officer. From September 2001 to October
2002, Mr. Wright served as President and Chief Executive
Officer of our subsidiary Williams Energy Services. From 1996
until September 2001, he was Senior Vice President, Enterprise
Development and Planning for our energy services group.
Mr. Wright has held various positions with us since 1989. |
33
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and
NYSE Arca Equities Exchanges under the symbol WMB.
At the close of business on February 22, 2007, we had
approximately 11,875 holders of record of our common stock. The
high and low closing sales price ranges (New York Stock Exchange
composite transactions) and dividends declared by quarter for
each of the past two years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
Quarter
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Dividend
|
|
|
1st
|
|
$
|
25.12
|
|
|
$
|
19.49
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
|
$
|
19.29
|
|
|
$
|
15.29
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
2nd
|
|
$
|
23.36
|
|
|
$
|
20.33
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
19.21
|
|
|
$
|
16.29
|
|
|
$
|
.05
|
|
3rd
|
|
$
|
25.23
|
|
|
$
|
22.51
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
25.05
|
|
|
$
|
19.16
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
4th
|
|
$
|
27.95
|
|
|
$
|
22.95
|
|
|
$
|
.09
|
|
|
$
|
25.40
|
|
|
$
|
19.97
|
|
|
$
|
.075
|
|
Some of our subsidiaries borrowing arrangements limit the
transfer of funds to us. These terms have not impeded, nor are
they expected to impede, our ability to pay dividends. However,
until January 20, 2005, the credit agreements underlying
our two unsecured revolving credit facilities totaling
$500 million prohibited us from paying quarterly cash
dividends on our common stock in excess of $0.05 per share.
On January 20, 2005, these facilities were terminated and
replaced with two new facilities. As part of the transaction,
the dividend restriction, along with most of the other
restrictive covenants, was removed from the new credit
agreements.
34
Performance
Graph
Set forth below is a line graph comparing our cumulative total
stockholder return on our common stock (assuming reinvestment of
dividends) with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500
Stock Index and the Bloomberg U.S. Pipeline Index for the
period of five fiscal years commencing January 1, 2002. The
Bloomberg U.S. Pipeline Index is composed of El Paso,
Equitable Resources, Questar, Kinder Morgan, TransCanada,
Spectra Energy, Enbridge and Williams. The graph below assumes
an investment of $100 at the beginning of the period.
Cumulative
Total Shareholder Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
|
|
|
40.6
|
|
|
|
|
67.7
|
|
|
|
|
97.5
|
|
|
|
|
111.5
|
|
S&P 500 Index
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
77.9
|
|
|
|
|
100.2
|
|
|
|
|
111.1
|
|
|
|
|
116.6
|
|
|
|
|
135.0
|
|
Bloomberg U.S. Pipelines Index
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
30.7
|
|
|
|
|
50.4
|
|
|
|
|
64.1
|
|
|
|
|
82.8
|
|
|
|
|
93.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The following financial data as of December 31, 2006 and
2005, and for the three years ended December 31, 2006, are
an integral part of, and should be read in conjunction with, the
consolidated financial statements and related notes. All other
amounts have been prepared from our financial records. Certain
amounts below have been restated or reclassified. See
Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in
Part II Item 8 for discussion of changes in 2006, 2005
and 2004. Information concerning significant trends in the
financial condition and results of operations is contained in
Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations of this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(Millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenues(1)
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
|
$
|
16,651.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,434.5
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations(2)
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
|
|
(57.5
|
)
|
|
|
(618.4
|
)
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations(3)
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
326.6
|
|
|
|
(136.3
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principles(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(761.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
|
|
|
.55
|
|
|
|
.53
|
|
|
|
.18
|
|
|
|
(.17
|
)
|
|
|
(1.37
|
)
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
.63
|
|
|
|
(.26
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.47
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets at December 31
|
|
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
23,993.0
|
|
|
|
27,021.8
|
|
|
|
34,988.5
|
|
Short-term notes payable and
long-term debt due within one year at December 31
|
|
|
392.1
|
|
|
|
122.6
|
|
|
|
250.1
|
|
|
|
938.5
|
|
|
|
2,077.1
|
|
Long-term debt at December 31
|
|
|
7,622.0
|
|
|
|
7,590.5
|
|
|
|
7,711.9
|
|
|
|
11,039.8
|
|
|
|
11,075.7
|
|
Stockholders equity at
December 31
|
|
|
6,073.2
|
|
|
|
5,427.5
|
|
|
|
4,955.9
|
|
|
|
4,102.1
|
|
|
|
5,049.0
|
|
Cash dividends per common share
|
|
|
.345
|
|
|
|
.25
|
|
|
|
.08
|
|
|
|
.04
|
|
|
|
.42
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As part of our adoption of Emerging Issues Task Force Issue
No. 02-3
Issues Involved in Accounting for Derivative Contracts
Held for Trading Purposes and Contracts Involved in Energy
Trading and Risk Management Activities, (EITF
02-3), we
concluded that revenues and costs of sales from nonderivative
contracts and certain physically settled derivative contracts
should generally be reported on a gross basis. Prior to the
adoption on January 1, 2003, these revenues were presented
net of costs. As permitted by EITF
02-3, prior
year amounts have not been restated. Additionally, revenues
within our Power segment in 2003 includes approximately
$117 million related to the correction of the accounting
treatment previously applied to certain third-party derivative
contracts during 2002 and 2001. |
|
(2) |
|
See Note 4 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for discussion of asset sales and other accruals in 2006, 2005,
and 2004. |
|
(3) |
|
See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for the analysis of the 2006, 2005 and 2004 income (loss) from
discontinued operations. Results for the years 2003 and 2002
also include amounts related to the discontinued operations of
certain gas processing and natural gas liquid operations in
Canada, a soda ash mining operation, our interest and investment
in Williams Energy Partners, a bio-energy operation, certain
natural gas production properties, Texas Gas Transmission
Corporation, refining and marketing operations in the midsouth,
retail travel centers in the midsouth, Central natural gas
pipeline,
Mid-America
pipeline, Seminole pipeline and Kern River pipeline. |
|
(4) |
|
The 2005 cumulative effect of change in accounting principles
is due to implementation of Interpretation (FIN) 47,
Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement
Obligations an Interpretation of FASB Statement No.
143. The 2003 cumulative effect of change in accounting
principles includes a $762.5 million charge related to the
adoption of EITF
02-3,
slightly offset by $1.2 million related to the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations. The
$762.5 million charge primarily consisted of the then fair
value of power tolling, load serving, gas transportation and gas
storage contracts. These contracts are not derivatives and,
therefore, are no longer reported at fair value. |
36
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
General
We are primarily a natural gas company, engaged in finding,
producing, gathering, processing, and transporting natural gas.
We also manage a wholesale power business. Our operations are
located principally in the United States and are organized into
the following reporting segments: Exploration &
Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream Gas & Liquids
(Midstream), and Power. (See Note 1 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of
reporting segments.)
Unless indicated otherwise, the following discussion of critical
accounting estimates, discussion and analysis of results of
operations and financial condition and liquidity relates to our
current continuing operations and should be read in conjunction
with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto
included in Part II Item 8 of this document.
Overview
of 2006
Our plan for 2006 was focused on continued disciplined growth.
Objectives and highlights of this plan included:
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
|
Highlights
|
Continuing to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit.
|
|
|
2006 segment profit increased
$185.8 million to $1,468.3 million, which contributed
to improving our
EVA®.
|
Investing in our natural gas
businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position.
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures were
approximately $2.5 billion, of which approximately
$1.4 billion was invested in Exploration &
Production.
|
Continuing to increase natural gas
production in a responsible and efficient manner.
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
increased its average daily production by approximately 21% over
last year and also added 597 billion cubic feet equivalent
in net reserves during 2006. Additionally, we received 2006
industry awards including Hydrocarbon Producer of the Year and
North Americas Best Field Rejuvenation.
|
Accelerating additional asset
transactions between us and Williams Partners L.P., our master
limited partnership.
|
|
|
Williams Partners L.P. acquired
100 percent of Williams Four Corners LLC for a total of
$1.583 billion.
|
Increasing the scale of our
gathering and processing business in key growth basins.
|
|
|
We invested approximately
$257 million in capital expenditures in Midstream including
Deepwater Gulf expansion projects and completing the expansion
of our Opal gas processing facility.
|
Filing new rates to enable our Gas
Pipeline segment to create additional value.
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline and Transco
each filed a general rate case with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In January 2007, Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its
pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval,
which is expected by mid-2007.
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
Objectives
|
|
|
Highlights
|
Executing power contracts that
reduce risk while adding new business and strengthening future
cash flow potential.
|
|
|
During 2006, Power completed
several new power sales contracts that increase the value of the
portfolio and provide additional cash-flow certainty in future
periods. Additionally, in early 2007, Power executed power sales
agreements in southern California through 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Our 2006 income from continuing operations increased to
$332.8 million, as compared to $317.4 million in 2005.
Our net cash provided by operating activities was
$1,889.6 million in 2006 compared to $1,449.9 million
in 2005. These comparative results reflect the benefit of strong
natural gas liquid margins partially offset with resolution of
certain legacy litigation issues. In addition to achieving these
results, the following represent significant actions or events
that occurred during the year:
Recent
Events
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity
offering of approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In
December 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a $600 million
private debt offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a
private equity offering of approximately $350 million of
common and Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. The debt and
equity issued by Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a
component of our consolidated debt balance and minority interest
balance, respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain
gathering, processing and treating assets in the San Juan
Basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
In December 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed and placed into
service its capacity replacement project in the state of
Washington. The project involved abandoning 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline and replacing it with approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline constructed in four sections along the same pipeline
corridor. Additionally, Northwest Pipeline modified five
existing compressor stations and created additional net
horsepower.
Northwest Pipeline and Transco have each filed a general rate
case with the FERC. Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in
its pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC
approval, which is expected by mid-2007. The new rates for
Northwest Pipeline are effective in January 2007, subject to
refund. The new rates for Transco are expected to be effective
in March 2007, subject to refund.
In April 2006, Transco issued $200 million aggregate
principal amount of 6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due
2016 to certain institutional investors in a private debt
placement. In October 2006, Transco completed an offer to
exchange all of these notes for substantially identical notes
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In May 2006, our Board of Directors approved a regular quarterly
dividend of 9 cents per share of common stock, which reflects an
increase of 20 percent compared with the 7.5 cents per
share paid in each of the three prior quarters.
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline issued $175 million
aggregate principal amount of 7 percent senior unsecured
notes due 2016 to certain institutional investors in a private
debt placement. In October 2006, Northwest
38
Pipeline completed an offer to exchange all of these notes for
substantially identical notes registered under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000, and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. We
funded our $145 million portion of the settlement with
cash-on-hand
in November 2006, with the balance funded directly by our
insurers. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second quarter 2006. This settlement did
not have a material effect on our liquidity position. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
On July 31, 2006, and August 1, 2006, we received a
verdict in civil litigation related to a contractual dispute
surrounding certain natural gas processing facilities known as
Gulf Liquids. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$88 million in second quarter 2006 related to this loss
contingency. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
Our property insurance coverage levels and premiums were revised
during the second quarter of 2006. In general, our coverage
levels have decreased while our premiums have increased. These
changes reflect general trends in our industry due to
hurricane-related damages in recent years.
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert our
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures into
our common stock. In January 2006, we converted approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures in exchange for
20.2 million shares of common stock, a $25.8 million
cash premium, and $1.5 million of accrued interest.
Outlook
for 2007
Our plan for 2007 is focused on continued disciplined growth.
Objectives of this plan include:
|
|
|
|
|
Continue to improve both
EVA®
and segment profit.
|
|
|
|
Invest in our natural gas businesses in a way that improves
EVA®,
meets customer needs, and enhances our competitive position.
|
|
|
|
Continue to increase natural gas production and reserves.
|
|
|
|
Increase the scale of our gathering and processing business in
key growth basins.
|
|
|
|
Successfully resolving the rate cases for both Northwest
Pipeline and Transco.
|
|
|
|
Execute power contracts that offset a significant percentage of
our financial obligations associated with our tolling agreements.
|
Potential risks
and/or
obstacles that could prevent us from achieving these objectives
include:
|
|
|
|
|
Volatility of commodity prices;
|
|
|
|
Lower than expected levels of cash flow from operations;
|
|
|
|
Decreased drilling success at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
Exposure associated with our efforts to resolve regulatory and
litigation issues (see Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements);
|
|
|
|
General economic and industry downturn.
|
We continue to address these risks through utilization of
commodity hedging strategies, focused efforts to resolve
regulatory issues and litigation claims, disciplined investment
strategies, and maintaining our desired level of at least
$1 billion in liquidity from cash and revolving credit
facilities.
39
New
Accounting Standards and Emerging Issues
Accounting standards that have been issued and are not yet
effective may have a material effect on our Consolidated
Financial Statements in the future. These include:
|
|
|
|
|
SFAS No. 157 Fair Value Measurements
(SFAS 157). The effective date for this Statement is for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We will
assess the impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
|
|
FASB Interpretation No. 48 Accounting for Uncertainty
in Income Taxes an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109 (FIN 48).
|
FIN 48 prescribes guidance for the financial statement
recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected
to be taken in a tax return. To recognize a tax position, the
enterprise determines whether it is more likely than not that
the tax position will be sustained upon examination, including
resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based
on the technical merits of the position. A tax position that
meets the more likely than not recognition threshold is measured
to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the financial
statements. The tax position is measured at the largest amount
of benefit, determined on a cumulative probability basis, that
is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon
ultimate settlement.
We adopted FIN 48 as of January 1, 2007. The
cumulative effect of applying the Interpretation will be
reported as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained
earnings. The net impact of the cumulative effect of adopting
FIN 48 is expected to be in the range of a $10 million
to $20 million decrease in retained earnings.
See Recent Accounting Standards in Note 1 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements for further information on
these and other recently issued accounting standards.
Critical
Accounting Estimates
The preparation of financial statements, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles, requires management to
make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts
therein. We have discussed the following accounting estimates
and assumptions as well as related disclosures with our Audit
Committee. We believe that the nature of these estimates and
assumptions is material due to the subjectivity and judgment
necessary, or the susceptibility of such matters to change, and
the impact of these on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Revenue
Recognition Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities
We hold a substantial portfolio of energy trading and nontrading
contracts for a variety of purposes. We review these contracts
to determine whether they are nonderivatives or derivatives. If
they are derivatives, we further assess whether the contracts
qualify for either cash flow hedge accounting or the normal
purchases and normal sales exception.
The determination of whether a derivative contract qualifies as
a cash flow hedge includes an analysis of historical market
price information to assess whether the derivative is expected
to be highly effective in achieving offsetting cash flows
attributed to the hedged risk. We also assess whether the hedged
forecasted transaction is probable of occurring. This assessment
requires us to exercise judgment and consider a wide variety of
factors in addition to our intent, including internal and
external forecasts, historical experience, changing market and
business conditions, our financial and operational ability to
carry out the forecasted transaction, the length of time until
the forecasted transaction is projected to occur, and the
quantity of the forecasted transaction. In addition, we compare
actual cash flows to those that were expected from the
underlying risk. If a hedged forecasted transaction is not
probable of occurring, or if the derivative contract is not
expected to be highly effective, the derivative does not qualify
for hedge accounting.
For derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges, we do
not reflect changes in their fair value in earnings until the
associated hedged item affects earnings. For those that have not
been designated as hedges or do not qualify for hedge
accounting, we recognize the net change in their fair value in
income currently (marked to market).
40
For derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges, we
prospectively discontinue hedge accounting and recognize future
changes in fair value directly in earnings if we no longer
expect the hedge to be highly effective, or if we believe that
the hedged forecasted transaction is no longer probable of
occurring. If the forecasted transaction becomes probable of not
occurring, we must also reclass amounts previously recorded in
other comprehensive income into earnings in addition to
prospectively discontinuing hedge accounting. If the
effectiveness of the derivative improves and is again expected
to be highly effective in offsetting cash flows attributed to
the hedged risk, or if the forecasted transaction again becomes
probable, we may prospectively re-designate the derivative as a
hedge of the underlying risk.
Derivatives for which the normal purchases and normal sales
exception has been elected are accounted for on an accrual
basis. In determining whether a derivative is eligible for this
exception, we assess whether the contract provides for the
purchase or sale of a commodity that will be physically
delivered in quantities expected to be used or sold over a
reasonable period in the normal course of business. In making
this assessment, we consider numerous factors, including the
quantities provided under the contract in relation to our
business needs, delivery locations per the contract in relation
to our operating locations, duration of time between entering
the contract and delivery, past trends and expected future
demand, and our past practices and customs with regard to such
contracts. Additionally, we assess whether it is probable that
the contract will result in physical delivery of the commodity
and not net financial settlement.
The fair value of derivative contracts is determined based on
the nature of the transaction and the market in which
transactions are executed. We also incorporate assumptions and
judgments about counterparty performance and credit
considerations in our determination of their fair value.
Contracts are executed in the following environments:
|
|
|
|
|
Organized commodity exchange or
over-the-counter
markets with quoted prices;
|
|
|
|
Organized commodity exchange or
over-the-counter
markets with quoted market prices but limited price
transparency, requiring increased judgment to determine fair
value;
|
|
|
|
Markets without quoted market prices.
|
The number of transactions executed without quoted market prices
is limited. We estimate the fair value of these contracts by
using readily available price quotes in similar markets and
other market analyses. The fair value of all derivative
contracts is continually subject to change as the underlying
commodity market changes and our assumptions and judgments
change.
Additional discussion of the accounting for energy contracts at
fair value is included in Energy Trading Activities within
Item 7 and Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.
Oil-
and Gas-Producing Activities
We use the successful efforts method of accounting for our oil-
and gas-producing activities. Estimated natural gas and oil
reserves and forward market prices for oil and gas are a
significant part of our financial calculations. Following are
examples of how these estimates affect financial results:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase (decrease) in estimated proved oil and gas reserves
can reduce (increase) our
unit-of-production
depreciation, depletion and amortization rates.
|
|
|
|
Changes in oil and gas reserves and forward market prices both
impact projected future cash flows from our oil and gas
properties. This, in turn, can impact our periodic impairment
analyses, including that for goodwill.
|
The process of estimating natural gas and oil reserves is very
complex, requiring significant judgment in the evaluation of all
available geological, geophysical, engineering, and economic
data. After being estimated internally, 99.9 percent of our
reserve estimates are either audited or prepared by independent
experts. The data may change substantially over time as a result
of numerous factors, including additional development activity,
evolving production history, and a continual reassessment of the
viability of production under changing economic conditions. As a
result, material revisions to existing reserve estimates could
occur from time to time. A revision of our reserve estimates
within reasonably likely parameters is not expected to result in
an impairment of our oil and
41
gas properties or goodwill. However, reserve estimate revisions
would impact our depreciation and depletion expense
prospectively. For example, a change of approximately
10 percent in oil and gas reserves for each basin would
change our annual depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense between approximately $25 million
and $31 million. The actual impact would depend on the
specific basins impacted and whether the change resulted from
proved developed, proved undeveloped or a combination of these
reserve categories.
Forward market prices, which are utilized in our impairment
analyses, include estimates of prices for periods that extend
beyond those with quoted market prices. This forward market
price information is consistent with that generally used in
evaluating our drilling decisions and acquisition plans. These
market prices for future periods impact the production economics
underlying oil and gas reserve estimates. The prices of natural
gas and oil are volatile and change from period to period, thus
impacting our estimates. An unfavorable change in the forward
price curve within reasonably likely parameters is not expected
to result in an impairment of our oil and gas properties or
goodwill.
Contingent
Liabilities
We record liabilities for estimated loss contingencies,
including environmental matters, when we assess that a loss is
probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
Revisions to contingent liabilities are reflected in income in
the period in which new or different facts or information become
known or circumstances change that affect the previous
assumptions with respect to the likelihood or amount of loss.
Liabilities for contingent losses are based upon our assumptions
and estimates and upon advice of legal counsel, engineers, or
other third parties regarding the probable outcomes of the
matter. As new developments occur or more information becomes
available, our assumptions and estimates of these liabilities
may change. Changes in our assumptions and estimates or outcomes
different from our current assumptions and estimates could
materially affect future results of operations for any
particular quarterly or annual period. See Note 15 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Valuation
of Deferred Tax Assets and Tax Contingencies
We have deferred tax assets resulting from certain investments
and businesses that have a tax basis in excess of the book basis
and from tax carry-forwards generated in the current and prior
years. We must evaluate whether we will ultimately realize these
tax benefits and establish a valuation allowance for those that
may not be realizable. This evaluation considers tax planning
strategies, including assumptions about the availability and
character of future taxable income. At December 31, 2006,
we have approximately $926 million of deferred tax assets
for which a $36 million valuation allowance has been
established. When assessing the need for a valuation allowance,
we considered forecasts of future company performance, the
estimated impact of potential asset dispositions and our ability
and intent to execute tax planning strategies to utilize tax
carryovers. Based on our projections, we believe that it is
probable that we can utilize our year-end 2006 federal tax net
operating losses carryovers and charitable contribution
carryovers prior to their expiration. We do not expect to be
able to utilize $36 million of foreign deferred tax assets
related to carryovers. See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for additional information regarding the
tax carryovers. The ultimate amount of deferred tax assets
realized could be materially different from those recorded, as
influenced by potential changes in jurisdictional income tax
laws and the circumstances surrounding the actual realization of
related tax assets.
We regularly face challenges from domestic and foreign tax
authorities regarding the amount of taxes due. These challenges
include questions regarding the timing and amount of deductions
and the allocation of income among various tax jurisdictions. In
evaluating the liability associated with our various filing
positions, we record a liability for probable tax contingencies.
The ultimate disposition of these contingencies could have a
significant impact on net cash flows. To the extent we were to
prevail in matters for which accruals have been established or
were required to pay amounts in excess of our accrued liability,
our effective tax rate in a given financial statement period may
be materially impacted.
Pension
and Postretirement Obligations
We have employee benefit plans that include pension and other
postretirement benefits. Pension and other postretirement
benefit plan expense and obligations are calculated by a
third-party actuary and are impacted by various estimates and
assumptions. These estimates and assumptions include the
expected long-term rates of return
42
on plan assets, discount rates, expected rate of compensation
increase, health care cost trend rates, and employee
demographics, including retirement age and mortality. These
assumptions are reviewed annually and adjustments are made as
needed. The assumptions utilized to compute expense and the
benefit obligations are shown in Note 7 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements. The following table presents
the estimated increase (decrease) in pension and other
postretirement benefit expense and obligations resulting from a
one-percentage-point change in the specified assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Expense
|
|
|
Benefit Obligation
|
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
One-Percentage-
|
|
|
|
Point Increase
|
|
|
Point Decrease
|
|
|
Point Increase
|
|
|
Point Decrease
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Pension benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
$
|
(12
|
)
|
|
$
|
14
|
|
|
$
|
(129
|
)
|
|
$
|
151
|
|
Expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
Other postretirement benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
47
|
|
Expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed health care cost trend rate
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
(48
|
)
|
The expected long-term rates of return on plan assets are
determined by combining a review of historical returns realized
within the portfolio, the investment strategy included in the
plans Investment Policy Statement, and the capital market
projections provided by our independent investment consultant
for the asset classifications in which the portfolio is invested
as well as the target weightings of each asset classification.
These rates are impacted by changes in general market
conditions, but because they are long-term in nature, short-term
market swings do not significantly impact the rates. Changes to
our target asset allocation would also impact these rates. Our
expected long-term rate of return on plan assets used for our
pension plans is 7.75 percent for 2006 and was
8.5 percent from
2002-2005.
Over the past ten years, our actual average return on plan
assets for our pension plans has been approximately
7.9 percent.
The discount rates are used to discount future benefit cash
flows to todays dollars. Decreases in these rates increase
the obligation and, generally, increase the related expense. The
discount rates for our pension and other postretirement benefit
plans were determined separately based on an approach specific
to our plans and their respective expected benefit cash flows as
described in Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements. Our discount rate assumptions are impacted by
changes in general economic and market conditions that affect
interest rates on long-term high-quality corporate bonds.
The expected rate of compensation increase represents average
long-term salary increases. An increase in this rate causes
pension obligation and expense to increase.
The assumed health care cost trend rates are based on our actual
historical cost rates that are adjusted for expected changes in
the health care industry.
43
Results
of Operations
Consolidated
Overview
The following table and discussion is a summary of our
consolidated results of operations for the three years ended
December 31, 2006. The results of operations by segment are
discussed in further detail following this consolidated overview
discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
from
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004(1)
|
|
|
2004(1)
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
$
|
770.7
|
|
|
|
−6
|
%
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
$
|
+122.3
|
|
|
|
+1
|
%
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
9,973.6
|
|
|
|
+897.4
|
|
|
|
+8
|
%
|
|
|
10,871.0
|
|
|
|
−119.3
|
|
|
|
−1
|
%
|
|
|
10,751.7
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
|
|
|
449.2
|
|
|
|
−123.8
|
|
|
|
−38
|
%
|
|
|
325.4
|
|
|
|
+30.1
|
|
|
|
+8
|
%
|
|
|
355.5
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
+40.5
|
|
|
|
+66
|
%
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
−112.8
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(51.6
|
)
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
132.1
|
|
|
|
+13.4
|
|
|
|
+9
|
%
|
|
|
145.5
|
|
|
|
−25.7
|
|
|
|
−21
|
%
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
−157.9
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
−9.4
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
10,742.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,412.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,175.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,070.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,171.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,285.9
|
|
Interest accrued net
|
|
|
(658.9
|
)
|
|
|
+5.6
|
|
|
|
+1
|
%
|
|
|
(664.5
|
)
|
|
|
+163.2
|
|
|
|
+20
|
%
|
|
|
(827.7
|
)
|
Investing income
|
|
|
173.0
|
|
|
|
+149.3
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
−24.3
|
|
|
|
−51
|
%
|
|
|
48.0
|
|
Early debt retirement costs
|
|
|
(31.4
|
)
|
|
|
−31.0
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
+281.7
|
|
|
|
+100
|
%
|
|
|
(282.1
|
)
|
Minority interest in income of
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(40.0
|
)
|
|
|
−14.3
|
|
|
|
−56
|
%
|
|
|
(25.7
|
)
|
|
|
−4.3
|
|
|
|
−20
|
%
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)
|
Other income net
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
−0.7
|
|
|
|
−3
|
%
|
|
|
27.1
|
|
|
|
+5.3
|
|
|
|
+24
|
%
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
539.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
531.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
224.5
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
206.3
|
|
|
|
+7.6
|
|
|
|
+4
|
%
|
|
|
213.9
|
|
|
|
−82.6
|
|
|
|
−63
|
%
|
|
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
−22.2
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
−72.6
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
+1.7
|
|
|
|
+100
|
%
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
−1.7
|
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
+ = Favorable change to net income; =
Unfavorable change to net income; NM = A percentage
calculation is not meaningful due to change in signs, a
zero-value denominator or a percentage change greater than 200. |
2006 vs.
2005
The decrease in revenues is primarily due to lower power
and natural gas realized revenues at Power. These revenues
declined due to lower sales volumes associated with reducing the
scope of our trading activities and lower natural gas sales
prices. Partially offsetting these decreases are increased
crude, olefin and natural gas liquid (NGL) marketing revenues
and higher NGL production revenue at Midstream and increased
production revenue at Exploration & Production.
The decrease in costs and operating expenses is largely
due to decreased power purchase volumes and reduced natural gas
purchase prices at Power. Partially offsetting these decreases
are increased crude, olefin and NGL
44
marketing purchases and operating expenses at Midstream and
increased depreciation, depletion and amortization and lease
operating expense at Exploration & Production.
The increase in selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses is primarily due to increased personnel
costs, insurance expense, higher information systems support
costs and the absence of a $17.1 million reduction of
pension expense at Gas Pipeline in 2005. Additionally,
Exploration & Production experienced higher costs due
to increased staffing in support of increased drilling and
operational activity.
Other (income) expense net within
operating income in 2006 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
A $72.7 million accrual for a Gulf Liquids litigation
contingency;
|
|
|
|
Income of $12.7 million due to reducing contingent
obligations associated with our former distributive power
generation business at Power;
|
|
|
|
Income of $9 million due to a settlement of an
international contract dispute at Midstream;
|
Other (income) expense net within
operating income in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $82.2 million accrual for litigation contingencies at
Power, associated primarily with agreements reached to
substantially resolve exposure related to certain natural gas
price and volume reporting issues;
|
|
|
|
Gains totaling $29.6 million on the sale of certain natural
gas properties at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
A gain of $9 million on a sale of land in our Other segment.
|
General corporate expenses decreased primarily due to the
absence of $13.8 million of insurance settlement charges in
2005 associated with certain insurance coverage allocation
issues.
The securities litigation settlement and related costs is
the result of settling
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002.
Interest accrued net in 2006 includes
$22 million in interest expense associated with our Gulf
Liquids litigation contingency.
The increase in investing income is due to:
|
|
|
|
|
The absence of an $87.2 million impairment in 2005 on our
investment in Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. (Longhorn);
|
|
|
|
The absence of a $23 million impairment in 2005 of our Aux
Sable Liquid Products, L.P. (Aux Sable) equity investment;
|
|
|
|
An approximate $37 million increase in interest income
primarily associated with increased earnings on cash and cash
equivalent balances associated with higher rates of return;
|
|
|
|
Increased equity earnings of $33.3 million due largely to
the absence of equity losses in 2006 on Longhorn and increased
earnings of our Discovery Producer Services LLC (Discovery) and
Aux Sable investments;
|
These increases are partially offset by:
|
|
|
|
|
A $16.4 million impairment of a Venezuelan cost-based
investment at Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
The absence of an $8.6 million gain on sale of our
remaining
Mid-America
Pipeline (MAPL) and Seminole Pipeline (Seminole) investments at
Midstream in 2005.
|
Early debt retirement costs in 2006 includes
$25.8 million in premiums and $1.2 million in fees
related to the January 2006 debt conversion and
$4.4 million of accelerated amortization of debt expenses
related to the retirement of the debt secured by assets of
Williams Production RMT Company.
The increase in minority interest in income of consolidated
subsidiaries is primarily due to the growth of Williams
Partners L.P., our consolidated master limited partnership.
45
Provision for income taxes changed favorably during the
year. The effective income tax rate for 2006 is slightly higher
than the federal statutory rate primarily due to state income
taxes, the effect of taxes on foreign operations, nondeductible
convertible debenture expenses and an accrual for income tax
contingencies, partially offset by the favorable resolution of
federal income tax litigation and the utilization of charitable
contribution carryovers not previously benefited. The 2006
effective income tax rate has been increased by an adjustment to
increase overall deferred income tax liabilities. The effective
income tax rate for 2005 is higher than the federal statutory
rate due primarily to state income taxes, nondeductible
expenses, the effect of taxes on foreign operations and the
inability to utilize charitable contribution carryovers. The
2005 effective income tax rate was reduced by an adjustment to
reduce overall deferred income tax liabilities and favorable
settlements on federal and state income tax matters. (See
Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations in 2006
includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $11.9 million
net-of-tax
litigation settlement related to our former chemical fertilizer
business;
|
|
|
|
A $3.7 million
net-of-tax
charge associated with the settlement of a loss contingency
related to a former exploration business;
|
|
|
|
A $9.1 million
net-of-tax
charge associated with an oil purchase contract related to our
former Alaska refinery.
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in
2005 is due to the implementation of FIN 47. (See
Note 9 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
2005 vs.
2004
The increase in revenues is due primarily to increased revenues
at Exploration & Production due to higher natural gas
prices and production volumes sold and gas management income,
and at Midstream due primarily to increased NGL prices and crude
marketing revenue. Partially offsetting these increases is
decreased revenue at Power due primarily to the absence of crude
and refined products activity and reduced net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains.
The increase in costs and operating expenses is due
primarily to increased crude marketing costs and increased NGL
costs at Midstream in addition to increased depreciation,
depletion and amortization and gas management expense at
Exploration & Production. Partially offsetting these
increases are decreased costs at Power primarily due to the
absence of crude and refined products activity.
The decrease in SG&A expenses is primarily due to the
$17.1 million reduction in expenses at Gas Pipeline to
record the cumulative impact of a correction to pension expense
attributable to the periods 2003 and 2004 and a $9.7 reduction
of bad debt expense at Power resulting from the sale of certain
receivables to a third party. Partially offsetting these items
is increased staffing costs at Exploration & Production
in support of increased operational drilling activity.
Other (income) expense net, within
operating income, in 2004 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
Income of $93.6 million from an insurance arbitration award
associated with Gulf Liquids at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
Gains of $16.2 million from the sale of
Exploration & Productions securities, invested in
a coal seam royalty trust, that were purchased for resale;
|
|
|
|
A $9.5 million gain on the sale of Louisiana olefins assets
at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
A $15.4 million loss provision related to an ownership
dispute on prior period production included at
Exploration & Production;
|
|
|
|
An $11.8 million environmental expense accrual related to
the Augusta refinery facility included in our Other segment;
|
|
|
|
A $9 million write-off of previously capitalized costs on
an idled segment of Northwest Pipelines system included at
Gas Pipeline.
|
46
The increase in general corporate expenses is due
primarily to the $13.8 million of expense related to the
settlement of certain insurance coverage issues and a
$16 million increase in outside legal costs associated
primarily with securities class action matters.
The decrease in interest accrued net is due
primarily to lower average borrowing levels in 2005 as compared
to 2004.
The decrease in investing income is due primarily to a
$76.4 increase in impairment charges on our investment in
Longhorn, a $13.9 million increase in Longhorn equity
losses, and the $23 million impairment of our Aux Sable
equity investment. Partially offsetting these decreases are the
following increases:
|
|
|
|
|
A $30.4 million increase in domestic and international
equity earnings, excluding Longhorn and Aux Sable;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $20.8 million impairment of an
international cost-based investment;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $16.9 million impairment of our
Discovery equity investment;
|
|
|
|
The $8.6 million gain on the sale of our remaining
interests in the MAPL and Seminole assets;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2005 of a $6.5 million Longhorn
recapitalization fee.
|
Early debt retirement costs include premiums, fees and
expenses related to the retirement of debt.
Provision for income taxes changed unfavorably primarily
due to increased pre-tax income in 2005 as compared to 2004. The
effective income tax rate for 2005 is higher than the federal
statutory rate due primarily to state income taxes,
nondeductible expenses, the effect of taxes on foreign
operations and the inability to utilize charitable contribution
carryovers. The 2005 effective income tax rate has been reduced
by an adjustment to reduce the overall deferred income tax
liabilities and favorable settlements on federal and state
income tax matters. The effective income tax rate for 2004 is
higher than the federal statutory rate due primarily to state
income taxes, a charge associated with charitable contribution
carryovers and the effect of taxes on foreign operations. A 2004
accrual for income tax contingencies was offset by favorable
settlements of certain federal and state income tax matters.
(See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Income (loss) from discontinued operations in 2004 is
comprised of gains on the sales of the Canadian straddle plants
and the Alaska refinery of $189.8 million and
$3.6 million, respectively, as well as $22 million in
income from our Canadian straddles discontinued operation.
Partially offsetting these are $153 million of charges to
increase our accrued liability associated with certain Quality
Bank litigation matters.
47
Results
of Operations Segments
We are currently organized into the following segments:
Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream,
Power, and Other. Other primarily consists of corporate
operations. Our management currently evaluates performance based
on segment profit (loss) from operations. (See Note 17 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
Exploration &
Production
Overview
of 2006
In 2006, we focused on our objective to rapidly expand
development of our drilling inventory. This resulted in
significant growth as evidenced by the following accomplishments:
|
|
|
|
|
We increased average daily domestic production levels by
approximately 23 percent over last year, surpassing our
goal of 15 to 20 percent. The average daily domestic
production was approximately 752 million cubic feet of gas
equivalent (MMcfe) compared to 612 MMcfe in 2005. The
increased production is primarily due to increased development
within the Piceance and Powder River basins.
|
Domestic
Production
2006
domestic production grew 23 percent or 140 MMcfe per day over
2005
|
|
|
|
|
We continued to increase our development drilling program during
2006. We drilled 1,783 gross wells in 2006 compared to
1,627 in 2005. This contributed to the addition of
597 billion cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe) in net
reserves a replacement rate for our domestic
production of 216 percent in 2006 compared to
277 percent in 2005. Capital expenditures for domestic
drilling, development, gathering facilities and acquisition
activity in 2006 were approximately $1.4 billion compared
to approximately $768 million in 2005.
|
The benefit of higher production volumes to operating results
was more than offset by the downward trending of natural gas
market prices during the year and increased operating costs. The
increase in operating costs reflects an increase in our
production volumes combined with a general industry condition of
greater demand for services and products as production
activities increase in our key basins.
Significant
events
At December 31, 2006, all ten new
state-of-the-art
FlexRig4®
drilling rigs have been placed into service pursuant to our
lease agreement with Helmerich & Payne. The March 2005
contract provided for the operation of the drilling rigs, each
for a primary lease term of three years. This arrangement
supports our continuing objective to
48
accelerate the pace of natural gas development in the Piceance
basin through both deployment of the additional rigs and through
the drilling and operational efficiencies of the new rigs.
In 2006, we increased our position in the Fort Worth basin
by acquiring producing properties and undeveloped leasehold
interests for approximately $64 million. These acquisitions
increased our diversification into the Mid-Continent region and
will allow us to use our horizontal drilling expertise to
develop wells in the Barnett Shale formation.
Outlook
for 2007
Our expectations and objectives for 2007 include:
|
|
|
|
|
Maintaining our development drilling program in our key basins
of Piceance, Powder River, San Juan, Arkoma, and
Fort Worth through planned capital expenditures of $1.3 to
$1.4 billion.
|
|
|
|
Continuing to grow our domestic average daily production level
with a goal of 10 to 20 percent annual growth.
|
Approximately 172 MMcfe, or 18 percent, of our
forecasted 2007 daily production is hedged by NYMEX and basis
fixed price contracts at prices that average $3.90 per Mcfe
at a basin level. In addition, we have collar agreements for
each month in 2007 as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 15 MMcfe per day
at a weighted-average floor price of $6.50 per Mcfe and a
weighted-average ceiling price of $8.25 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $5.65 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $7.45 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
|
|
|
El Paso/San Juan collar agreements totaling
approximately 130 MMcfe per day at a weighted average floor
price of $5.98 per Mcfe and a weighted average ceiling
price of $9.63 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
|
|
|
Mid-Continent (PEPL) collar agreements totaling approximately
75 MMcfe per day at a weighted average floor price of
$6.82 per Mcfe and a weighted average ceiling price of
$10.80 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
We have recently entered into a five-year unsecured credit
agreement with certain banks in order to reduce margin
requirements related to our hedging activities as well as lower
transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any, under this new
facility are dependent on the level of hedging and on natural
gas reserves value.
Additional risks to achieving our expectations include weather
conditions at certain of our locations during the first and
fourth quarters of 2007, drilling rig availability, obtaining
permits as planned for drilling, and market price movements.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
1,487.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,269.1
|
|
|
$
|
777.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
$
|
551.5
|
|
|
$
|
587.2
|
|
|
$
|
235.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 vs.
2005
Total segment revenues increased $218.5 million, or
17 percent, primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$165 million, or 15 percent, increase in domestic
production revenues reflecting $245 million primarily
associated with a 23 percent increase in natural gas
production volumes sold, offset by a decrease of
$80 million associated with a 6 percent decrease in
net realized average prices. The increase in production volumes
is primarily from the Piceance and Powder River basins and the
decrease in prices reflects the downward trending of market
prices in the latter part of 2006.
|
49
|
|
|
|
|
$10 million increase in production revenues from our
international operations primarily due to increases in net
realized average prices for crude oil production volumes sold.
|
|
|
|
$14 million of net unrealized gains in 2006 from hedge
ineffectiveness and forward
mark-to-market
gains on certain basis swaps not designated as hedges as
compared to $10 million in net unrealized losses
attributable to hedge ineffectiveness from NYMEX collars in 2005.
|
To manage the commodity price risk and volatility of owning
producing gas properties, we enter into derivative sales
contracts that fix the sales price relating to a portion of our
future production. Approximately 40 percent of domestic
production in 2006 was hedged by NYMEX and basis fixed price
contracts at a weighted average price of $3.82 per Mcfe at
a basin level compared to 47 percent hedged at a weighted
average price of $3.99 per Mcfe in 2005. In addition,
approximately 15 percent of domestic production was hedged
by the following collar agreements in 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 49 MMcfe per day
at a floor price of $6.50 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$8.25 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
NYMEX collar agreement for approximately 15 MMcfe per day
at a floor price of $7.00 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$9.00 per Mcfe.
|
|
|
|
Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $6.05 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $7.90 per Mcfe at a basin level.
|
In 2005, approximately 10 percent of domestic production
was hedged by a NYMEX collar agreement for approximately
50 MMcfe per day at a floor price of $7.50 per Mcfe
and a ceiling price of $10.49 per Mcfe in the first quarter
and at a floor price of $6.75 per Mcfe and a ceiling price
of $8.50 per Mcfe in the second, third, and fourth
quarters, and a Northwest Pipeline/Rockies collar agreement for
approximately 50 MMcfe per day in the fourth quarter at a
floor price of $6.10 per Mcfe and a ceiling price of
$7.70 per Mcfe.
Our hedges are executed with our Power segment, which, in turn,
executes offsetting derivative contracts with unrelated third
parties. Generally, Power bears the counterparty performance
risks associated with unrelated third parties. Hedging decisions
are made considering our overall commodity risk exposure and are
not executed independently by Exploration & Production.
Total costs and expenses increased $257 million,
primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$107 million higher depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense primarily due to higher production volumes
and increased capitalized drilling costs;
|
|
|
|
$54 million higher lease operating expense primarily due to
the increased number of producing wells and higher well service
and industry costs due to increased demand and approximately
$6 million for
out-of-period
expenses related to 2005. Our management has concluded that the
effect of this item is not material to our consolidated results
for 2006, or prior periods, or to our trend of earnings;
|
|
|
|
$19 million higher operating taxes primarily due to higher
production volumes sold and increased tax rates;
|
|
|
|
$33 million higher selling, general and administrative
expenses primarily due to higher compensation for additional
staffing in support of increased drilling and operational
activity. In addition, we incurred higher legal, insurance, and
information technology support costs related to the increased
activity;
|
|
|
|
The absence in 2006 of $29.6 million of gains on the sales
of properties in 2005.
|
The $35.7 million decrease in segment profit is
primarily due to lower net realized average prices and higher
costs and expenses as discussed previously, and the
absence in 2006 of $29.6 million of gains on the sales of
properties in 2005. Partially offsetting these decreases are a
23 percent increase in domestic production volumes sold and
an increase in income from ineffectiveness and forward
mark-to-market gains. Segment profit also includes an
$8 million increase in our international operations
primarily due to higher revenue and equity earnings as a result
of increases in net realized average prices for crude oil
production volumes sold.
50
2005 vs.
2004
The $491.5 million, or 63 percent increase in
segment revenues is primarily due to an increase in
domestic production revenues of $434 million during 2005
reflecting higher net realized average prices and higher
production volumes sold. Also contributing to the increase is a
$58 million increase in revenues from gas management
activities, offset in costs and expenses, and
$13 million increased production revenues from our
international operations. Partially offsetting these increases
is $10 million in net unrealized losses attributable to
NYMEX collars from hedge ineffectiveness.
The increase in domestic production revenues primarily results
from $319 million higher revenues associated with a
42 percent increase in net realized average prices for
production sold as well as a $115 million increase
associated with an 18 percent increase in average daily
production volumes. The higher net realized average prices
reflect the benefit of the lower volumes hedged in 2005 as
compared to 2004 coupled with higher market prices for natural
gas in 2005. The increase in production volumes primarily
reflects an increase in the number of producing wells resulting
from our successful 2005 drilling program.
Approximately 77 percent of domestic production in 2004 was
hedged at a weighted average price of $3.65 per Mcfe at a
basin level.
Total costs and expenses increased $147 million,
primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$62 million higher depreciation, depletion and amortization
expense primarily due to higher production volumes and increased
capitalized drilling costs;
|
|
|
|
$16 million higher lease operating expense from the
increased number of producing wells and generally higher
industry costs;
|
|
|
|
$23 million higher operating taxes primarily due to
increased market prices and production volumes sold;
|
|
|
|
$18 million higher selling, general and administrative
expenses primarily due to higher compensation and increased
staffing in 2005 in support of increased drilling and
operational activity;
|
|
|
|
$58 million higher gas management expenses associated with
higher revenues from gas management activities, offset in
segment revenues;
|
|
|
|
$11 million lower gain in 2005 than in 2004 on the sale of
securities associated with our coal seam royalty trust that were
previously purchased for resale.
|
These increased costs and expenses are partially offset
by the absence in 2005 of a $15.4 million loss provision
related to an ownership dispute on prior period production in
2004, a $7.9 million gain on the sale of an undeveloped
leasehold position in Colorado in the first quarter of 2005, and
a $21.7 million gain on the sale of certain outside
operated properties in the Powder River basin area of Wyoming in
the third quarter of 2005.
The $351.4 million increase in segment profit is
primarily due to increased revenues from higher volumes and
higher net realized average prices, as well as the gains on
sales of assets, partially offset by higher expenses as
discussed above. Segment profit also includes a
$19 million increase in our international operations
reflecting higher revenue and equity earnings resulting from
higher net realized oil and gas prices.
Gas
Pipeline
Overview
We operate, through our Northwest Pipeline and Transco
subsidiaries, approximately 14,400 miles of pipeline from
the Gulf Coast to the northeast United States and from northern
New Mexico to the Pacific Northwest with a total annual
throughput of approximately 2,500 trillion BTUs. Additionally,
we hold a 50 percent interest in Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream). This asset, which extends from the
Mobile Bay area in Alabama to markets in Florida, has current
transportation capacity of 1.1 MMdt/d.
Our strategy to create value for our shareholders focuses on
maximizing the utilization of our pipeline capacity by providing
high quality, low cost transportation of natural gas to large
and growing markets.
51
Gas Pipelines interstate transmission and storage
activities are subject to regulation by the FERC and as such,
our rates and charges for the transportation of natural gas in
interstate commerce, and the extension, expansion or abandonment
of jurisdictional facilities and accounting, among other things,
are subject to regulation. The rates are established through the
FERCs ratemaking process. Changes in commodity prices and
volumes transported have little impact on revenues because the
majority of cost of service is recovered through firm capacity
reservation charges in transportation rates.
Significant events of 2006 include:
Filing of
rate cases
During 2006, Northwest Pipeline and Transco each filed general
rate cases with the FERC for increases in rates due to higher
costs in recent years. The new rates are effective, subject to
refund, in January 2007 for Northwest Pipeline and in March 2007
for Transco. We expect the new rates to result in significantly
higher revenues.
In January 2007, Northwest Pipeline reached a settlement in its
pending rate case. The settlement is subject to FERC approval,
which is expected by mid-2007.
Gulfstream
In March 2006, our equity method investee, Gulfstream, announced
a new long-term agreement with a Florida utility company, which
fully subscribed the pipelines mainline capacity on a
long-term basis. Under the agreement, Gulfstream will extend its
existing pipeline approximately 35 miles within Florida.
The agreement is subject to the approval of various authorities.
Construction of the extension is anticipated to begin in early
2008 with a targeted completion of summer 2008.
In May 2006, Gulfstream announced a new agreement to provide
155 Mdt/d of natural gas to a Florida utility. In December
2006, Gulfstream filed an application with the FERC seeking
approval to expand its pipeline system to provide the additional
capacity. Under this agreement, Gulfstream will construct
approximately 17.5 miles of 20 inch pipeline and the
installation of a new compressor facility. If approved, all of
the facilities will be placed into service by January 2009.
Parachute
Lateral project
In August 2006, we received FERC approval to construct a
37.6-mile
expansion that will provide additional natural gas
transportation capacity in northwest Colorado. The planned
expansion will increase capacity by 450 Mdt/d through the
30-inch
diameter line and is estimated to cost approximately
$86 million. The expansion is expected to be in service in
March 2007.
Grays
Harbor
Effective January 2005, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC
(Duke) terminated its firm transportation agreement related to
Northwest Pipelines Grays Harbor lateral. In January 2005,
Duke paid Northwest Pipeline $94 million for the remaining
book value of the asset and the related income taxes. We and
Duke have not agreed on the amount of the income taxes due
Northwest Pipeline as a result of the contract termination. We
have deferred the $6 million difference between the
proceeds and net book value of the lateral pending resolution of
the disputed early termination obligation.
On June 16, 2005, we filed a Petition for a Declaratory
Order with the FERC requesting that it rule on our
interpretation of our tariff to aid in resolving the dispute
with Duke. On July 15, 2005, Duke filed a motion to
intervene and provided comments supporting its position
concerning the issues in dispute.
On October 4, 2006, the FERC issued its Order on Petition
for Declaratory Order, providing clarification on issues
relating to Dukes obligation to reimburse us for future
tax expenses. We reviewed the Order and filed a request for
rehearing requesting further clarification of certain items.
Based upon the order, as written, we do not anticipate any
adverse impact to our results of operations or financial
position.
52
Northwest
Pipeline capacity replacement project
In September 2005, we received FERC approval to construct and
operate approximately 80 miles of
36-inch
pipeline loop as a replacement for most of the capacity
previously served by 268 miles of
26-inch
pipeline in the Washington state area. The capacity replacement
as well as the abandonment of the old capacity was completed in
December 2006. In addition to the capacity replacement, five
existing compressor stations were modified, and we increased net
horsepower.
Outlook
for 2007
Leidy to
Long Island expansion project
In May 2006, we received FERC approval to expand Transcos
natural gas pipeline in the northeast United States. The
estimated cost of the project is approximately $141 million
with three-quarters of that spending expected to occur in 2007.
The expansion will provide 100 Mdt/d of incremental firm
capacity and is expected to be in service by November 2007.
Potomac
expansion project
In July 2006, we filed an application with the FERC to expand
Transcos existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region of
the United States by constructing 16.5 miles of
42-inch
pipeline. The project will provide 165 Mdt/d of incremental
firm capacity. The estimated cost of the project is
approximately $74 million, with an anticipated in-service
date of November 2007.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
1,347.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,412.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,362.3
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
$
|
467.4
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
Significant
2005 adjustments
Operating results for 2005 included:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments of $17.7 million reflected as a
$12.1 million reduction of costs and operating
expenses and a $5.6 million reduction of SG&A
expenses. These cost reductions were corrections of the
carrying value of certain liabilities that were recorded in
prior periods. Based on a review by management, these
liabilities were no longer required.
|
|
|
|
Pension expense reduction of $17.1 million in the second
quarter of 2005 to reflect the cumulative impact of a correction
of an error attributable to 2003 and 2004. The error was
associated with our third-party actuarial computation of annual
net periodic pension expense and resulted from the
identification of errors in certain Transco participant data
involving annuity contract information utilized for 2003 and
2004.
|
|
|
|
Adjustments of $37.3 million reflected as increases in
costs and operating expenses related to
$32.1 million of prior period accounting and valuation
corrections for certain inventory items and an accrual of
$5.2 million for contingent refund obligations.
|
Our management concluded that the effects of these adjustments
were not material to our consolidated results for 2005 or prior
periods, or to our trend of earnings.
2006 vs.
2005
Revenues decreased $65.1 million, or 5 percent,
due primarily to $75 million lower revenues associated with
exchange imbalance settlements (offset in costs and operating
expenses). Partially offsetting this decrease is a
$9 million increase in revenue due to an adjustment for the
recovery of state income tax rate changes (offset in
provision for income taxes).
53
Costs and operating expenses decreased $17 million,
or 2 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
A decrease in costs of $75 million associated with exchange
imbalance settlements (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
A decrease in costs of $37.3 million related to the absence
of $32.1 million of 2005 prior period accounting and
valuation corrections for certain inventory items and an accrual
of $5.2 million for contingent refund obligations.
|
Partially offsetting these decreases are:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in contract and outside service costs of
$23 million due primarily to higher pipeline assessment and
repair costs;
|
|
|
|
An increase in depreciation expense of $15 million due to
property additions;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expenses of
$15 million;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating taxes of $10 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $14.2 million of income in 2005 associated
with the resolution of litigation;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $12.1 million of expense reductions during
2005 related to the carrying value of certain liabilities.
|
SG&A expenses increased $77 million, or
92 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in personnel costs of $18 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of a 2005 $17.1 million reduction in pension
costs to correct an error in prior periods;
|
|
|
|
An increase in information systems support costs of
$16 million;
|
|
|
|
An increase in property insurance expenses of $14 million;
|
|
|
|
The absence of $5.6 million of cost reductions in 2005 that
related to correcting the carrying value of certain liabilities.
|
The $118.4 million, or 20 percent, decrease in
segment profit is due primarily to the absence of
significant 2005 adjustments as previously discussed, increases
in costs and operating expenses and SG&A expenses
as previously discussed, and the absence of a
$4.6 million construction completion fee recognized in 2005
related to our investment in Gulfstream.
2005 vs.
2004
The $50.5 million, or 4 percent, increase in Gas
Pipeline revenues is due primarily to $86 million
higher revenues associated with exchange imbalance cash-out
settlements (offset in costs and operating expenses).
Partially offsetting this increase is $24 million lower
transportation revenues due primarily to the termination of the
Grays Harbor contract, and $11 million lower revenues
associated with reimbursable costs, which are passed through to
customers (offset in costs and operating expenses and
SG&A expenses).
Costs and operating expenses increased $109 million,
or 16 percent, due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in costs of $86 million associated with
exchange imbalances (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $32.1 million due to prior period
accounting and valuation corrections related to inventory, as
previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expense of
$14 million due primarily to increased contract service
costs, materials and supplies and rental fees;
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $5.2 million due to an accrual for
contingent refund obligations, as previously discussed.
|
54
Partially offsetting these increases are decreases due to:
|
|
|
|
|
Income of $14.2 million associated with the resolution of
the litigation related to recovery of gas costs;
|
|
|
|
The cost reduction of $12.1 million due to adjusting the
carrying value of certain liabilities, as previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
Lower reimbursable costs of $5 million (offset in
revenues).
|
SG&A expenses decreased approximately
$38 million, or 31 percent, due to the
$17.1 million reduction in pension costs to correct a prior
period error, $6 million lower reimbursable costs (offset
in revenues), and the reversal of $5.6 million of
prior period accruals.
Comparative segment profit is unchanged from 2004. The
following are significant components of 2005 segment profit:
|
|
|
|
|
The reduction in pension costs of $17.1 million to correct
a prior period error, as previously discussed;
|
|
|
|
An increase in Gulfstream equity earnings of $14 million
due to the realization of a $4.6 million construction fee
award on the completion of the Phase II expansion project
coupled with increased revenues associated with the Gulfstream
expansions;
|
|
|
|
Income of $14.2 million from the reversal of the
contingency related to recovery of gas costs;
|
|
|
|
The $17.7 million reversal of prior period accruals;
|
|
|
|
The increase in costs of $32.1 million due to prior period
accounting and valuation corrections related to inventory;
|
|
|
|
An increase in operating and maintenance expense of
$14 million due primarily to increased contract service
costs, materials and supplies and rental fees;
|
|
|
|
A decrease in transportation revenue of $24 million due
primarily to the termination of the Grays Harbor contract.
|
Midstream
Gas & Liquids
Overview
of 2006
Midstreams ongoing strategy is to safely and reliably
operate large-scale midstream infrastructure where our assets
can be fully utilized and drive low
per-unit
costs. Our business is focused on consistently attracting new
business by providing highly reliable service to our customers.
Significant events during 2006 included the following:
Favorable
commodity price margins
The actual realized NGL per unit margins at our processing
plants exceeded Midstreams rolling five-year average for
the last four quarters. The geographic diversification of
Midstream assets contributed significantly to our actual
realized unit margins resulting in margins generally greater
than that of the industry benchmarks for gas processed in the
Henry Hub area and fractionated and sold at Mont Belvieu. The
largest impact was realized at our western United States gas
processing plants, which benefited from lower regional market
natural gas prices. During 2006, NGL production rebounded from
levels experienced in fourth-quarter 2005 in response to
improved gas processing spreads as crude prices, which correlate
to NGL prices, averaged $66 per barrel and natural gas
prices decreased.
55
Domestic
Gathering and Processing Per Unit NGL Margin with Production
and
Sales Volumes by Quarter
(excludes partially owned plants)
Expansion
efforts in growth areas
Consistent with our strategy, we continued to expand our
midstream operations where we have large-scale assets in growth
basins.
We continued construction at our existing gas processing plant
located near Opal, Wyoming, to add a fifth cryogenic train
capable of processing up to 350 MMcf/d, bringing total Opal
capacity to approximately 1,450 MMcf/d. This plant
expansion is being placed into service during the first quarter
of 2007 to begin processing gas from the Pinedale Anticline
field.
Also, we continued construction on a
37-mile
extension of our oil and gas pipelines from our Devils Tower
spar to the Blind Faith prospect located in Mississippi Canyon.
This extension, estimated to cost approximately
$200 million, is expected to be ready for service by the
second quarter of 2008.
In May 2006, we entered into an agreement to develop new
pipeline capacity for transporting natural gas liquids from
production areas in southwestern Wyoming to central Kansas. The
other party to the agreement reimbursed us for the development
costs we incurred to date for the proposed pipeline and
initially will own 99 percent of the pipeline, known as
Overland Pass Pipeline Company, LLC. We retained a
1 percent interest and have the option to increase our
ownership to 50 percent and become the operator within two
years of the pipeline becoming operational.
Start-up is
planned for early 2008. Additionally, we have agreed to dedicate
our equity NGL volumes from our two Wyoming plants for transport
under a long-term shipping agreement. The terms represent
significant savings compared with the existing tariff and other
alternatives considered.
Williams
Partners L.P. acquires Four Corners gathering and processing
business
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. closed a $150 million private debt offering
of senior unsecured notes due 2011 and an equity offering of
approximately $225 million in net proceeds. In December
2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired the remaining
74.9 percent interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$1.223 billion. The acquisition was completed after
Williams Partners L.P. closed a $600 million private debt
offering of senior unsecured notes due 2017, a private equity
offering of approximately $350 million of common and
Class B units, and a public equity offering of
approximately $294 million in net proceeds. Williams Four
Corners LLC owns certain gathering, processing and treating
assets in the San Juan basin in Colorado and New Mexico.
We currently own approximately 22.5 percent of Williams
Partners L.P., including the interests of the general partner,
which is wholly owned by us. Considering the presumption of
control of the general partner in accordance
56
with EITF Issue
No. 04-5,
Williams Partners L.P. is consolidated within the Midstream
segment. (See Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.) Midstreams segment profit includes
100 percent of Williams Partners L.P.s segment
profit, with the minority interests share deducted below
segment profit. The debt and equity issued by Williams Partners
L.P. is reported as a component of our consolidated debt balance
and minority interest balance, respectively.
Gulf
Coast operations return to normal after 2005s
hurricanes
In 2005, Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina and Rita caused temporary
shut-downs of most of our facilities and our producers
facilities in the Gulf Coast region, which reduced product flows
in the second half of 2005. Our major facilities resumed normal
operations shortly after the passage of each hurricane except
for our Devils Tower spar which returned to service in early
November 2005 and our Cameron Meadows gas processing plant which
returned to partial service in February 2006 and achieved full
service in January 2007. Generally, overall product flows
returned to pre-hurricane levels during the first quarter of
2006.
Gulf
Liquids litigation
We recorded pre-tax charges totalling $94.7 million
resulting from jury verdicts in civil litigation. (See
Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
These charges reflect our estimated exposure for actual damages
of $72.7 million, including estimated legal fees of
$4.7 million, and potential pre-judgment interest of
$22 million. Midstream Other segment profit reflects the
$72.7 million charge for the estimated actual damages and
legal fees. The matter is related to a contractual dispute
surrounding construction in 2000 and 2001 of certain refinery
off-gas processing facilities by Gulf Liquids. In addition, it
is reasonably possible that any ultimate judgment may include
additional amounts of $199 million in excess of our
accrual, which represents our estimate of potential punitive
damage exposure under Texas law. The jury verdicts are subject
to trial and appellate court review. Entry of a judgment in the
trial court is expected in the second or third quarter of 2007.
If the trial court enters a judgment consistent with the
jurys verdicts against us, we will seek a reversal through
appeal.
Outlook
for 2007
The following factors could impact our business in 2007 and
beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
As evidenced in recent years, natural gas and crude oil markets
are highly volatile. NGL margins earned at our gas processing
plants in the last four quarters were above our rolling
five-year average, due to global economics maintaining high
crude prices which correlate to strong NGL prices in
relationship to natural gas prices. Forecasted domestic demand
for ethylene and propylene, whose feedstock are ethane and
propane, along with political instability in many of the key oil
producing countries will continue to support unit margins in
2007 exceeding our rolling five-year average. We do not expect
to achieve the record levels we experienced in 2006.
|
|
|
|
Margins in our olefins unit are highly dependent upon continued
economic growth within the U.S. and any significant slow down in
the economy would reduce the demand for the petrochemical
products we produce in both Canada and the U.S. Based on
recent market price forecasts, we anticipate olefins unit
margins to be slightly lower than 2006 levels.
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing revenues at our facilities are expected
to be at or above levels of previous years due to continued
strong drilling activities in our core basins.
|
|
|
|
Revenues from deepwater production areas are often subject to
risks associated with the interruption and timing of product
flows which can be influenced by weather and other third-party
operational issues.
|
|
|
|
We will continue to invest in facilities in the growth basins in
which we provide services. We expect continued expansion of our
gathering and processing systems in our Gulf Coast and West
regions to keep pace with increased demand for our services.
|
|
|
|
We expect continued growth in the deepwater areas of the Gulf of
Mexico to contribute to, and become a larger component of, our
future segment revenues and segment profit. We expect these
additional fee-
|
57
|
|
|
|
|
based revenues to lower our proportionate exposure to commodity
price risks. We expect revenues from our deepwater production
areas to decrease as volumes decline in 2007 and increase in
2008 as the extension of our oil and gas pipelines from our
Devils Tower spar to the Blind Faith prospect is placed into
service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2007 we will begin construction on our Perdido Norte project
which includes oil and gas lines that expand the scale of our
existing infrastructure in the western deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico. Additionally, we will be expanding our Markham gas
processing facility to adequately serve this new gas production.
The project is estimated to cost approximately $480 million
and be in service in the third quarter of 2009.
|
|
|
|
We are currently negotiating with our customer in Venezuela to
resolve approximately $14 million in past due invoices
related to labor escalation charges. The customer is not
disputing the index used to calculate these charges and we have
calculated the charges according to the terms of the contract.
The customer does, however, believe the index has resulted in a
disproportionate escalation over time. We believe the
receivables, net of associated reserves, are fully collectible.
Although we believe our negotiations will be successful, failure
to resolve this matter could ultimately trigger default
noncompliance provisions in the services agreement.
|
|
|
|
The Venezuelan government continues its public criticism of
U.S. economic and political policy, has implemented
unilateral changes to existing energy related contracts,
continues to publicly declare that additional energy contracts
will be unilaterally amended, and that privately held assets
will be expropriated, indicating that a level of political risk
still remains.
|
Year-Over-Year
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
4,124.7
|
|
|
$
|
3,232.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,882.6
|
|
Segment profit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic gathering &
processing
|
|
|
626.8
|
|
|
|
379.7
|
|
|
|
385.8
|
|
Venezuela
|
|
|
98.4
|
|
|
|
94.7
|
|
|
|
85.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
|
|
134.0
|
|
Indirect general and
administrative
expense
|
|
|
(70.3
|
)
|
|
|
(65.5
|
)
|
|
|
(55.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
658.3
|
|
|
$
|
471.2
|
|
|
$
|
549.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to provide additional clarity, our managements
discussion and analysis of operating results separately reflects
the portion of general and administrative expense not allocated
to an asset group as indirect general and administrative
expense. These charges represent any overhead
cost not directly attributable to one of the specific asset
groups noted in this discussion.
2006 vs.
2005
The $892.0 million increase in segment revenues is
largely due to:
|
|
|
|
|
A $561 million increase in crude marketing revenues, which
is offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from
additional deepwater production coming on-line in November 2005;
|
|
|
|
A $165 million increase in revenues associated with the
production of NGLs, primarily due to higher NGL prices combined
with higher volumes;
|
|
|
|
A $137 million increase in the marketing of NGLs and
olefins, which is offset by a similar change in costs;
|
|
|
|
An $83 million increase in fee-based revenues including
$52 million in higher production handling revenues;
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
A $44 million increase in revenues in our olefins unit due
to higher volumes.
|
These increases were partially offset by an $84 million
reduction in NGL revenues due to a change in classification of
NGL transportation and fractionation expenses from costs of
goods sold to net revenues (offset in costs and operating
expenses).
Segment costs and expenses increased $707.3 million
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
|
|
A $561 million increase in crude marketing purchases, which
is offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
|
|
|
A $137 million increase in NGL and olefins marketing
purchases, offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
|
|
|
An $82 million increase in operating expenses including a
$10.6 million accounts payable accrual adjustment, higher
system losses, depreciation, insurance expense, personnel and
related benefit expenses, turbine overhauls, materials and
supplies, compression and post-hurricane inspection and survey
costs required by a government agency;
|
|
|
|
A $59 million increase in other expense including the
$68 million estimated exposure for actual damages for the
Gulf Liquids litigation, partially offset by a $9 million
favorable settlement of a contract dispute;
|
|
|
|
A $20 million increase in costs associated with production
in our olefins unit.
|
These increases were partially offset by:
|
|
|
|
|
An $84 million reduction in NGL transportation and
fractionation expenses due to the above-noted change in
classification (offset in revenues);
|
|
|
|
A $77 million decrease in plant fuel and costs associated
with the production of NGLs due primarily to lower gas prices.
|
The $187.1 million increase in Midstream segment profit
is primarily due to higher NGL margins, higher deepwater
production handling revenues, higher gathering and processing
revenues, higher margins from our olefins unit, and a settlement
of an international contract dispute, largely offset by the
$72.7 million charge related to the Gulf Liquids litigation
contingency combined with higher operating costs and lower
margins related to the marketing of olefins and NGLs. A more
detailed analysis of the segment profit of
Midstreams various operations is presented as follows.
Domestic
gathering & processing
The $247.1 million increase in domestic gathering and
processing segment profit includes a $143 million
increase in the West region and a $104 million increase in
the Gulf Coast region.
The $143 million increase in our West regions
segment profit primarily results from higher product
margins and higher gathering and processing revenues, partially
offset by higher operating expenses. The significant components
of this increase include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
NGL margins increased $166 million compared to 2005. This
increase was driven by a decrease in costs associated with the
production of NGLs, an increase in average per unit NGL prices
and higher volumes resulting from lower NGL recoveries during
the fourth quarter of 2005 caused by intermittent periods of
uneconomical market commodity prices and a power outage and
associated operational issues at our Opal, Wyoming facility. NGL
margins are defined as NGL revenues less BTU replacement cost,
plant fuel, transportation and fractionation expense.
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing fee revenues increased
$26 million. Gathering fees are higher as a result of
higher average
per-unit
gathering rates. Processing volumes are higher due to customers
electing to take liquids and pay processing fees.
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $51 million including
$11 million in higher net system product losses as a result
of system gains in 2005 compared to losses in 2006, a
$7 million accounts payable accrual adjustment;
$8 million in higher personnel and related benefit
expenses; $6 million in higher materials
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
and supplies; $6 million in higher gathering fuel,
$4 million in higher leased compression costs;
$4 million in higher turbine overhaul costs; and
$4 million in higher depreciation.
|
The $104 million increase in the Gulf Coast regions
segment profit is primarily a result of higher NGL
margins, higher volumes from our deepwater facilities, partially
offset by higher operating expenses. The significant components
of this increase include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
NGL margins increased $77 million compared to 2005. This
increase was driven by an increase in average per unit NGL
prices and a decrease in costs associated with the production of
NGLs.
|
|
|
|
Fee revenues from our deepwater assets increased
$52 million as a result of $51 million in higher
volumes flowing across the Devils Tower facility and
$22 million in higher Devils Tower
unit-of-production
rates recognized as a result of a new reserve study. These
increases are partially offset by a $21 million decline in
other gathering and production handling revenues due to volume
declines in other areas.
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $25 million primarily as a
result of $12 million in higher insurance costs,
$4 million in higher depreciation expense on our deepwater
assets, $3 million in higher net system product losses as a
result of lower gain volumes in 2006, $2 million in
post-hurricane inspection and survey costs required by a
government agency, and a $1 million accounts payable
accrual adjustment.
|
Venezuela
Segment profit for our Venezuela assets increased
$3.7 million and includes $9 million resulting from
the settlement of a contract dispute and $1 million in
higher revenues due to higher natural gas volumes and prices at
our compression facility. These are partially offset by
$4 million in higher expenses related to higher insurance,
personnel and contract labor costs and a $2 million
increase in the reserve for uncollectible accounts.
Other
The $58.9 million decrease in segment profit of our
other operations is largely due to the $72.7 million of
charges related to the Gulf Liquids litigation contingency
combined with $13 million in lower margins related to the
marketing of olefins. The decrease also reflects
$12 million in lower margins related to the marketing of
NGLs due to more favorable changes in pricing while product was
in transit during 2005 as compared to 2006. These were partially
offset by $24 million in higher margins in our olefins
unit, $7 million in higher earnings from our equity
investment in Discovery Producer Services, L.L.C. (Discovery),
$7 million in higher fractionation, storage and other fee
revenues, and a $4 million favorable transportation
settlement.
2005 vs.
2004
The $350.1 million increase in segment revenues is
largely due to:
|
|
|
|
|
A $196 million increase in crude marketing revenues, which
is offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from the start
up of a deepwater pipeline in the second quarter of 2004;
|
|
|
|
A $72 million increase in revenues associated with
production of NGLs, primarily due to $180 million in higher
NGL prices partially offset by $108 million in lower sales
volumes. The decline in sales volumes in our Gulf Coast region
is largely due to the impact of summer hurricanes, while the
decline in the West region is largely due to the higher levels
of NGL rejection as well as maintenance issues with our gas
processing facility at Opal, Wyoming;
|
|
|
|
A $58 million increase in the marketing of NGLs, which is
offset by a similar change in costs, resulting from higher
prices and additional spot sales;
|
|
|
|
A $21 million increase in fee-based revenues in part due to
higher customer production volumes flowing to our West region
and deepwater assets.
|
Costs and operating expenses increased
$364.1 million primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
|
|
A $196 million increase in crude marketing purchases, which
is offset by a similar change in revenues;
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
A $92 million increase in costs related to the production
of NGLs as a result of $100 million in higher natural gas
purchases due largely to higher prices, partially offset by
lower volumes;
|
|
|
|
A $58 million increase related to the marketing of NGLs and
additional spot purchases, which is offset by a similar change
in revenues;
|
|
|
|
A $33 million increase in operating expenses mostly due to
higher fuel expense and commodity costs associated with our NGL
storage and fractionation business and higher depreciation
expense.
|
The $78.5 million decline in Midstream segment profit
is primarily due to the absence of the $93.6 million
gain from the Gulf Liquids insurance arbitration award in
2004. The offsetting increase in segment profit is primarily due
to higher fee revenues from our domestic gathering and
processing and Venezuela businesses and higher earnings from our
investment in the Discovery partnership, partially offset by
lower NGL margins and higher operating costs. A more detailed
analysis of the segment profit of Midstreams various
operations is presented below.
Domestic
gathering & processing
The $6.1 million decrease in domestic gathering and
processing segment profit includes a $30 million
decline in the Gulf Coast region, largely offset by a
$24 million increase in the West region.
The $24 million increase in our West regions
segment profit primarily results from higher gathering
and processing fee revenues, and the absence of an asset
write-down and other 2004 charges, offset partially by higher
operating expenses and lower NGL margins. The significant
drivers to these items are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing fee revenues increased $18 million
primarily as a result of higher average
per-unit
gathering and processing rates and higher volumes in the Rocky
Mountain production area due to increased drilling activity. A
portion of this increase is also due to the increase in volumes
subject to fee-based processing contracts.
|
|
|
|
A favorable variance due to the absence of the write-down of
$7.6 million for an idle treating facility in 2004.
|
|
|
|
NGL margins decreased $6 million due to a $17 million
impact from lower sales volumes resulting from lower fourth
quarter 2005 NGL recoveries caused by intermittent periods of
uneconomical market commodity prices and a power outage and
associated operational issues at our Opal, Wyoming facility. NGL
margins are defined as NGL revenues less BTU replacement cost,
plant fuel, transportation and fractionation expense. The impact
of lower volumes is partially offset by an $11 million
impact of higher per unit NGL margins.
|
The $30 million decrease in the Gulf Coast regions
segment profit is primarily a result of higher operating
and depreciation expenses and lower NGL margins. The significant
components of this decline include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses increased $10 million primarily due to
higher maintenance expenses related to our gathering assets,
compressor overhauls, and an increase in hurricane-related costs
of $2 million. Inspection and repair expenses related to
the hurricanes were recorded as incurred up to the level of our
insurance deductible.
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense increased $13 million primarily due to
placing in service our Devils Tower spar and associated
deepwater gas and oil pipelines in May and June 2004,
respectively.
|
|
|
|
NGL margins declined $14 million due to lower volumes,
largely due to the impact of summer hurricanes, and the increase
in natural gas prices. While revenues from the Devils Tower
deepwater facility are recognized as volumes are delivered over
the life of the reserves, cash payments from our customers are
based on a contractual fixed fee received over a defined term.
As a result, $44 million of cash received in 2005, which is
included in cash flow from operations, was deferred at
December 31, 2005 and will be recognized as revenue in
periods subsequent to 2005. The total amount deferred for all
years as of December 31, 2005 was $80 million.
|
61
Venezuela
Segment profit for our Venezuela assets increased
$9.1 million as a result of higher plant volumes and higher
equity earnings from our investment in the ACCROVEN partnership.
The higher equity earnings are largely due to the renegotiation
of a power supply contract and the absence of 2004 legal fees
associated with the Jose Terminal.
Other
The $71.7 million decrease in segment profit of our
other operations is largely due to the absence of the
$93.6 million gain from the Gulf Liquids insurance
arbitration award and a $9.5 million gain on the sale of
the Choctaw ethylene distribution assets in 2004 partially
offset by $7 million in higher olefins and commodity
margins, $6 million in higher earnings from our equity
investment in the Discovery partnership, and the absence of a
2004 $16.9 million impairment charge also related to our
equity investment in the Discovery partnership.
Indirect
general and administrative expense
The $9.8 million unfavorable variance for our indirect
general and administrative expenses is primarily due to
higher employee expenses and administrative costs associated
with the creation of Williams Partners L.P.
Power
Overview
of 2006
Powers operating results for 2006 reflect an accrual gross
margin loss on its nonderivative tolling contracts. Powers
results in 2006 were also influenced by a decrease in forward
power prices against a net long derivative position, which
caused net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
(MTM) losses. Powers results do not reflect, however, cash
flows that Power realized in 2006 from hedges for which
mark-to-market
gains or losses had been previously recognized.
In 2006, Power continued to focus on its objectives of
minimizing financial risk, maximizing cash flow, meeting
contractual commitments, executing new contracts to hedge its
portfolio and providing services that support our natural gas
businesses.
Outlook
for 2007
For 2007, Power intends to service its customers needs
while increasing the certainty of cash flows from its long-term
tolling contracts by executing new long-term electricity and
capacity sales contracts. In the first quarter of 2007, Power
executed agreements to sell dispatch and tolling rights and
supply natural gas in southern California for periods through
2011. These contracts mirror Powers rights under its
California tolling agreement and represent up to
1,920 megawatts of power.
As Power continues to apply hedge accounting in 2007, its future
earnings may be less volatile. However, not all of Powers
derivative contracts qualify for hedge accounting. Application
of hedge accounting requires quantitative and qualitative
analysis. To qualify for hedge accounting, Power must assess
derivatives for their expected effectiveness in offsetting the
risk being hedged. In addition, it must assess whether the
hedged forecasted transaction is probable of occurring. If Power
no longer expects the hedge to be highly effective, or if it
believes that the hedged forecasted transaction is no longer
probable of occurring, it would discontinue hedge accounting
prospectively and recognize future changes in fair value
directly to earnings.
Because certain derivative contracts qualifying for hedge
accounting were previously
marked-to-market
through earnings prior to their designation as cash flow hedges,
the amounts recognized in future earnings under hedge accounting
will not necessarily align with the expected cash flows to be
realized from the settlement of those derivatives. For example,
future earnings may reflect losses from underlying transactions,
such as natural gas purchases and power sales associated with
our tolling contracts, which have been hedged by derivatives. A
portion of the offsetting gains from these hedges, however, has
already been recognized in prior periods under
mark-to-market
accounting. So, while earnings in a reported period may not
reflect the full amount realized from our hedges, cash flows
will continue to reflect the total amount from both the hedged
transactions and the
62
hedges. In 2006, 2005 and 2004 Power had positive cash flows
from operations, and expects to continue to have positive cash
flows from operations in 2007.
Even with the application of hedge accounting, Powers
earnings will continue to reflect
mark-to-market
volatility from unrealized gains and losses resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
Market movements of commodity-based derivatives that represent
economic hedges but which do not qualify for hedge accounting;
|
|
|
|
Ineffectiveness of cash flow hedges, primarily caused by
locational differences between the hedging derivative and the
hedged item or changes in the creditworthiness of counterparties;
|
|
|
|
Market movements of commodity-based derivatives that are held
for trading purposes.
|
The fair value of Powers tolling, full requirements,
transportation, storage and transmission contracts is not
reflected on the balance sheet since these contracts are not
derivatives. Some of these contracts have a significant negative
estimated fair value and could result in future operating
losses. Powers estimate of fair value may differ
significantly from a third partys estimate. Powers
estimate of fair value is based on internal valuation
assumptions, which include assumptions of natural gas prices,
electricity prices, price volatility, correlation of gas and
electricity, and many other inputs. Some of these assumptions
are readily available in the market, while others are not.
Key factors that may influence Powers financial condition
and operating performance include:
|
|
|
|
|
Prices of power and natural gas, including changes in the margin
between power and natural gas prices;
|
|
|
|
Changes in power and natural gas price volatility;
|
|
|
|
Changes in power and natural gas supply and demand;
|
|
|
|
Changes in the regulatory environment;
|
|
|
|
The inability of counterparties to perform under contractual
obligations due to their own credit constraints;
|
|
|
|
Changes in interest rates;
|
|
|
|
Changes in market liquidity, including changes in the ability to
effectively hedge commodity price risk;
|
|
|
|
The inability to apply hedge accounting.
|
Year-Over-Year
Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Realized revenues
|
|
$
|
7,484.6
|
|
|
$
|
8,921.8
|
|
|
$
|
8,954.7
|
|
Net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses)
|
|
|
(22.2
|
)
|
|
|
172.1
|
|
|
|
304.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
|
7,462.4
|
|
|
|
9,093.9
|
|
|
|
9,258.7
|
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
7,619.8
|
|
|
|
9,150.3
|
|
|
|
9,073.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
(157.4
|
)
|
|
|
(56.4
|
)
|
|
|
185.4
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
22.2
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expenses
|
|
|
62.2
|
|
|
|
64.5
|
|
|
|
83.2
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
(26.8
|
)
|
|
|
113.6
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
(210.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(256.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
2006 vs.
2005
The $1.4 billion decrease in realized revenues is
primarily due to a decrease in power and natural gas realized
revenues. Realized revenues represent (1) revenue from the
sale of commodities or completion of energy-related services and
(2) gains and losses from the net financial settlement of
derivative contracts.
Power and natural gas realized revenues decreased primarily due
to a 20 percent decrease in power sales volumes and a
17 percent decrease in average natural gas sales prices.
Power sales volumes decreased because certain long-term physical
contracts were not replaced due to reducing the scope of trading
activities subsequent to 2002.
Net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses) represent changes in the fair values of
certain derivative contracts with a future settlement or
delivery date that have not been designated as cash flow hedges
and the impact of the ineffectiveness of cash flow hedges. The
effect of changes in forward prices on power contracts not
designated as cash flow hedges primarily caused the
$194.3 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses). A 2005 increase in forward power prices
caused gains on the net forward purchase position, while a 2006
decrease in forward power prices caused losses on the net
forward power purchase contracts.
The $1.5 billion decrease in Powers cost of sales
is primarily due to a 20 percent decrease in power
purchase volumes and an 18 percent decrease in average
natural gas purchase prices.
The decrease in selling, general and administrative expenses
is due primarily to increased gains from the sale of certain
Enron receivables to a third party. Power recognized a
$24.8 million gain in 2006 compared to a $9.7 million
gain in 2005.
Other (income) expense net in 2006 includes a
$12.7 million reduction of contingent obligations
associated with our former distributive power generation
business.
Other (income) expense net in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $82.2 million accrual for estimated litigation
contingencies, primarily associated with agreements reached to
substantially resolve exposure related to natural gas price and
volume reporting issues (see Note 15 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements);
|
|
|
|
A $4.6 million accrual for a regulatory settlement;
|
|
|
|
A $23 million impairment of an equity investment (see
Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements).
|
The decrease in segment loss is primarily due to
favorable changes in other (income) expense net
described above, partially offset by a decrease in gross
margin.
2005 vs.
2004
The $164.8 million decrease in revenues includes a
$32.9 million decrease in realized revenues and a
$131.9 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to -market gains (losses).
The $32.9 million decrease in realized revenues is
primarily due to the absence in 2005 of $471 million in
crude and refined products realized revenues, partially offset
by a $444 million increase in power and natural gas
realized revenues. The absence of crude and refined products
revenues is due to the sale of the refined products business in
2004. Power and natural gas realized revenues increased
primarily due to a 33 percent increase in average natural
gas sales prices and a 17 percent increase in average power
sales prices. Hurricane Katrina, among other factors,
contributed to the increase in prices. A 29 percent
decrease in power sales volumes partially offsets the increase
in prices. Power sales volumes decreased because Power did not
replace certain long-term physical contracts that expired or
were terminated and because of mild weather in California, which
resulted in lower demand.
The $131.9 million decrease in net forward unrealized
mark-to-market
gains (losses) is primarily due to a $165 million
decrease associated with power and gas derivative contracts,
partially offset by the absence in 2005 of a $38 million
unrealized loss on the interest rate portfolio in 2004.
64
The decrease in power and gas unrealized
mark-to-market
gains primarily results from the impact of cash flow hedge
accounting, which was prospectively applied to certain of
Powers derivative contracts beginning October 1,
2004. Net unrealized gains of $711 million related to the
effective portion of the hedges are reported in accumulated
other comprehensive loss in 2005 compared to
$15 million in 2004. If Power had not applied cash flow
hedge accounting in 2005, we would have reported the
$711 million in revenues instead of in
accumulated other comprehensive loss. Also in 2005, Power
recognized losses of $6.8 million representing a correction
of unrealized losses associated with a prior year. Our
management concluded that the effects of this correction are not
material to prior periods, 2005 results, or our trend of
earnings. Partially offsetting these decreases is the effect of
a greater increase in forward power prices on a greater volume
of power purchase contracts in 2005 compared to 2004, resulting
in increased unrealized
mark-to-market
gains on net power derivatives that are not accounted for as
cash flow hedges.
The absence in 2005 of the unrealized loss on the interest rate
portfolio is due to the termination and liquidation of all
remaining interest-rate derivatives in fourth quarter 2004. A
decrease in forward interest rates caused unrealized losses in
the interest rate portfolio in 2004.
The $77 million increase in Powers cost of sales
is primarily due to an increase in power and natural gas
costs of $563 million, partially offset by a decrease in
crude and refined products costs of $486 million. Power and
natural gas costs increased primarily due to a 32 percent
increase in average power purchase prices and a 44 percent
increase in average natural gas purchase prices, partially
offset by a 29 percent decrease in power purchase volumes.
Hurricane Katrina, among other factors, contributed to the
increase in prices. Costs in 2005 include approximately
$8 million in purchases due to an outage at an electric
generating facility that Power has access to via a fuel
conversion service agreement. A 2004 reduction to certain
contingent loss accruals of $10.4 million associated with
power marketing activities in California during 2000 and 2001
also contributes to the increase in costs. Costs in 2004 include
$486 million of crude and refined products costs, which are
absent in 2005 due to the sale of the refined products business
in 2004. Costs in 2004 also reflect a $13 million payment
made to terminate a nonderivative power sales contract.
Selling, general and administrative expenses decreased
primarily due to decreased employee incentive compensation and
decreased costs for outside services. A $9.7 million
reduction of allowance for bad debts resulting from the sale of
certain receivables to a third party also contributed to the
decrease in SG&A expenses. SG&A
expenses in 2004 include a $6.3 million reduction of
allowance for bad debts resulting from a 2004 settlement with
certain California utilities.
Other (income) expense net in 2004 includes
$6.1 million in fees paid related to the sale of certain
receivables to a third party.
Although increased gas prices favorably impacted the fair value
of Powers derivative natural gas hedges, the
$333.4 million change from a segment profit to a
segment loss is primarily due to the impact of cash flow
hedge accounting. Additionally, plant outages and depressed
margin spreads between the cost of gas and sales price of
electricity contributed to lower segment profit. Accruals
in 2005 for litigation contingencies and an impairment of an
equity investment also contributed to the change in segment
profit (loss). Partially offsetting the decrease in
segment profit is the absence in 2005 of unrealized and
realized losses from the interest rate portfolio, which was
liquidated in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Other
Overview
of 2006
While we continue to have an equity ownership interest in
Longhorn, the management of Longhorn completed an asset sale of
the pipeline during the third quarter of 2006. As a result, we
received full payment of the $10 million secured bridge
loan that we provided Longhorn during 2005. The carrying value
of our equity investment in Longhorn is zero as of
December 31, 2006.
We continue to receive payments associated with the 2005
transfer of the Longhorn operating agreement to a third party.
These payments totaled approximately $3.3 million for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Any ongoing
65
payments received or through monetization of the contract will
be recognized as income when received. These ongoing payments
were not impacted by the sale of the pipeline.
Year-Over-Year
Operating Results
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Segment revenues
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
27.2
|
|
|
$
|
32.8
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
(105.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(41.6
|
)
|
2006 vs.
2005
Other segment profit for 2006 includes $3.3 million
in payments received related to the 2005 transfer of the
Longhorn operating agreement.
Other segment loss for 2005 includes $87.2 million
of impairment charges, of which $38.1 million was recorded
during the fourth quarter, related to our investment in
Longhorn. In a related matter, we wrote off $4 million of
capitalized project costs associated with Longhorn. We also
recorded $23.7 million of equity losses associated with our
investment in Longhorn. Partially offsetting these charges and
losses was a $9 million fourth quarter gain on the sale of
land.
2005 vs.
2004
Other segment loss for 2005 includes various items which
are discussed above.
Other segment loss for 2004 includes $11.8 million
of accrued environmental remediation expense associated with the
Augusta refinery. Also included in Other segment loss is
$10.8 million of impairment charges related to our
investment in Longhorn, $9.8 million of equity losses
associated with our investment in Longhorn, and
$6.5 million of net unreimbursed advisory fees related to
the recapitalization of Longhorn.
Energy
Trading Activities
Fair
Value of Trading and Nontrading Derivatives
The chart below reflects the fair value of derivatives held for
trading purposes as of December 31, 2006. We have presented
the fair value of assets and liabilities by the period in which
we expect them to be realized.
Net
Assets (Liabilities) Trading
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
|
|
1-12 Months
|
|
13-36 Months
|
|
|
37-60 Months
|
|
|
61-120 Months
|
|
|
121+ Months
|
|
|
Net
|
|
(Year 1)
|
|
(Years 2-3)
|
|
|
(Years 4-5)
|
|
|
(Years 6-10)
|
|
|
(Years 11+)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$3
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
As the table above illustrates, we are not materially engaged in
trading activities. However, we hold a substantial portfolio of
nontrading derivative contracts. Nontrading derivative contracts
are those that hedge or could possibly hedge forecasted
transactions on an economic basis. We have designated certain of
these contracts as cash flow hedges of Powers forecasted
purchases of gas, its purchases and sales of power related to
its long-term structured contracts and owned generation, and
Exploration & Productions forecasted sales of
natural gas production. Certain of Powers other
derivatives have not been designated as or do not qualify as
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities
(SFAS 133) cash flow hedges. The chart below reflects
the fair value of derivatives held for nontrading purposes as of
December 31, 2006, for the Power and Exploration &
Production businesses. Of the total fair value of nontrading
derivatives, SFAS 133 cash flow hedges had a net asset
value of $360 million as of December 31, 2006, which
includes the existing fair value of the derivatives at the time
of their designation as SFAS 133 cash flow hedges.
66
Net
Assets (Liabilities) Nontrading
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
To be
|
|
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
Realized in
|
|
|
|
|
1-12 Months
|
|
13-36 Months
|
|
|
37-60 Months
|
|
|
61-120 Months
|
|
|
121+ Months
|
|
|
Net
|
|
(Year 1)
|
|
(Years 2-3)
|
|
|
(Years 4-5)
|
|
|
(Years 6-10)
|
|
|
(Years 11+)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
$94
|
|
$
|
227
|
|
|
$
|
88
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
433
|
|
Methods
of Estimating Fair Value
Most of the derivatives we hold settle in active periods and
markets in which quoted market prices are available. These
include futures contracts, option contracts, swap agreements and
physical commodity purchases and sales in the commodity markets
in which we transact. While an active market may not exist for
the entire period, quoted prices can generally be obtained for
natural gas through 2012 and power through 2011.
These prices reflect current economic and regulatory conditions
and may change because of market conditions. The availability of
quoted market prices in active markets varies between periods
and commodities based upon changes in market conditions. The
ability to obtain quoted market prices also varies greatly from
region to region. The time periods noted above are an estimation
of aggregate availability of quoted prices. An immaterial
portion of our total net derivative value of $436 million
relates to periods in which active quotes cannot be obtained. We
estimate energy commodity prices in these illiquid periods by
incorporating information about commodity prices in actively
quoted markets, quoted prices in less active markets, and other
market fundamental analysis. Modeling and other valuation
techniques, however, are not used significantly in determining
the fair value of our derivatives.
Counterparty
Credit Considerations
We include an assessment of the risk of counterparty
nonperformance in our estimate of fair value for all contracts.
Such assessment considers (1) the credit rating of each
counterparty as represented by public rating agencies such as
Standard & Poors and Moodys Investors
Service, (2) the inherent default probabilities within
these ratings, (3) the regulatory environment that the
contract is subject to and (4) the terms of each individual
contract.
Risks surrounding counterparty performance and credit could
ultimately impact the amount and timing of expected cash flows.
We continually assess this risk. We have credit protection
within various agreements to call on additional collateral
support if necessary. At December 31, 2006, we held
collateral support, including letters of credit, of
$695 million.
We also enter into master netting agreements to mitigate
counterparty performance and credit risk. During 2006 and 2005,
we did not incur any significant losses due to recent
counterparty bankruptcy filings.
The gross credit exposure from our derivative contracts as of
December 31, 2006, is summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
248.0
|
|
|
$
|
249.9
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
412.7
|
|
|
|
1,784.3
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
29.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,903.4
|
|
|
|
4,283.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,263.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
We assess our credit exposure on a net basis to reflect master
netting agreements in place with certain counterparties. We
offset our credit exposure to each counterparty with amounts we
owe the counterparty under derivative contracts. The net credit
exposure from our derivatives as of December 31, 2006, is
summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
120.4
|
|
|
$
|
120.5
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
209.0
|
|
|
|
455.4
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
675.3
|
|
|
|
921.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
901.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
We determine investment grade primarily using publicly available
credit ratings. We included counterparties with a minimum
Standard & Poors rating of BBB- or Moodys
Investors Service rating of Baa3 in investment grade. We also
classify counterparties that have provided sufficient
collateral, such as cash, standby letters of credit, adequate
parent company guarantees, and property interests, as investment
grade. |
Trading
Policy
We have policies and procedures that govern our trading and risk
management activities. These policies cover authority and
delegation thereof in addition to control requirements,
authorized commodities and term and exposure limitations.
Powers
value-at-risk
is limited in aggregate and calculated at a 95 percent
confidence level.
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
Outlook
We believe we have, or have access to, the financial resources
and liquidity necessary to meet future requirements for working
capital, capital and investment expenditures and debt payments
while maintaining a sufficient level of liquidity to reasonably
protect against unforeseen circumstances requiring the use of
funds. In 2007, we expect to maintain liquidity from cash and
cash equivalents and unused revolving credit facilities of at
least $1 billion. We maintain adequate liquidity to manage
margin requirements related to significant movements in
commodity prices, unplanned capital spending needs, near term
scheduled debt payments, and litigation and other settlements.
We expect to fund capital and investment expenditures, debt
payments, dividends, and working capital requirements through
cash flow from operations, which is currently estimated to be
between $2 billion and $2.3 billion in 2007, proceeds
from debt issuances and sales of units of Williams Partners
L.P., as well as cash and cash equivalents on hand as needed.
We enter 2007 positioned for growth through disciplined
investments in our natural gas businesses. Examples of this
planned growth include:
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production will continue to maintain its
development drilling program in its key basins of Piceance,
Powder River, San Juan, Arkoma, and Fort Worth. During
2006, all ten
state-of-the-art
FlexRig4®
drilling rigs were placed in service in the Piceance basin
pursuant to our March 2005 contract with Helmerich &
Payne. Each rig is leased for three years.
|
|
|
|
Gas Pipeline will continue to expand its system to meet the
demand of growth markets.
|
|
|
|
Midstream will continue to pursue significant deepwater
production commitments and expand capacity in the western United
States.
|
We estimate capital and investment expenditures will total
approximately $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion in 2007. As
a result of increasing our development drilling program,
$1.3 billion to $1.4 billion of the total estimated
2007
68
capital expenditures is related to Exploration &
Production. Also within the total estimated expenditures for
2007 is approximately $215 million to $270 million for
maintenance-related projects at Gas Pipeline, including pipeline
replacement and Clean Air Act compliance. Commitments for
construction and acquisition of property, plant and equipment
are approximately $406 million at December 31, 2006.
Potential risks associated with our planned levels of liquidity
and the planned capital and investment expenditures discussed
above include:
|
|
|
|
|
Lower than expected levels of cash flow from operations due to
commodity pricing volatility. To mitigate this exposure,
Exploration & Production has economically hedged the
price of natural gas for approximately 172 MMcfe per day of
its expected 2007 production. In addition, Exploration &
Production has collar agreements for each month of 2007 which
hedge approximately 270 MMcfe per day of expected 2007
production. Power has entered into various sales contracts that
economically cover substantially all of its fixed demand
obligations through 2010.
|
|
|
|
Sensitivity of margin requirements associated with our
marginable commodity contracts. As of December 31, 2006, we
estimate our exposure to additional margin requirements through
2007 to be no more than $521 million, using a statistical
analysis at a 99 percent confidence level.
|
|
|
|
Exposure associated with our efforts to resolve regulatory and
litigation issues (see Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements).
|
In August 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 was signed
into law. The Act makes significant changes to the requirements
for employer-sponsored retirement plans, including revisions
affecting the funding of defined benefit pension plans beginning
in 2008. We are assessing the impact of the legislation on our
future funding requirements, but do not expect a significant
increase in required contributions over current levels, assuming
long-term rates of return on assets and current discount rates
do not experience a significant decline.
Overview
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to induce conversion of
up to $300 million of the 5.5 percent junior
subordinated convertible debentures into our common stock. The
conversion was executed in January 2006 and approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures were exchanged for common
stock. We paid $25.8 million in premiums that are included
in early debt retirement costs in the Consolidated
Statement of Income. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements for further information.
In April 2006, Transco issued $200 million aggregate
principal amount of 6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due
2016 to certain institutional investors in a private debt
placement to fund general corporate expenses and capital
expenditures. In October 2006, Transco completed an exchange of
these notes for substantially identical new notes that are
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In May 2006, we replaced our $1.275 billion secured
revolving credit facility with a $1.5 billion unsecured
revolving credit facility. The new facility contains similar
terms and financial covenants as the secured facility, but
contains certain additional restrictions. (See Note 11 of
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline issued $175 million
aggregate principal amount of 7 percent senior unsecured
notes due 2016 to certain institutional investors in a private
debt placement to fund general corporate expenses and capital
expenditures. In October 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed an
exchange of these notes for substantially identical new notes
that are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, we reached an
agreement-in-principle
to settle
class-action
securities litigation filed on behalf of purchasers of our
securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002,
for a total payment of $290 million to plaintiffs. On
February 9, 2007, the court gave its final approval of the
settlement. We recorded a pre-tax charge for approximately
$161 million in second quarter 2006. Our portion of the
total payment was $145 million.
69
On June 1, 2006, the FERC entered its final order (FERC
Final Order) concerning the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
Quality Bank litigation. The Quality Bank Administrator will
determine and invoice for amounts due based on the FERC Final
Order, subject to the final disposition of the FERC Final Order
appeals. We estimate that our net obligation could be as much as
$116 million. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of 7.5 percent senior unsecured notes due
2011 and an equity offering of approximately $225 million
in net proceeds. In December 2006, Williams Partners L.P.
acquired the remaining 74.9 percent interest in Williams
Four Corners LLC for $1.223 billion. The acquisition was
completed after Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a
$600 million private debt offering of 7.25 percent
senior unsecured notes due 2017, a private equity offering of
approximately $350 million of common and Class B
units, and a public equity offering of approximately
$294 million in net proceeds. The debt and equity issued by
Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a component of our
consolidated debt balance and minority interest balance,
respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain gathering,
processing and treating assets in the San Juan Basin in
Colorado and New Mexico.
Exploration & Production has recently entered into a
five-year unsecured credit agreement with certain banks in order
to reduce margin requirements related to our hedging activities
as well as lower transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any,
under this new facility are dependent on the level of hedging
and on natural gas reserves value.
Credit
ratings
On May 4, 2006, Standard & Poors raised our
senior unsecured debt rating from a B+ to a BB- with a positive
ratings outlook. With respect to Standard &
Poors, a rating of BBB or above indicates an
investment grade rating. A rating below BBB
indicates that the security has significant speculative
characteristics. A BB rating indicates that
Standard & Poors believes the issuer has the
capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation, but
adverse business conditions could lead to insufficient ability
to meet financial commitments. Standard & Poors
may modify its ratings with a + or a
sign to show the obligors relative
standing within a major rating category.
On June 7, 2006, Moodys Investors Service raised our
senior unsecured debt rating from a B1 to a Ba2 with a stable
ratings outlook. With respect to Moodys, a rating of
Baa or above indicates an investment grade rating. A
rating below Baa is considered to have speculative
elements. A Ba rating indicates an obligation that
is judged to have speculative elements and is subject to
substantial credit risk. The 1, 2 and
3 modifiers show the relative standing within a
major category. A 1 indicates that an obligation
ranks in the higher end of the broad rating category,
2 indicates a mid-range ranking, and 3
ranking at the lower end of the category.
On May 15, 2006, Fitch Ratings raised our senior unsecured
rating from BB to BB+ with a stable ratings outlook. With
respect to Fitch, a rating of BBB or above indicates
an investment grade rating. A rating below BBB is
considered speculative grade. A BB rating from Fitch
indicates that there is a possibility of credit risk developing,
particularly as the result of adverse economic change over time;
however, business or financial alternatives may be available to
allow financial commitments to be met. Fitch may add a
+ or a sign to show the
obligors relative standing within a major rating category.
Our goal is to attain investment grade ratios at some point in
the future.
Liquidity
Our internal and external sources of liquidity include cash
generated from our operations, bank financings, and proceeds
from the issuance of long-term debt and equity securities, and
proceeds from asset sales. While most of our sources are
available to us at the parent level, others are available to
certain of our subsidiaries, including equity and debt issuances
from Williams Partners L.P. Our ability to raise funds in the
capital markets will be impacted by our financial condition,
interest rates, market conditions, and industry conditions.
70
Available
Liquidity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents*
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
Auction rate securities and other
liquid securities
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
Available capacity under our four
unsecured revolving and letter of credit facilities totaling
$1.2 billion
|
|
|
304.9
|
|
Available capacity under our
$1.5 billion unsecured revolving and letter of credit
facility**
|
|
|
1,471.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,147.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Cash and cash equivalents includes $128.7 million of
funds received from third parties as collateral. The obligation
for these amounts is reported as customer margin deposits
payable on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Also included is
$347 million of cash and cash equivalents that is being
utilized by certain subsidiary and international operations. |
|
** |
|
This facility is guaranteed by Williams Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. Northwest Pipeline and Transco each have access to
$400 million under this facility to the extent not utilized
by us. Williams Partners L.P. has access to $75 million, to
the extent not utilized by us, that we guarantee. |
In addition to the above, Northwest Pipeline and Transco have
shelf registration statements available for the issuance of up
to $350 million aggregate principal amount of debt
securities. The ability of Northwest Pipeline to utilize their
registration statement to issue debt securities is restricted by
certain covenants of its debt agreements. If the credit rating
of Northwest Pipeline or Transco is below investment grade, they
can only use their shelf registration statements to issue debt
if such debt is guaranteed by us.
Williams Partners L.P. has a shelf registration statement
available for the issuance of approximately $1.2 billion
aggregate principal amount of debt and limited partnership unit
securities.
In addition, at the parent-company level, we have a shelf
registration statement that allows us to issue publicly
registered debt and equity securities as needed. This
registration statement, filed May 19, 2006, replaces our
previously filed shelf registration.
Sources
(Uses) of Cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
1,889.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,449.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,487.9
|
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
1,103.2
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
(3,505.5
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(2,321.4
|
)
|
|
|
(819.2
|
)
|
|
|
629.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
671.4
|
|
|
$
|
667.2
|
|
|
$
|
(1,388.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating
Activities
Our net cash provided by operating activities in 2006
increased from 2005 due largely to higher operating income at
Midstream, partially offset by a $145 million securities
litigation settlement payment in fourth quarter 2006.
Our 2005 net cash provided by operating activities
decreased slightly from 2004. A primary driver in net
cash provided by operating activities is income from
continuing operations, which increased primarily as a result
of higher gas production volumes and net average realized prices
for production sold. Also contributing to the increase in income
from continuing operations is the reduction in interest expense
due to lower average borrowing levels.
71
Cash payments for interest decreased $224 million from
2004. In addition to the changes in results of operations, net
cash inflows from margin deposits and customer margin deposits
payable decreased significantly from 2004. In 2004, our Power
subsidiary issued a significant number of letters of credit to
replace its cash margin deposits. As the letters of credit were
issued, the counterparties returned our cash margin deposits to
us. Due to fewer letters of credit being issued to replace cash
margin deposits in 2005, we have fewer receipts of margin
deposits than in 2004.
Other, including changes in noncurrent assets and
liabilities, includes contributions to our tax-qualified
pension plans of $42.1 million in 2006, $52.1 million
in 2005 and $136.8 million in 2004. It is our policy to
make annual contributions to our tax-qualified pension plans in
an amount at least equal to the greater of the actuarially
computed annual normal cost plus any unfunded actuarial accrued
liability, amortized over approximately five years, or the
minimum required contribution under existing laws. Additional
amounts may be contributed to increase the funded status of the
plans. In an effort to strengthen our funded status and take
advantage of strong cash flows, we contributed approximately
$26.5 million, $41.1 million and $98.9 million
more than our funding policy required in 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
Financing
Activities
During the first quarter of 2006, we paid $25.8 million in
premiums for early debt retirement costs relating to the debt
conversion previously discussed.
See Overview, within this section, for a discussion of 2006 debt
issuances, debt retirement, and additional financing by Williams
Partners L.P.
During January 2005, we retired $200 million of
6.125 percent notes issued by Transco, which matured
January 15, 2005. In the first quarter of 2005, we received
approximately $273 million in proceeds from the issuance
of common stock purchased under the FELINE PACS equity
forward contracts. During August 2005, we completed an initial
public offering of approximately 40 percent of our interest
in Williams Partners L.P. resulting in net proceeds of
$111 million.
During 2004, we repaid long-term debt through tender offers and
early retirements. We also reduced our debt through our FELINE
PACS exchange. This noncash exchange resulted in payments of
fees and expenses reported as premiums paid on tender offer,
early debt retirements and FELINE PACS exchange.
Quarterly dividends paid on common stock increased from 7.5
cents to 9 cents per common share during the second quarter of
2006 and totaled $206.6 million for year ended
December 31, 2006. For the fourth quarter of 2005,
dividends paid on common stock were 7.5 cents per share and
totaled $143 million for the year ended December 31,
2005.
Investing
Activities
During 2006, capital expenditures totaled $2,509.2 million
and were primarily related to Exploration &
Productions increased drilling activity, mostly in the
Piceance basin, and Northwest Pipelines capacity
replacement project.
During 2006, we purchased $386.3 million and received
$414.1 million from the sale of auction rate securities.
These instruments are utilized as a component of our overall
cash management program.
In January 2005, Northwest Pipeline received an
$87.9 million contract termination payment, representing
reimbursement of the net book value of the related assets.
In January 2005, we received approximately $54.7 million
proceeds from the sale of our note with Williams Communications
Group, our previously owned subsidiary (WilTel).
During 2005, we received $310.5 million in proceeds from
the Gulfstream recapitalization.
In 2004, we sold all of our restricted investments resulting in
proceeds of $851.4 million. When our $800 million
revolving and letter of credit facility that required
105 percent cash collateral was replaced with a new
revolving credit facility in January 2005, we were no longer
required to hold the restricted investments.
72
In 2004, we had numerous asset sales resulting in proceeds in
2004 of $877.8 million.
Off-balance
sheet financing arrangements and guarantees of debt or other
commitments
In January 2005, we terminated our two unsecured revolving and
letter of credit facilities totaling $500 million and
replaced them with two new facilities that contain similar terms
but fewer restrictions. In September 2005, we also entered into
two new revolving and letter of credit facilities that have a
similar structure. (See Note 11 of Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements.)
We have provided a guarantee for obligations of Williams
Partners L.P. under the $1.5 billion unsecured revolving
and letter of credit facility.
We have various other guarantees and commitments which are
disclosed in Notes 3, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements. We do not believe these
guarantees or the possible fulfillment of them will prevent us
from meeting our liquidity needs.
Contractual
Obligations
The table below summarizes the maturity dates of our contractual
obligations by period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-
|
|
|
2010-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
$
|
391
|
|
|
$
|
291
|
|
|
$
|
1,385
|
|
|
$
|
5,974
|
|
|
$
|
8,041
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
606
|
|
|
|
1,147
|
|
|
|
1,083
|
|
|
|
5,713
|
|
|
|
8,549
|
|
Capital leases
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Operating leases(1)
|
|
|
227
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
1,121
|
|
|
|
2,147
|
|
Purchase obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel conversion and other service
contracts(2)(5)
|
|
|
249
|
|
|
|
505
|
|
|
|
495
|
|
|
|
2,377
|
|
|
|
3,626
|
|
Other(5)(6)
|
|
|
877
|
|
|
|
1,134
|
|
|
|
1,144
|
|
|
|
2,943
|
(4)
|
|
|
6,098
|
|
Other long-term liabilities,
including current portion:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical and financial
derivatives(3)(5)
|
|
|
628
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
204
|
|
|
|
304
|
|
|
|
1,528
|
|
Other(7)
|
|
|
72
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
3,052
|
|
|
$
|
3,936
|
|
|
$
|
4,693
|
|
|
$
|
18,432
|
|
|
$
|
30,113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes sublease income of $1.2 billion consisting of
$331 million in 2007, $564 million in
2008-2009,
and $258 million in
2010-2011.
Includes a Power tolling agreement that is accounted for as an
operating lease. |
|
(2) |
|
Power has entered into certain contracts giving us the right to
receive fuel conversion services as well as certain other
services associated with electric generation facilities that are
currently in operation throughout the continental United States.
Certain of Powers tolling agreements could be considered
leases pursuant to the guidance in EITF Issue
01-8,
Determining Whether an Arrangement Contains a Lease,
if in the future the agreements are modified for any reason. If
deemed to be a capital lease, the net present value of the fixed
demand payments would be reported on the Consolidated Balance
Sheet consistent with other capital lease obligations, and as an
asset in property, plant and equipment net.
See Note 1 of Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements for further information. |
|
(3) |
|
The obligations for physical and financial derivatives are based
on market information as of December 31, 2006. Because
market information changes daily and has the potential to be
volatile, significant changes to the values in this category may
occur. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes one year of annual payments totaling $2 million
for contracts with indefinite termination dates. |
73
|
|
|
(5) |
|
Expected offsetting cash inflows of $7.2 billion at
December 31, 2006, resulting from product sales or net
positive settlements, are not reflected in these amounts. In
addition, product sales may require additional purchase
obligations to fulfill sales obligations that are not reflected
in these amounts. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes $4.5 billion of natural gas purchase obligations
at market prices at our Exploration & Production
segment. The purchased natural gas can be sold at market prices. |
|
(7) |
|
Does not include estimated contributions to our pension and
other postretirement benefit plans. We made contributions to our
pension and other postretirement benefit plans of
$58 million in 2006 and $73 million in 2005. In 2007,
we expect to contribute approximately $57 million to these
plans (see Note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements), including $40 million to our tax-qualified
pension plans. There were no minimum funding requirements to our
tax-qualified pension plans in 2006 or 2005, and we do not
expect any minimum funding requirements in 2007. We anticipate
that future contributions will not vary significantly from
recent historical contributions, assuming actual results do not
differ significantly from estimated results for assumptions such
as discount rates, returns on plan assets, retirement rates,
mortality and other significant assumptions, and assuming no
further changes in current and prospective legislation and
regulations. Based on these anticipated levels of future
contributions, we do not expect to trigger any minimum funding
requirements in the future. |
Effects
of Inflation
Our operations in recent years have benefited from relatively
low inflation rates. Approximately 46 percent of our gross
property, plant and equipment is at Gas Pipeline and the
remainder is at other operating units. Gas Pipeline is subject
to regulation, which limits recovery to historical cost. While
amounts in excess of historical cost are not recoverable under
current FERC practices, we anticipate being allowed to recover
and earn a return based on increased actual cost incurred to
replace existing assets. Cost-based regulation, along with
competition and other market factors, may limit our ability to
recover such increased costs. For the other operating units,
operating costs are influenced to a greater extent by both
competition for specialized services and specific price changes
in oil and natural gas and related commodities than by changes
in general inflation. Crude, refined product, natural gas,
natural gas liquids and power prices are particularly sensitive
to OPEC production levels
and/or the
market perceptions concerning the supply and demand balance in
the near future. However, our exposure to these price changes is
reduced through the use of hedging instruments.
Environmental
We are a participant in certain environmental activities in
various stages including assessment studies, cleanup operations
and/or
remedial processes at certain sites, some of which we currently
do not own. (See Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements.) We are monitoring these sites in a coordinated
effort with other potentially responsible parties, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or other
governmental authorities. We are jointly and severally liable
along with unrelated third parties in some of these activities
and solely responsible in others. Current estimates of the most
likely costs of such activities are approximately
$52 million, all of which are recorded as liabilities on
our balance sheet at December 31, 2006. We will seek
recovery of approximately $11 million of the accrued costs
through future natural gas transmission rates. The remainder of
these costs will be funded from operations. During 2006, we paid
approximately $12 million for cleanup
and/or
remediation and monitoring activities. We expect to pay
approximately $17 million in 2007 for these activities.
Estimates of the most likely costs of cleanup are generally
based on completed assessment studies, preliminary results of
studies or our experience with other similar cleanup operations.
At December 31, 2006, certain assessment studies were still
in process for which the ultimate outcome may yield
significantly different estimates of most likely costs.
Therefore, the actual costs incurred will depend on the final
amount, type and extent of contamination discovered at these
sites, the final cleanup standards mandated by the EPA or other
governmental authorities, and other factors.
74
We are subject to the federal Clean Air Act and to the federal
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which require the EPA to issue
new regulations. We are also subject to regulation at the state
and local level. In September 1998, the EPA promulgated rules
designed to mitigate the migration of ground-level ozone in
certain states. In March 2004 and June 2004, the EPA promulgated
additional regulation regarding hazardous air pollutants, which
may impose additional controls. Capital expenditures necessary
to install emission control devices on our Transco gas pipeline
system to comply with rules were approximately $41 million
in 2006 and are estimated to be between $35 million and
$40 million through 2010. The actual costs incurred will
depend on the final implementation plans developed by each state
to comply with these regulations. We consider these costs on our
Transco system associated with compliance with these
environmental laws and regulations to be prudent costs incurred
in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, recoverable
through its rates.
75
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Qualitative
and Quantitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest
Rate Risk
Our current interest rate risk exposure is related primarily to
our debt portfolio. The majority of our debt portfolio is
comprised of fixed rate debt in order to mitigate the impact of
fluctuations in interest rates. The maturity of our long-term
debt portfolio is partially influenced by the expected lives of
our operating assets.
The tables below provide information about our interest rate
risk-sensitive instruments as of December 31, 2006 and
2005. Long-term debt in the tables represents principal cash
flows, net of (discount) premium, and weighted-average interest
rates by expected maturity dates. The fair value of our publicly
traded long-term debt is valued using indicative year-end traded
bond market prices. Private debt is valued based on the prices
of similar securities with similar terms and credit ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Thereafter(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate
|
|
$
|
381
|
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
1,161
|
|
|
$
|
5,922
|
|
|
$
|
7,863
|
|
|
$
|
8,343
|
|
Interest rate
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
85
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
149
|
|
|
$
|
137
|
|
Interest rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Thereafter(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion(4):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate
|
|
$
|
104
|
|
|
$
|
381
|
|
|
$
|
153
|
|
|
$
|
41
|
|
|
$
|
205
|
|
|
$
|
6,179
|
|
|
$
|
7,063
|
|
|
$
|
7,952
|
|
Interest rate
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
7.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
15
|
|
|
$
|
563
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
647
|
|
|
$
|
647
|
|
Interest rate(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Including unamortized discount and premium. |
|
(2) |
|
The weighted-average interest rate for 2006 is LIBOR plus
1 percent. |
|
(3) |
|
The weighted-average interest rate for 2005 was LIBOR plus
2 percent. |
|
(4) |
|
Excludes capital leases. |
Commodity
Price Risk
We are exposed to the impact of fluctuations in the market price
of natural gas, electricity, and natural gas liquids, as well as
other market factors, such as market volatility and commodity
price correlations, including correlations between natural gas
and power prices. We are exposed to these risks in connection
with our owned energy-related assets, our long-term
energy-related contracts and our proprietary trading activities.
We manage the risks associated with these market fluctuations
using various derivatives and nonderivative energy-related
contracts. The fair value of derivative contracts is subject to
changes in energy-commodity market prices, the liquidity and
volatility of the markets in which the contracts are transacted,
and changes in interest rates. We measure the risk in our
portfolios using a
value-at-risk
methodology to estimate the potential
one-day loss
from adverse changes in the fair value of the portfolios.
Value at risk requires a number of key assumptions and is not
necessarily representative of actual losses in fair value that
could be incurred from the portfolios. Our
value-at-risk
model uses a Monte Carlo method to simulate hypothetical
movements in future market prices and assumes that, as a result
of changes in commodity prices, there is a 95 percent
probability that the
one-day loss
in fair value of the portfolios will not exceed the value at
risk. The simulation method uses historical correlations and
market forward prices and volatilities. In applying the
value-at-risk
methodology, we do not consider that the simulated hypothetical
movements affect the positions
76
or would cause any potential liquidity issues, nor do we
consider that changing the portfolio in response to market
conditions could affect market prices and could take longer than
a one-day
holding period to execute. While a
one-day
holding period has historically been the industry standard, a
longer holding period could more accurately represent the true
market risk given market liquidity and our own credit and
liquidity constraints.
We segregate our derivative contracts into trading and
nontrading contracts, as defined in the following paragraphs. We
calculate value at risk separately for these two categories.
Derivative contracts designated as normal purchases or sales
under SFAS 133 and nonderivative energy contracts have been
excluded from our estimation of value at risk.
Trading
Our trading portfolio consists of derivative contracts entered
into for purposes other than economically hedging our commodity
price-risk exposure. Our value at risk for contracts held for
trading purposes was approximately $1 million at
December 31, 2006, and $4 million at December 31,
2005. During the year ended December 31, 2006, our value at
risk for these contracts ranged from a high of $4 million
to a low of $1 million.
Nontrading
Our nontrading portfolio consists of derivative contracts that
hedge or could potentially hedge the price risk exposure from
the following activities:
|
|
|
Segment
|
|
Commodity Price Risk Exposure
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
Natural gas sales
|
|
|
|
Midstream
|
|
Natural gas purchases
|
|
|
|
Power
|
|
Natural gas purchases
and sales
|
|
|
Electricity purchases
and sales
|
The value at risk for derivative contracts held for nontrading
purposes was $12 million at December 31, 2006, and
$28 million at December 31, 2005. During the year
ended December 31, 2006, our value at risk for these
contracts ranged from a high of $25 million to a low of
$12 million. Certain of the derivative contracts held for
nontrading purposes are accounted for as cash flow hedges under
SFAS 133. Though these contracts are included in our
value-at-risk
calculation, any change in the fair value of these hedge
contracts would generally not be reflected in earnings until the
associated hedged item affects earnings.
Foreign
Currency Risk
We have international investments that could affect our
financial results if the investments incur a permanent decline
in value as a result of changes in foreign currency exchange
rates and/or
the economic conditions in foreign countries.
International investments accounted for under the cost method
totaled $42 million at December 31, 2006, and
$45 million at December 31, 2005. These investments
are primarily in nonpublicly traded companies for which it is
not practicable to estimate fair value. We believe that we can
realize the carrying value of these investments considering the
status of the operations of the companies underlying these
investments. If a 20 percent change occurred in the value
of the underlying currencies of these investments against the
U.S. dollar, the fair value at December 31, 2006,
could change by approximately $8.3 million assuming a
direct correlation between the currency fluctuation and the
value of the investments.
Net assets of consolidated foreign operations whose functional
currency is the local currency are located primarily in Canada
and approximate 6 percent of our net assets at
December 31, 2006 and 2005. These foreign operations do not
have significant transactions or financial instruments
denominated in other currencies. However, these investments do
have the potential to impact our financial position, due to
fluctuations in these local currencies arising from the process
of re-measuring the local functional currency into the
U.S. dollar. As an example, a 20 percent change in the
respective functional currencies against the U.S. dollar
could have changed stockholders equity by
approximately $68 million at December 31, 2006.
77
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
MANAGEMENTS
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING
Williams management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting
(as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and for the
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting. Our internal control system was designed to
provide reasonable assurance to our management and Board of
Directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of
financial statements in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States. Our internal control
over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures
that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets; (ii) provide
reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and
expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorization of our management and board of directors; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition
of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial
statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have
inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined
to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with
respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.
Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods
are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Our management assessed the effectiveness of Williams
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006. In making this assessment, management
used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal
Control Integrated
Framework. Managements assessment included
an evaluation of the design of our internal control over
financial reporting and testing of the operational effectiveness
of our internal control over financial reporting. Based on our
assessment we believe that, as of December 31, 2006,
Williams internal control over financial reporting is
effective based on those criteria.
Ernst & Young, LLP, our independent registered public
accounting firm, has issued an audit report on our assessment of
the companys internal control over financial reporting. A
copy of this report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
78
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
The Board of
Directors and Stockholders of
The Williams Companies, Inc.
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting, that The Williams Companies, Inc.
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2006, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(the COSO criteria). The Williams Companies, Inc.s
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that The Williams
Companies, Inc. maintained effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on the COSO criteria.
Also, in our opinion, The Williams Companies, Inc. maintained,
in all material respects, effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the
COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheet of The Williams Companies, Inc. as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2006 of The Williams Companies, Inc. and our
report dated February 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified
opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 22, 2007
79
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
The Williams Companies, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of
The Williams Companies, Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and
2005, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2006. Our audits
also included the financial statement schedule listed in the
index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and
schedule are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of The Williams Companies, Inc. at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the consolidated results of
its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.
As explained in Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),
Share-Based Payment and as explained in Note 7 to
the consolidated financial statements, effective
December 31, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plans. Also, as explained in Note 9 to the consolidated
financial statements, effective December 31, 2005, the
Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 47, Accounting
for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of The Williams Companies, Inc.s internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006,
based on criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
February 22, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 22, 2007
80
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
$
|
1,487.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,269.1
|
|
|
$
|
777.6
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
1,347.7
|
|
|
|
1,412.8
|
|
|
|
1,362.3
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids
|
|
|
4,124.7
|
|
|
|
3,232.7
|
|
|
|
2,882.6
|
|
Power
|
|
|
7,462.4
|
|
|
|
9,093.9
|
|
|
|
9,272.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
26.5
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
Intercompany eliminations
|
|
|
(2,636.0
|
)
|
|
|
(2,452.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1,866.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
|
12,461.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
9,973.6
|
|
|
|
10,871.0
|
|
|
|
10,751.7
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
expenses
|
|
|
449.2
|
|
|
|
325.4
|
|
|
|
355.5
|
|
Other (income) expense
net
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
61.2
|
|
|
|
(51.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment costs and expenses
|
|
|
10,443.5
|
|
|
|
11,257.6
|
|
|
|
11,055.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
132.1
|
|
|
|
145.5
|
|
|
|
119.8
|
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
|
529.7
|
|
|
|
568.4
|
|
|
|
223.9
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
430.3
|
|
|
|
542.2
|
|
|
|
557.6
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids
|
|
|
631.3
|
|
|
|
446.6
|
|
|
|
552.2
|
|
Power
|
|
|
(223.8
|
)
|
|
|
(236.8
|
)
|
|
|
86.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
(14.5
|
)
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
(132.1
|
)
|
|
|
(145.5
|
)
|
|
|
(119.8
|
)
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
(167.3
|
)
|
|
|
(9.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating income
|
|
|
1,070.0
|
|
|
|
1,171.1
|
|
|
|
1,285.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest accrued
|
|
|
(676.1
|
)
|
|
|
(671.7
|
)
|
|
|
(834.4
|
)
|
Interest capitalized
|
|
|
17.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
Investing income
|
|
|
173.0
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
48.0
|
|
Early debt retirement costs
|
|
|
(31.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(282.1
|
)
|
Minority interest in income of
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(40.0
|
)
|
|
|
(25.7
|
)
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)
|
Other income net
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
27.1
|
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes and cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
539.1
|
|
|
|
531.3
|
|
|
|
224.5
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
206.3
|
|
|
|
213.9
|
|
|
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
332.8
|
|
|
|
317.4
|
|
|
|
93.2
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
315.3
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
308.5
|
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
.56
|
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.52
|
|
|
|
.55
|
|
|
|
.31
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
.52
|
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares (thousands)
|
|
|
595,053
|
|
|
|
570,420
|
|
|
|
529,188
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per common
share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
(.04
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.51
|
|
|
|
.53
|
|
|
|
.31
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
.51
|
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average shares (thousands)
|
|
|
608,627
|
|
|
|
605,847
|
|
|
|
535,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
81
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions, except per-share amounts)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,597.2
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
91.6
|
|
|
|
92.9
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable (net
of allowance of $15.9 million in 2006 and
$86.6 million in 2005)
|
|
|
1,212.9
|
|
|
|
1,613.8
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
241.4
|
|
|
|
272.6
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
1,878.2
|
|
|
|
5,299.7
|
|
Margin deposits
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
349.2
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
337.2
|
|
|
|
241.0
|
|
Other current assets and deferred
charges
|
|
|
232.8
|
|
|
|
230.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
6,322.0
|
|
|
|
9,697.3
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
866.0
|
|
|
|
887.8
|
|
Property, plant and
equipment net
|
|
|
14,180.7
|
|
|
|
12,409.2
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
2,384.9
|
|
|
|
4,656.9
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
1,011.4
|
|
|
|
1,014.5
|
|
Other assets and deferred charges
|
|
|
602.9
|
|
|
|
740.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
$
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
1,148.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,360.6
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
1,241.4
|
|
|
|
1,123.1
|
|
Customer margin deposits payable
|
|
|
128.7
|
|
|
|
320.7
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
1,782.9
|
|
|
|
5,523.2
|
|
Long-term debt due within one year
|
|
|
392.1
|
|
|
|
122.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,693.6
|
|
|
|
8,450.2
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
7,622.0
|
|
|
|
7,590.5
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
2,879.9
|
|
|
|
2,508.9
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
2,043.8
|
|
|
|
4,331.1
|
|
Other liabilities and deferred
income
|
|
|
1,009.1
|
|
|
|
920.3
|
|
Contingent liabilities and
commitments (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interests in consolidated
subsidiaries
|
|
|
1,080.8
|
|
|
|
214.1
|
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock (960 million
shares authorized at $1 par value; 602.8 million
shares issued at December 31, 2006, and 579.1 million
shares issued at December 31,2005)
|
|
|
602.8
|
|
|
|
579.1
|
|
Capital in excess of par value
|
|
|
6,605.7
|
|
|
|
6,327.8
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(1,034.0
|
)
|
|
|
(1,135.9
|
)
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
(60.1
|
)
|
|
|
(297.8
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,114.4
|
|
|
|
5,468.7
|
|
Less treasury stock, at cost
(5.7 million shares of common stock in 2006 and 2005)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
6,073.2
|
|
|
|
5,427.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
stockholders equity
|
|
$
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
$
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
82
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common
|
|
|
Excess of
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Par Value
|
|
|
Deficit
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions)
|
|
|
Balance, December 31,
2003
|
|
$
|
524.0
|
|
|
$
|
5,195.1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,426.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(28.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,102.1
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163.7
|
|
Other comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized losses on cash flow
hedges, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.7
|
)
|
Net unrealized appreciation on
marketable equity securities, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40.5
|
|
Issuance of common stock and
settlement of forward contracts as a result of FELINE PACS
exchange
|
|
|
33.1
|
|
|
|
782.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
816.0
|
|
Cash dividends Common
stock ($.08 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(43.4
|
)
|
Allowance for and repayment of
stockholders notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
Stock award transactions, including
tax benefit
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31,
2004
|
|
|
563.8
|
|
|
|
6,005.9
|
|
|
|
(1,306.5
|
)
|
|
|
(244.2
|
)
|
|
|
(21.9
|
)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
4,955.9
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
313.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
313.6
|
|
Other comprehensive loss:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized losses on cash flow
hedges, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(65.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(65.4
|
)
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
260.0
|
|
Issuance of common stock and
settlement of forward contracts as a result of FELINE PACS
exchange
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
261.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272.8
|
|
Cash dividends Common
stock ($.25 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(143.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(143.0
|
)
|
Allowance for and repayment of
stockholders notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.4
|
|
Stock award transactions, including
tax benefit
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31,
2005
|
|
|
579.1
|
|
|
|
6,327.8
|
|
|
|
(1,135.9
|
)
|
|
|
(297.8
|
)
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
|
5,427.5
|
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains on cash flow
hedges, net of reclassification adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
394.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
394.2
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
Minimum pension liability adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
697.1
|
|
Adjustment to initially apply
SFAS No. 158, net of tax:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(150.7
|
)
|
Minimum pension liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
Other postretirement benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
Net actuarial gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Issuance of common stock from
5.5% debentures conversion (Note 12)
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
|
|
193.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213.4
|
|
Cash dividends Common
stock ($.35 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(206.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(206.6
|
)
|
Repayment of stockholders
notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Stock award transactions, including
tax benefit
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
84.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31,
2006
|
|
$
|
602.8
|
|
|
$
|
6,605.7
|
|
|
$
|
(1,034.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(60.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(41.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
6,073.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
83
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
308.5
|
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile to net
cash provided by operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Income) loss from discontinued
operations
|
|
|
24.3
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
(70.5
|
)
|
Cumulative effect of change in
accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and
amortization
|
|
|
865.5
|
|
|
|
740.0
|
|
|
|
668.5
|
|
Provision (benefit) for deferred
income taxes
|
|
|
169.2
|
|
|
|
(45.3
|
)
|
|
|
123.0
|
|
Provision for loss on investments,
property and other assets
|
|
|
25.5
|
|
|
|
118.7
|
|
|
|
86.7
|
|
Net gain on dispositions of assets
|
|
|
(22.5
|
)
|
|
|
(58.3
|
)
|
|
|
(18.1
|
)
|
Early debt retirement costs
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
282.1
|
|
Minority interest in income of
consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
40.0
|
|
|
|
25.7
|
|
|
|
21.4
|
|
Amortization of stock-based awards
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
Cash provided (used) by changes in
current assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
(14.0
|
)
|
|
|
(14.1
|
)
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
|
378.1
|
|
|
|
(240.9
|
)
|
|
|
234.6
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
31.3
|
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)
|
|
|
(18.3
|
)
|
Margin deposits and customer margin
deposits payable
|
|
|
97.9
|
|
|
|
85.5
|
|
|
|
414.1
|
|
Other current assets and deferred
charges
|
|
|
(34.2
|
)
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
112.8
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(183.9
|
)
|
|
|
232.5
|
|
|
|
(118.5
|
)
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
(147.9
|
)
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
(218.9
|
)
|
Changes in current and noncurrent
derivative assets and liabilities
|
|
|
303.2
|
|
|
|
173.9
|
|
|
|
(160.4
|
)
|
Changes in noncurrent restricted
cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86.5
|
|
Other, including changes in
noncurrent assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(51.5
|
)
|
|
|
82.5
|
|
|
|
(112.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities of continuing operations
|
|
|
1,883.0
|
|
|
|
1,449.9
|
|
|
|
1,472.1
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating
activities
|
|
|
1,889.6
|
|
|
|
1,449.9
|
|
|
|
1,487.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from long-term debt
|
|
|
1,299.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
Payments of long-term debt
|
|
|
(776.7
|
)
|
|
|
(251.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3,263.2
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of common
stock
|
|
|
34.3
|
|
|
|
309.9
|
|
|
|
20.6
|
|
Proceeds from sale of limited
partner units of consolidated partnership
|
|
|
863.4
|
|
|
|
111.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax benefit of stock-based awards
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
(206.6
|
)
|
|
|
(143.0
|
)
|
|
|
(43.4
|
)
|
Payments for debt issuance costs
and amendment fees
|
|
|
(37.0
|
)
|
|
|
(29.6
|
)
|
|
|
(26.0
|
)
|
Premiums paid on tender offer,
early debt retirements and FELINE PACS exchange
|
|
|
(25.8
|
)
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
(246.9
|
)
|
Dividends and distributions paid to
minority interests
|
|
|
(36.2
|
)
|
|
|
(20.7
|
)
|
|
|
(5.9
|
)
|
Changes in restricted cash
|
|
|
(.6
|
)
|
|
|
(2.7
|
)
|
|
|
21.7
|
|
Changes in cash overdrafts
|
|
|
(25.3
|
)
|
|
|
63.2
|
|
|
|
(21.4
|
)
|
Other net
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by
financing activities of continuing operations
|
|
|
1,103.2
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
(3,504.3
|
)
|
Net cash used by financing
activities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by
financing activities
|
|
|
1,103.2
|
|
|
|
36.5
|
|
|
|
(3,505.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(2,509.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1,299.0
|
)
|
|
|
(787.4
|
)
|
Net proceeds from dispositions
|
|
|
22.9
|
|
|
|
47.3
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
Proceeds from contract termination
payment
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
87.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in accounts payable and
accrued liabilities
|
|
|
104.7
|
|
|
|
65.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of investments/advances
to affiliates
|
|
|
(48.9
|
)
|
|
|
(116.1
|
)
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
Purchases of auction rate securities
|
|
|
(386.3
|
)
|
|
|
(224.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of restricted investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(471.8
|
)
|
Proceeds from sales of businesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
877.8
|
|
Proceeds from sales of auction rate
securities
|
|
|
414.1
|
|
|
|
137.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of restricted
investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
851.4
|
|
Proceeds from dispositions of
investments and other assets
|
|
|
62.3
|
|
|
|
64.2
|
|
|
|
94.1
|
|
Proceeds received on sale of note
from WilTel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments received on notes
receivable from WilTel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69.1
|
|
Proceeds from Gulfstream
recapitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
310.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other net
|
|
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
20.9
|
|
|
|
(12.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by
investing activities of continuing operations
|
|
|
(2,321.4
|
)
|
|
|
(819.2
|
)
|
|
|
630.2
|
|
Net cash used by investing
activities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided (used) by
investing activities
|
|
|
(2,321.4
|
)
|
|
|
(819.2
|
)
|
|
|
629.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and
cash equivalents
|
|
|
671.4
|
|
|
|
667.2
|
|
|
|
(1,388.2
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of year
|
|
|
1,597.2
|
|
|
|
930.0
|
|
|
|
2,318.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of
year
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,597.2
|
|
|
$
|
930.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
84
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
Note 1.
|
Description
of Business, Basis of Presentation, and Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies
|
Description
of Business
Operations of our company are located principally in the United
States and are organized into the following reporting segments:
Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline, Midstream
Gas & Liquids (Midstream), and Power.
Exploration & Production includes natural gas
development, production and gas management activities primarily
in the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent regions of the United
States and oil and natural gas interests in Argentina.
Gas Pipeline is comprised primarily of two interstate natural
gas pipelines, as well as investments in natural gas
pipeline-related companies. The Gas Pipeline operating segments
have been aggregated for reporting purposes and include
Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest Pipeline), which
extends from the San Juan basin in northwestern New Mexico
and southwestern Colorado to Oregon and Washington, and
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco), which
extends from the Gulf of Mexico region to the northeastern
United States. In addition, we own a 50 percent interest in
Gulfstream. Gulfstream is a natural gas pipeline system
extending from the Mobile Bay area in Alabama to markets in
Florida.
Midstream is comprised of natural gas gathering and processing
and treating facilities in the Rocky Mountain and Gulf Coast
regions of the United States, oil gathering and transportation
facilities in the Gulf Coast region of the United States,
majority-owned natural gas compression facilities in Venezuela,
and assets in Canada, consisting primarily of a natural gas
liquids extraction facility and a fractionation plant.
Power is an energy services provider that buys, sells, stores,
and transports energy and energy-related commodities, primarily
power and natural gas, on a wholesale level. Power focuses on
its objectives of minimizing financial risk, maximizing cash
flow, meeting contractual commitments, executing new contracts
to hedge its portfolio, and providing commodity marketing and
supply services that support our natural gas businesses.
Basis
of Presentation
Unless indicated otherwise, the information in the Notes to the
Consolidated Financial Statements relates to our continuing
operations.
Certain amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current
classifications.
In February 2005, we formed Williams Partners L.P., a limited
partnership engaged in the business of gathering, transporting
and processing natural gas and fractionating and storing natural
gas liquids. We currently own approximately 22.5 percent of
Williams Partners L.P., including the interests of the general
partner, which is wholly owned by us. Considering the
presumption of control of the general partner in accordance with
Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue
No. 04-5,
Determining Whether a General Partner, or the General
Partners as a Group, Controls a Limited Partnership or Similar
Entity When the Limited Partners Have Certain Rights,
Williams Partners L.P. is consolidated within our Midstream
segment.
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles
of consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
our corporate parent and our majority-owned or controlled
subsidiaries and investments. We apply the equity method of
accounting for investments in unconsolidated companies in which
we and our subsidiaries own 20 to 50 percent of the voting
interest, or otherwise exercise significant influence over
operating and financial policies of the company.
85
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Use of
estimates
Management makes estimates and assumptions that affect the
amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and
accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Significant estimates and assumptions include:
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment assessments of investments, long-lived assets and
goodwill;
|
|
|
|
Litigation-related contingencies;
|
|
|
|
Valuations of derivatives;
|
|
|
|
Environmental remediation obligations;
|
|
|
|
Hedge accounting correlations and probability;
|
|
|
|
Realization of deferred income tax assets;
|
|
|
|
Valuation of Exploration & Productions reserves;
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligations;
|
|
|
|
Pension and postretirement valuation variables.
|
These estimates are discussed further throughout these notes.
Cash and
cash equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents includes demand and time deposits,
certificates of deposit, and other marketable securities with
maturities of three months or less when acquired.
Restricted
cash
Restricted cash within current assets consists
primarily of collateral required by certain loan agreements for
our Venezuelan operations, escrow accounts established to fund
payments required by Powers California settlement (see
Note 15), and an escrow account used to collect and manage
margin dollars. Restricted cash within noncurrent assets
relates primarily to certain borrowings by our Venezuelan
operations as previously mentioned and letters of credit. We do
not expect this cash to be released within the next twelve
months. The current and noncurrent restricted cash is
primarily invested in short-term money market accounts with
financial institutions.
The classification of restricted cash is determined based
on the expected term of the collateral requirement and not
necessarily the maturity date of the investment vehicle.
Auction
rate securities
Auction rate securities are instruments with long-term
underlying maturities, but for which an auction is conducted
periodically, as specified, to reset the interest rate and allow
investors to buy or sell the instruments. Because auctions
generally occur more often than annually, and because we hold
these investments in order to meet short-term liquidity needs,
we classify auction rate securities as short-term and include
them in other current assets and deferred charges on our
Consolidated Balance Sheet. Consistent with our other securities
that are classified as
available-for-sale,
our Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows reflects the gross
amount of the purchases of auction rate securities and
the proceeds from sales of auction rate securities.
Accounts
receivable
Accounts receivable are carried on a gross basis, with no
discounting, less the allowance for doubtful accounts. We
estimate the allowance for doubtful accounts based on existing
economic conditions, the financial conditions of
86
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the customers and the amount and age of past due accounts.
Receivables are considered past due if full payment is not
received by the contractual due date. Interest income related to
past due accounts receivable is generally recognized at the time
full payment is received or collectibility is assured. Past due
accounts are generally written off against the allowance for
doubtful accounts only after all collection attempts have been
exhausted.
Inventory
valuation
All inventories are stated at the lower of cost or
market. We determine the cost of certain natural gas inventories
held by Transco using the
last-in,
first-out (LIFO) cost method. We determine the cost of the
remaining inventories primarily using the average-cost method.
Property,
plant and equipment
Property, plant and equipment is recorded at cost. We
base the carrying value of these assets on estimates,
assumptions and judgments relative to capitalized costs, useful
lives and salvage values.
As regulated entities, Northwest Pipeline and Transco provide
for depreciation using the straight-line method at Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-prescribed rates.
Depreciation rates used for major regulated gas plant facilities
for all years presented, are as follows:
|
|
|
Category of Property
|
|
Depreciation Rates
|
|
Gathering facilities
|
|
0% - 3.80%
|
Storage facilities
|
|
1.05% - 2.50%
|
Onshore transmission facilities
|
|
2.35% - 7.25%
|
Offshore transmission facilities
|
|
0.85% - 1.50%
|
Depreciation for nonregulated entities is provided primarily on
the straight-line method over estimated useful lives, except as
noted below for oil and gas exploration and production
activities. The estimated useful lives are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Useful Lives
|
Category of Property
|
|
(In years)
|
|
Natural gas gathering and
processing facilities
|
|
10 to 40
|
Power generation facilities
|
|
30
|
Transportation equipment
|
|
3 to 30
|
Building and improvements
|
|
5 to 45
|
Right of way
|
|
4 to 40
|
Office furnishings and computer
software and hardware
|
|
3 to 20
|
Gains or losses from the ordinary sale or retirement of
property, plant and equipment for regulated pipelines are
credited or charged to accumulated depreciation; other gains or
losses are recorded in other (income) expense
net included in operating income.
Ordinary maintenance and repair costs are generally expensed as
incurred. Costs of major renewals and replacements are
capitalized as property, plant, and equipment
net.
Oil and gas exploration and production activities are accounted
for under the successful efforts method. Costs incurred in
connection with the drilling and equipping of exploratory wells,
as applicable, are capitalized as incurred. If proved reserves
are not found, such costs are charged to expense. Other
exploration costs, including lease rentals, are expensed as
incurred. All costs related to development wells, including
related production equipment and lease acquisition costs, are
capitalized when incurred. Unproved properties are evaluated
annually, or as conditions warrant, to determine any impairment
in carrying value. Depreciation, depletion and
amortization is provided under the units of production
method on a field basis.
87
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Proved properties, including developed and undeveloped, and
costs associated with unproven reserves, are assessed for
impairment using estimated future cash flows on a field basis.
Estimating future cash flows involves the use of complex
judgments such as estimation of the proved and unproven oil and
gas reserve quantities, risk associated with the different
categories of oil and gas reserves, timing of development and
production, expected future commodity prices, capital
expenditures, and production costs.
We record an asset and a liability equal to the present value of
each expected future asset retirement obligation (ARO). The ARO
asset is depreciated in a manner consistent with the
depreciation of the underlying physical asset. We measure
changes in the liability due to passage of time by applying an
interest method of allocation. This amount is recognized as an
increase in the carrying amount of the liability and as a
corresponding accretion expense included in other (income)
expense net included in operating income,
except for regulated entities, for which the liability is offset
by a regulatory asset.
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of cost over fair value of
the assets of businesses acquired. It is evaluated annually for
impairment by first comparing our managements estimate of
the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying value,
including goodwill. If the carrying value of the reporting unit
exceeds its fair value, a computation of the implied fair value
of the goodwill is compared with its related carrying value. If
the carrying value of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the
implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is
recognized in the amount of the excess. We have goodwill
of approximately $1 billion at December 31, 2006, and
2005, at our Exploration & Production segment.
When a reporting unit is sold or classified as held for sale,
any goodwill of that reporting unit is included in its carrying
value for purposes of determining any impairment or gain/loss on
sale. If a portion of a reporting unit with goodwill is sold or
classified as held for sale and that asset group represents a
business, a portion of the reporting units goodwill is
allocated to and included in the carrying value of that asset
group. None of the operations sold during 2005 and 2004
represented reporting units with goodwill or businesses within
reporting units to which goodwill was required to be allocated.
Judgments and assumptions are inherent in our managements
estimate of undiscounted future cash flows used to determine the
estimate of the reporting units fair value. The use of
alternate judgments
and/or
assumptions could result in the recognition of different levels
of impairment charges in the financial statements.
Treasury
stock
Treasury stock purchases are accounted for under the cost
method whereby the entire cost of the acquired stock is recorded
as treasury stock. Gains and losses on the subsequent reissuance
of shares are credited or charged to capital in excess of par
value using the average-cost method.
Derivative
instruments and hedging activities
We utilize derivatives to manage our commodity price risk. These
instruments consist primarily of futures contracts, swap
agreements, option contracts, and forward contracts involving
short- and long-term purchases and sales of a physical energy
commodity. We execute most of these transactions on an organized
commodity exchange or in
over-the-counter
markets in which quoted prices exist for active periods. For
contracts with terms that exceed the time period for which
actively quoted prices are available, we determine fair value by
estimating commodity prices during the illiquid periods
utilizing internally developed valuations incorporating
information obtained from commodity prices in actively quoted
markets, quoted prices in less active markets, prices reflected
in current transactions, and other market fundamental analysis.
We report the fair value of derivatives, except for those for
which the normal purchases and normal sales exception has been
elected, on the Consolidated Balance Sheet in derivative
assets and derivative liabilities as
88
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
either current or noncurrent. We determine the current and
noncurrent classification based on the timing of expected future
cash flows of individual contracts.
The accounting for changes in the fair value of a commodity
derivative is governed by Statement of Financial Accounting
Standard (SFAS) No. 133 and depends on whether the
derivative has been designated in a hedging relationship and
whether we have elected the normal purchases and normal sales
exception. The accounting for the change in fair value can be
summarized as follows:
|
|
|
Derivative Treatment
|
|
Accounting Method
|
Normal purchases and normal sales
exception
|
|
Accrual accounting
|
Designated in a qualifying hedging
relationship
|
|
Hedge accounting
|
All other derivatives
|
|
Mark-to-market
accounting
|
We have elected the normal purchases and normal sales exception
for certain short- and long-term purchases and sales of a
physical energy commodity. Under accrual accounting, any change
in the fair value of these derivatives is not reflected on the
balance sheet after the initial election of the exception. Some
contracts had a fair value at the date of the election and are
reflected on the balance sheet at their fair value on the date
of the election less the amount of that fair value realized
during settlement periods subsequent to the election. For other
contracts, we made the election at the inception of the contract
and thus there is no recorded fair value.
We have also designated a hedging relationship for certain
commodity derivatives. Prior to September 2004, Powers
derivative contracts did not qualify for hedge accounting
because of our stated intent to exit the Power business. In
September 2004, we announced our decision to continue operating
the Power business. As a result of that decision, Powers
derivative contracts became eligible for hedge accounting. Power
elected cash flow hedge accounting on a prospective basis
beginning October 1, 2004, for certain qualifying
derivative contracts.
For a derivative to qualify for designation in a hedging
relationship, it must meet specific criteria and we must
maintain appropriate documentation. We establish hedging
relationships pursuant to our risk management policies. We
evaluate the hedging relationships at the inception of the hedge
and on an ongoing basis to determine whether the hedging
relationship is, and is expected to remain, highly effective in
achieving offsetting changes in fair value or cash flows
attributable to the underlying risk being hedged. We also
regularly assess whether the hedged forecasted transaction is
probable of occurring. If a derivative ceases to be or is no
longer expected to be highly effective, or if we believe the
likelihood of occurrence of the hedged forecasted transaction is
no longer probable, hedge accounting is discontinued
prospectively, and future changes in the fair value of the
derivative are recognized currently in revenues.
For commodity derivatives designated as a cash flow hedge, the
effective portion of the change in fair value of the derivative
is reported in other comprehensive income (loss) and
reclassified into earnings in the period in which the hedged
item affects earnings. Any ineffective portion of the
derivatives change in fair value is recognized currently
in revenues. Gains or losses deferred in accumulated
other comprehensive loss associated with terminated
derivatives, derivatives that cease to be highly effective
hedges, derivatives for which the forecasted transaction is
reasonably possible but no longer probable of occurring, and
cash flow hedges that have been otherwise discontinued remain in
accumulated other comprehensive loss until the hedged
item affects earnings. If it becomes probable that the
forecasted transaction designated as the hedged item in a cash
flow hedge will not occur, any gain or loss deferred in
accumulated other comprehensive loss is recognized in
revenues at that time. The change in likelihood is a
judgmental decision that includes qualitative assessments made
by management.
For commodity derivatives that are not designated in a hedging
relationship, and for which we have not elected the normal
purchases and normal sales exception, we report changes in fair
value currently in revenues.
89
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Certain gains and losses on derivative instruments included in
the Consolidated Statement of Income are netted together to a
single net gain or loss, while other gains and losses are
reported on a gross basis. Gains and losses recorded on a net
basis include:
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gains and losses on all derivatives that are not
designated as hedges and for which we have not elected the
normal purchases and normal sales exception;
|
|
|
|
The ineffective portion of unrealized gains and losses on
derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges;
|
|
|
|
Realized gains and losses on all derivatives that settle
financially;
|
|
|
|
Realized gains and losses on derivatives held for trading
purposes;
|
|
|
|
Realized gains and losses on derivatives entered into as a
pre-contemplated buy/sell arrangement.
|
Realized gains and losses on derivatives that require physical
delivery, and which are not held for trading purposes nor were
entered into as a pre-contemplated buy/sell arrangement, are
recorded on a gross basis. In reaching our conclusions on this
presentation, we evaluated the indicators in EITF Issue
No. 99-19
Reporting Revenue Gross as a Principal versus as an
Agent, including whether we act as principal in the
transaction; whether we have the risks and rewards of ownership,
including credit risk; and whether we have latitude in
establishing prices.
Assessment
of energy-related contracts for lease classification
EITF 01-8,
Determining Whether an Arrangement Contains a Lease,
became effective on July 1, 2003, and provides guidance for
determining whether certain contracts such as transportation,
transmission, storage, full requirements, and tolling agreements
are executory service arrangements or leases pursuant to
SFAS No. 13, Accounting for Leases. The
consensus is applied prospectively to arrangements consummated
or modified after July 1, 2003. Prior to July 1, 2003,
we accounted for energy-related contracts as executory service
arrangements and continue this accounting unless a contract is
subsequently modified and evaluated to be a lease. For executory
service arrangements, the monthly demand payments are expensed
as incurred. Certain of Powers tolling agreements will
likely be considered leases under the consensus if the tolling
agreements are ever modified. One tolling agreement was modified
in 2004 and is accounted for as an operating lease. For tolling
agreements that are modified and deemed to be operating leases,
the monthly demand payments are expensed as incurred. If the
monthly demand payments are not incurred on a straight-line
basis, expense is nevertheless recognized on a straight-line
basis. If such tolling agreements are modified and deemed to be
capital leases, the net present value of the demand payments
would be reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as
long-term debt and as an asset in property, plant and
equipment net.
Gas
Pipeline revenues
Revenues from the transportation of gas are recognized in the
period the service is provided, and revenues for sales of
products are recognized in the period of delivery. Gas Pipeline
is subject to FERC regulations and, accordingly, certain
revenues collected may be subject to possible refunds upon final
orders in pending rate cases. Gas Pipeline records estimates of
rate refund liabilities considering Gas Pipeline and other
third-party regulatory proceedings, advice of counsel and
estimated total exposure, as discounted and risk weighted, as
well as collection and other risks.
Exploration &
Production revenues
Revenues from the domestic production of natural gas in
properties for which Exploration & Production has an
interest with other producers are recognized based on the actual
volumes sold during the period. Any differences between volumes
sold and entitlement volumes, based on Exploration &
Productions net working interest, that are
90
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
determined to be nonrecoverable through remaining production are
recognized as accounts receivable or accounts payable, as
appropriate. Cumulative differences between volumes sold and
entitlement volumes are not significant.
Revenues,
other than Gas Pipeline, Exploration & Production, and
energy commodity risk management and trading
activities
Revenues generally are recorded when services are performed or
products have been delivered.
Impairment
of long-lived assets and investments
We evaluate the long-lived assets of identifiable business
activities for impairment when events or changes in
circumstances indicate, in our managements judgment, that
the carrying value of such assets may not be recoverable. When
an indicator of impairment has occurred, we compare our
managements estimate of undiscounted future cash flows
attributable to the assets to the carrying value of the assets
to determine whether an impairment has occurred. We apply a
probability-weighted approach to consider the likelihood of
different cash flow assumptions and possible outcomes including
selling in the near term or holding for the remaining estimated
useful life. If an impairment of the carrying value has
occurred, we determine the amount of the impairment recognized
in the financial statements by estimating the fair value of the
assets and recording a loss for the amount that the carrying
value exceeds the estimated fair value.
For assets identified to be disposed of in the future and
considered held for sale in accordance with
SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we compare the carrying
value to the estimated fair value less the cost to sell to
determine if recognition of an impairment is required. Until the
assets are disposed of, the estimated fair value, which includes
estimated cash flows from operations until the assumed date of
sale, is recalculated when related events or circumstances
change.
We evaluate our investments for impairment when events or
changes in circumstances indicate, in our managements
judgment, that the carrying value of such investments may have
experienced an
other-than-temporary
decline in value. When evidence of loss in value has occurred,
we compare our estimate of fair value of the investment to the
carrying value of the investment to determine whether an
impairment has occurred. If the estimated fair value is less
than the carrying value and we consider the decline in value to
be
other-than-temporary,
the excess of the carrying value over the fair value is
recognized in the consolidated financial statements as an
impairment.
Judgments and assumptions are inherent in our managements
estimate of undiscounted future cash flows and an assets
fair value. Additionally, judgment is used to determine the
probability of sale with respect to assets considered for
disposal. The use of alternate judgments
and/or
assumptions could result in the recognition of different levels
of impairment charges in the consolidated financial statements.
Capitalization
of interest
We capitalize interest on major projects during construction.
Interest is capitalized on borrowed funds and, where regulation
by the FERC exists, on internally generated funds as a component
of other income net. The rates used by
regulated companies are calculated in accordance with FERC
rules. Rates used by unregulated companies are based on the
average interest rate on debt. The benefit of interest
capitalized on internally generated funds for regulated entities
is reported in other income net below
operating income.
Additionally, Exploration & Production capitalizes
interest on those construction projects with construction
periods of at least three months and a total project cost in
excess of $1 million. Exploration & Production
capitalizes interest on equity investments when the investee is
undergoing construction in preparation for its planned principal
operations.
91
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Employee
stock-based awards
Prior to January 1, 2006, we accounted for stock-based
awards to employees and nonmanagement directors (see
Note 13) under the recognition and measurement
provisions of Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion
No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees, and related interpretations, as permitted by
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement
No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation (SFAS No. 123). Compensation cost
for stock options was not recognized in the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the years prior to 2006 as all options
granted had an exercise price equal to the market value of the
underlying common stock on the date of the grant. Prior to
January 1, 2006, compensation cost was recognized for
restricted stock units. Effective January 1, 2006, we
adopted the fair value recognition provisions of FASB Statement
No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment
(SFAS No. 123(R)), using the modified-prospective
method. Under this method, compensation cost recognized in 2006
includes: (1) compensation cost for all share-based
payments granted through December 31, 2005, but for which
the requisite service period had not been completed as of
December 31, 2005, based on the grant date fair value
estimated in accordance with the provisions of
SFAS No. 123, and (2) compensation cost for most
share-based payments granted subsequent to December 31,
2005, based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance
with the provisions of SFAS No. 123(R). The
performance targets for certain performance-based restricted
stock units have not been established and therefore expense is
not currently recognized. Expense associated with these
performance-based awards will be recognized in future periods
when performance targets are established. Results for prior
periods have not been restated.
Total stock-based compensation expense for the year ending
December 31, 2006, was $43.9 million. This amount
reflects a reduction of $.3 million of previously
recognized compensation cost for restricted stock units related
to the estimated number of awards expected to be forfeited. This
adjustment is not considered material for reporting as a
cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle. Measured
but unrecognized stock-based compensation expense at
December 31, 2006, was approximately $50 million,
which does not include the effect of estimated forfeitures of
$1.9 million. This amount is comprised of approximately
$13 million related to stock options and approximately
$37 million related to restricted stock units. These
amounts are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average
period of 1.9 years.
As a result of adopting SFAS No. 123(R), our income
from continuing operations before income taxes and net
income for the year ending December 31, 2006, are
approximately $18.4 million and $11.3 million lower,
respectively, than if we continued to account for share-based
compensation under APB No. 25. For the year ending
December 31, 2006, both basic and diluted earnings per
share are $.02 lower due to the implementation of
SFAS No. 123(R).
92
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table illustrates the effect on net income
and earnings per common share for the years ending
December 31, 2005 and 2004, if we had applied the fair
value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to
options granted. For purposes of this pro forma disclosure, the
value of the options was estimated using a Black-Scholes option
pricing model and amortized to expense over the vesting period
of the options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Net income, as reported
|
|
$
|
313.6
|
|
|
$
|
163.7
|
|
Add: Stock-based employee
compensation expense included in the consolidated statement of
income, net of related tax effects
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee
compensation expense determined under fair value based method
for all awards, net of related tax effects
|
|
|
(17.0
|
)
|
|
|
(25.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income
|
|
$
|
305.5
|
|
|
$
|
147.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic as reported
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic pro forma
|
|
$
|
.54
|
|
|
$
|
.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted as reported
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted pro forma
|
|
$
|
.52
|
|
|
$
|
.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma amounts for 2005 include compensation expense from
awards of our company stock made in 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002.
Pro forma amounts for 2004 include compensation expense from
awards made in 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001. Also included in 2004
pro forma expense is $3.3 million of incremental expense
associated with a stock option exchange program.
Income
taxes
We include the operations of our subsidiaries in our
consolidated tax return. Deferred income taxes are computed
using the liability method and are provided on all temporary
differences between the financial basis and the tax basis of our
assets and liabilities. Our managements judgment and
income tax assumptions are used to determine the levels, if any,
of valuation allowances associated with deferred tax assets.
Earnings
(loss) per common share
Basic earnings (loss) per common share is based on the
sum of the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding
and issuable restricted stock units. Diluted earnings (loss)
per common share includes any dilutive effect of stock
options, unvested restricted stock units and, for applicable
periods presented, convertible debt, unless otherwise noted.
Foreign
currency translation
Certain of our foreign subsidiaries and equity method investees
use their local currency as their functional currency. These
foreign currencies include the Canadian dollar, British pound
and Euro. Assets and liabilities of certain foreign subsidiaries
and equity investees are translated at the spot rate in effect
at the applicable reporting date, and the combined statements of
operations and our share of the results of operations of our
equity affiliates are translated into the U.S. dollar at
the average exchange rates in effect during the applicable
period. The resulting cumulative translation adjustment is
recorded as a separate component of other comprehensive
income (loss).
93
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Transactions denominated in currencies other than the functional
currency are recorded based on exchange rates at the time such
transactions arise. Subsequent changes in exchange rates result
in transaction gains and losses which are reflected in the
Consolidated Statement of Income.
Issuance
of equity of consolidated subsidiary
Sales of residual equity interests in a consolidated subsidiary
are accounted for as capital transactions. No adjustments to
capital are made for sales of preferential interests in a
subsidiary. No gain or loss is recognized on these transactions.
Recent
Accounting Standards
In September 2005, the FASB ratified EITF Issue
No. 04-13,
Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the
Same Counterparty (EITF
04-13). The
consensus states that two or more inventory purchase and sales
transactions with the same counterparty that are entered into in
contemplation of one another should be combined as a single
exchange transaction for purposes of applying APB Opinion
No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary
Transactions. A nonmonetary exchange of inventory within
the same line of business where finished goods inventory is
transferred in exchange for the receipt of either raw materials
or work in process inventory should be recognized at fair value
by the entity transferring the finished goods inventory if fair
value is determinable within reasonable limits and the
transaction has commercial substance. All other nonmonetary
exchanges of inventory within the same line of business should
be recognized at the carrying amount of the inventory
transferred. EITF
04-13 is
effective for new arrangements entered into, and modifications
or renewals of existing arrangements, beginning in the first
reporting period beginning after March 15, 2006. We applied
this Issue during 2006 with no significant impact on our
Consolidated Financial Statements.
In February 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 155,
Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, an
amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140
(SFAS No. 155). With regard to SFAS No. 133,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities, (SFAS No. 133) this Statement
permits fair value remeasurement for any hybrid financial
instrument that contains an embedded derivative that otherwise
would require bifurcation, clarifies which interest-only and
principal-only strips are not subject to the requirements of
SFAS No. 133, and requires the holder of an interest
in securitized financial assets to determine whether the
interest is a freestanding derivative or contains an embedded
derivative requiring bifurcation. SFAS No. 155 also
amends SFAS No. 140, Accounting for Transfers
and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of
Liabilities, (SFAS No. 140) to eliminate a
restriction on the passive derivative financial instruments that
a qualifying special purpose entity may hold.
SFAS No. 155 is effective for all financial
instruments acquired or issued after the beginning of an
entitys first fiscal year that begins after
September 15, 2006. The fair value election regarding
hybrid financial instruments may also be applied upon adoption
of SFAS No. 155 to hybrid financial instruments that
had been bifurcated prior to adoption of SFAS No. 155.
We applied the provisions of SFAS No. 155 beginning in
January 2007 with no impact on our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
In March 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 156,
Accounting for Servicing of Financial Assets, an amendment
of FASB Statement No. 140 (SFAS No. 156).
This Statement amends SFAS No. 140 with respect to the
accounting for separately recognized servicing assets and
liabilities from undertaking an obligation to service a
financial asset by entering into a servicing contract.
SFAS No. 156 is effective as of the beginning of an
entitys first fiscal year that begins after
September 15, 2006. We applied the provisions of
SFAS No. 156 beginning in January 2007 with no impact
on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
In April 2006, the FASB issued a Staff Position (FSP) on a
previously issued Interpretation (FIN), FSP FIN 46(R)-6,
Determining the Variability to Be Considered in Applying
FASB Interpretation No. 46(R). When determining the
variability of an entity in applying FIN 46(R), a reporting
enterprise must analyze the design of the entity and consider
the nature of the risks in the entity, and determine the purpose
for which the entity was created and determine the variability
the entity is designed to create and pass along to its interest
holders. The FSP is
94
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
effective beginning in the third quarter of 2006 on a
prospective basis. We applied this FSP with no impact on our
Consolidated Financial Statements.
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109
(FIN 48). The Interpretation clarifies the accounting for
uncertainty in income taxes under FASB Statement No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. The Interpretation
prescribes guidance for the financial statement recognition and
measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a
tax return. To recognize a tax position, the enterprise
determines whether it is more likely than not that the tax
position will be sustained upon examination, including
resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes, based
on the technical merits of the position. A tax position that
meets the more likely than not recognition threshold is measured
to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the financial
statements. The tax position is measured at the largest amount
of benefit, determined on a cumulative probability basis, that
is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon
ultimate settlement.
FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years beginning after
December 15, 2006. The cumulative effect of applying the
Interpretation must be reported as an adjustment to the opening
balance of retained earnings in the year of adoption. We adopted
FIN 48 beginning January 1, 2007, as required. The net
impact of the cumulative effect of adopting FIN 48 is
expected to be in the range of a $10 million to
$20 million decrease in retained earnings.
In June 2006, the FASB ratified EITF
No. 06-3,
How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to
Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income
Statement (That Is, Gross versus Net Presentation) (EITF
06-3). EITF
06-3
addresses the income statement presentation of any tax collected
from customers and remitted to a government authority and
concludes the presentation of taxes on either a gross basis or a
net basis is an accounting policy decision that should be
disclosed pursuant to APB Opinion No. 22 Disclosure
of Accounting Policies. This is effective for interim and
annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2006
and will require the financial statement disclosure of any
significant taxes recognized on a gross basis. We are reviewing
the presentation in our Consolidated Financial Statements and
will apply the disclosure provisions of EITF
06-3 with
our first quarter 2007 filing.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (SFAS No. 157).
This Statement establishes a framework for fair value
measurements in the financial statements by providing a
definition of fair value, provides guidance on the methods used
to estimate fair value and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2007 and is generally
applied prospectively. We will assess the impact of
SFAS No. 157 on our Consolidated Financial Statements.
In September 2006, the FASB issued FSP AUG AIR-1,
Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities
(FSP AUG AIR-1). This FSP addresses the planned major
maintenance of assets and prohibits the use of the
accrue-in-advance
method of accounting for these activities in annual and interim
reporting periods. The FSP continues to allow the direct
expense, built-in overhaul and deferral methods. FSP AUG AIR-1
requires disclosure of the method of accounting for planned
major maintenance activities as well as information related to
the change from the
accrue-in-advance
method to another method. This FSP is effective for the first
fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2006 and should be
applied retrospectively. We adopted this FSP in January 2007
with no significant impact on our Consolidated Financial
Statements.
In December 2006, the FASB issued FSP EITF
00-19-2,
Accounting for Registration Payment Arrangements
(FSP EITF
00-19-2).
The FSP specifies the contingent obligation to make future
payments or otherwise transfer consideration under a
registration payment arrangement, whether issued as a separate
agreement or included as a provision of a financial instrument
or other agreement, should be recognized and measured separately
in accordance with FASB SFAS No. 5, Accounting
for Contingencies and related literature. FSP EITF
00-19-2
further clarifies that a financial instrument subject to a
registration payment arrangement should be accounted for in
accordance with other applicable generally accepted accounting
principles without regard to the contingent obligation to
transfer consideration. The FSP applies immediately to
registration payment arrangements and the
95
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
financial instruments subject to those arrangements that are
entered into or modified subsequent to December 21, 2006.
Whereas, for registration payment arrangements and the financial
instruments subject to those arrangements entered into prior to
its issuance, the FSP applies to our financial statements for
the fiscal year beginning in 2007. We adopted the provisions of
FSP EITF
00-19-2
beginning in January 2007 with no impact on our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,
The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities Including an Amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (SFAS No. 159).
SFAS No. 159 establishes a fair value option
permitting entities to elect the option to measure eligible
financial instruments and certain other items at fair value on
specified election dates. Unrealized gains and losses on items
for which the fair value option has been elected will be
reported in earnings. The fair value option may be applied on an
instrument-by-instrument basis, with a few exceptions, is
irrevocable and is applied only to entire instruments and not to
portions of instruments. SFAS No. 159 is effective as
of the beginning of the first fiscal year beginning after
November 15, 2007 and should not be applied retrospectively
to fiscal years beginning prior to the effective date, except as
permitted for early adoption. Early adoption is permitted as of
the beginning of a fiscal year provided the entity makes that
choice in the first 120 days of the fiscal year and elects
to simultaneously adopt the provisions of
SFAS No. 157. At the effective date, an entity may
elect the fair value option for eligible items existing at that
date and the adjustment for the initial remeasurement of those
items to fair value should be reported as a cumulative effect
adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings. We will
assess the impact of SFAS No. 159 on our Consolidated
Financial Statements.
|
|
Note 2.
|
Discontinued
Operations
|
The businesses discussed below represent components that have
been sold as of December 31, 2006, and are classified as
discontinued operations. Therefore, their results of operations
(including any impairments, gains or losses), financial position
and cash flows have been reflected in the consolidated financial
statements and notes as discontinued operations.
Summarized
Results of Discontinued Operations
The following table presents the summarized results of
discontinued operations for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005, and 2004. Loss from discontinued operations
before income taxes for the year ended December 31,
2004, includes charges of approximately $153 million to
increase our accrued liability associated with certain Quality
Bank litigation matters. (See Note 15.) The provision
for income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2004,
is less than the federal statutory rate due primarily to the
effect of net Canadian tax benefits realized from the sale of
the Canadian straddle plants partially offset by the United
States tax effect of earnings associated with these assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
353.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations
before income taxes
|
|
$
|
(39.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(121.3
|
)
|
Gain on sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.5
|
|
|
|
200.5
|
|
Benefit (provision) for income
taxes
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
(8.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued
operations
|
|
$
|
(24.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
Activities
During 2006, we recorded charges of $19.2 million for an
adverse arbitration award related to our former chemical
fertilizer business and a $6 million accrual for a loss
contingency in connection with a former exploration
96
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
business. In addition, we made a $14.7 million accrual
associated with an oil purchase contract related to our former
Alaska refinery.
2004
Completed Transactions
Canadian
straddle plants
On July 28, 2004, we completed the sale of the Canadian
straddle plants for approximately $544 million and
recognized a $189.8 million pre-tax gain on the sale. These
assets were previously written down to estimated fair value,
resulting in impairments of $41.7 million during 2003 and
$36.8 million in 2002. In 2004, the fair value of the
assets increased substantially due primarily to renegotiation of
certain customer contracts and a general improvement in the
market for processing assets. These operations were part of the
Midstream segment.
Alaska
refining, retail and pipeline operations
On March 31, 2004, we completed the sale of our Alaska
refinery, retail and pipeline operations for approximately
$304 million. We received $279 million in cash at the
time of sale and $25 million in cash during the second
quarter of 2004. Based on information we obtained throughout the
sales negotiations process, we recorded impairments of
$8 million in 2003 and $18.4 million in 2002. We
recognized a $3.6 million pre-tax gain on the sale during
first quarter 2004. These operations were part of the previously
reported Petroleum Services segment.
We are party to a pending matter involving pipeline
transportation rates charged to our former Alaska refinery in
prior periods. While we have no loss exposure in this matter,
favorable resolution could result in a refund.
|
|
Note 3.
|
Investing
Activities
|
Investing
Income
Investing income for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Equity earnings*
|
|
$
|
98.9
|
|
|
$
|
65.6
|
|
|
$
|
49.9
|
|
Loss from investments*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(109.1
|
)
|
|
|
(35.5
|
)
|
Impairments of cost-based
investments
|
|
|
(20.4
|
)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
(28.5
|
)
|
Interest income and other
|
|
|
94.5
|
|
|
|
69.4
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
173.0
|
|
|
$
|
23.7
|
|
|
$
|
48.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Items also included in segment profit. (See Note 17.) |
Loss from investments for the year ended
December 31, 2005, includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An $87.2 million impairment of our investment in Longhorn
Partners Pipeline L.P. (Longhorn), which is included in our
Other segment;
|
|
|
|
A $23 million impairment of our investment in Aux Sable
Liquid Products, L.P. (Aux Sable), which is included in our
Power segment.
|
Loss from investments for the year ended
December 31, 2004, includes:
|
|
|
|
|
A $10.8 million impairment of our Longhorn investment;
|
|
|
|
$6.5 million net unreimbursed Longhorn recapitalization
advisory fees;
|
97
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
A $16.9 million impairment of our investment in Discovery
Producer Services, L.L.C. (Discovery), which is included in our
Midstream segment.
|
Impairments of cost-based investments for the year ended
December 31, 2006, includes a $16.4 million impairment
of a Venezuelan investment primarily due to a decline in reserve
estimates. In 2006, our 10 percent direct working interest
in an operating contract was converted to a 4 percent equity
interest in a Venezuelan corporation which owns and operates oil
and gas activities. Our 4 percent interest is reported as a cost
method investment; previously, we accounted for our working
interest using the proportionate consolidation method.
Impairments of cost-based investments for the year ended
December 31, 2004, includes a $20.8 million impairment
of our investment in an Indonesian toll road, primarily due to
increased uncertainty of the Indonesian economy.
Investments
Investments at December 31, 2006 and 2005, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Equity method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gulfstream Natural Gas System,
L.L.C. 50%
|
|
$
|
387.5
|
|
|
$
|
395.4
|
|
Discovery Producer Services,
L.L.C. 60%*
|
|
|
221.2
|
|
|
|
227.9
|
|
Petrolera Entre Lomas
S.A. 40.8%
|
|
|
58.8
|
|
|
|
51.9
|
|
ACCROVEN 49.3%
|
|
|
57.4
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
Other
|
|
|
89.5
|
|
|
|
95.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
814.4
|
|
|
|
831.1
|
|
Cost method
|
|
|
51.6
|
|
|
|
56.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
866.0
|
|
|
$
|
887.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
We own 20% directly and 40% indirectly through Williams Partners
L.P., of which we own approximately 22.5%. |
The difference between the carrying value of our equity
investments and the underlying equity in the net assets of the
investees is primarily related to impairments previously
recognized.
Dividends and distributions, including those discussed below,
received from companies accounted for by the equity method were
$115.6 million in 2006 and $447.4 million in 2005.
These transactions reduced the carrying value of our investments.
Gulfstream
In 2005, we received a $310.5 million distribution from
Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream) following its
debt offering. We also received dividends from Gulfstream of
$41.5 million in 2006 and $60.5 million in 2005.
Discovery
During 2005, our Midstream subsidiary acquired an additional
16.67 percent in Discovery, which was later reduced by
6.67 percent due to a nonaffiliated member exercising its
purchase option. After these transactions, we hold a
60 percent interest in Discovery. We continue to account
for this investment under the equity method due to
98
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the voting provisions of Discoverys limited liability
company which provide the other member of Discovery significant
participatory rights such that we do not control the investment.
Additionally, we contributed $40.7 million during 2005 to
Discovery for planned capital expenditures. Each owner
contributed an amount equal to their respective ownership
percentage, thus having no impact on the overall ownership
allocation. We received distributions from Discovery of
$27.2 million in 2006 and $31.3 million in 2005, which
reduced the carrying value of our investment.
Longhorn
Based on managements outlook for Longhorn at the end of
the second quarter 2005, we assessed our equity investment in
Longhorn to determine if there had been an
other-than-temporary
decline in its fair value. As a result, we recorded an
impairment of $49.1 million. In the fourth quarter of 2005,
management of Longhorn decided to pursue a strategy of the sale
of Longhorn. Based on initial indications from potential buyers,
we determined that our Longhorn investment would require full
impairment. Therefore, in fourth quarter 2005, we recorded a
$38.1 million impairment to write off the remaining
investment in Longhorn.
We continue to have an equity ownership interest in Longhorn,
including 94.7 percent of the Class B Interests and
21.3 percent of the Common Interests, even though the
management of Longhorn completed an asset sale of the pipeline
during the third quarter of 2006. Summarized results of
operations of equity method investments in 2006, as presented
below, reflect the impact of Longhorns loss on this sale.
As a result of the sale, we received full payment of the
$10 million secured bridge loan that we provided Longhorn
during 2005.
Aux
Sable
During 2005, we decided to solicit sales offers for our equity
investment in Aux Sable, a natural gas liquids extraction and
fractionation facility. Based on initial indications of
potential sales proceeds, management concluded that there was an
other-than-temporary
decline in fair value below carrying value. Accordingly, we
recorded an impairment of $23 million.
Summarized
Financial Position and Results of Operations of Equity Method
Investments
Financial position at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$
|
296.5
|
|
|
$
|
470.5
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
|
3,301.7
|
|
|
|
3,674.4
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
198.0
|
|
|
|
362.0
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
1,311.5
|
|
|
|
1,225.6
|
|
Results of operations for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gross revenue
|
|
$
|
970.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,337.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,064.7
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
401.2
|
|
|
|
236.3
|
|
|
|
185.0
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(14.6
|
)
|
|
|
105.3
|
|
|
|
107.8
|
|
Guarantees
on Behalf of Investees
We have guaranteed commercial letters of credit totaling
$20 million on behalf of ACCROVEN. These expire in January
2008 and have no carrying value.
99
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We have provided guarantees on behalf of certain entities in
which we have an equity ownership interest. These generally
guarantee operating performance measures and the maximum
potential future exposure cannot be determined. There are no
expiration dates associated with these guarantees. No amounts
have been accrued at December 31, 2006 and 2005.
|
|
Note 4.
|
Asset
Sales and Other Accruals
|
Significant gains or losses from asset sales and other accruals
or adjustments reflected in other (income)
expense net within segment costs and
expenses for the years noted are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Exploration &
Production
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains on sales of certain natural
gas properties
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(29.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Loss provision related to an
ownership dispute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
|
Midstream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrual for Gulf Liquids
litigation contingency. Associated with this contingency is an
interest expense accrual of $22 million, which is included in
interest accrued (see Note 15)
|
|
|
72.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arbitration award on a Gulf
Liquids insurance claim dispute
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(93.6
|
)
|
Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrual for litigation
contingencies
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
82.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction of contingent
obligations associated with our former distributive power
generation business
|
|
|
(12.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental accrual related to
the Augusta refinery facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
Additional
Items
Costs and operating expenses within our Gas Pipeline
segment reported in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An adjustment to reduce costs by $12.1 million to correct
the carrying value of certain liabilities recorded in prior
periods;
|
|
|
|
Adjustments of $37.3 million reflected as increases in
costs and operating expenses related to $32.1 million of
prior period accounting and valuation corrections for certain
inventory items and an accrual of $5.2 million for
contingent refund obligations.
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses within our
Gas Pipeline segment in 2005 includes:
|
|
|
|
|
An adjustment to reduce costs by $5.6 million to correct
the carrying value of certain liabilities recorded in prior
periods;
|
|
|
|
A $17.1 million reduction in pension expense for the
cumulative impact of a correction of an error attributable to
2003 and 2004. (See Note 7.)
|
100
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 5.
|
Provision
for Income Taxes
|
The provision for income taxes from continuing operations
includes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
(9.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
225.0
|
|
|
$
|
11.0
|
|
State
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
(13.7
|
)
|
Foreign
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
31.4
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.1
|
|
|
|
259.2
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
140.9
|
|
|
|
(52.9
|
)
|
|
|
75.1
|
|
State
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
169.2
|
|
|
|
(45.3
|
)
|
|
|
123.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision
|
|
$
|
206.3
|
|
|
$
|
213.9
|
|
|
$
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliations from the provision for income taxes from
continuing operations at the federal statutory rate to the
realized provision for income taxes are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Provision at statutory rate
|
|
$
|
188.7
|
|
|
$
|
186.0
|
|
|
$
|
78.6
|
|
Increases (decreases) in taxes
resulting from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State income taxes (net of federal
benefit)
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
Foreign operations net
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
6.1
|
|
Utilization/valuation/expiration
of charitable contributions
|
|
|
(9.3
|
)
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
13.8
|
|
Federal income tax litigation
|
|
|
(40.0
|
)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
Non-deductible convertible
debenture expenses
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment of excess deferred taxes
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
(20.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Non-deductible penalties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
Other net
|
|
|
18.2
|
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
206.3
|
|
|
$
|
213.9
|
|
|
$
|
131.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilization of foreign operating loss carryovers reduced the
provision for income taxes by $3 million and
$13 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively. During 2004,
the utilization of foreign tax credits reduced the provision for
income taxes by $12 million.
Income from continuing operations before income taxes and
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle includes
$141 million, $59 million, and $51 million of
international income in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.
We provide for income taxes using the asset and liability method
as required by SFAS No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes. As a result of additional analysis of our
tax basis and book basis asset and liabilities, we recorded a
tax provision of $7.4 million and a tax benefit of
$20.2 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively, to adjust the
overall deferred income tax liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.
101
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During the course of audits of our business by domestic and
foreign tax authorities, we frequently face challenges regarding
the amount of taxes due. These challenges include questions
regarding the timing and amount of deductions and the allocation
of income among various tax jurisdictions. In evaluating the
liability associated with our various tax filing positions, we
record a liability for probable tax contingencies. In
association with this liability, we record an estimate of
related interest and tax exposure as a component of our current
tax provision. The impact of this accrual is included within
other net in our reconciliation of the tax
provision to the federal statutory rate.
One of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Transco Coal Gas Company,
was engaged in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
in which the principle issue was the recapture of certain income
tax credits associated with
the construction and operation of a coal gasification plant in
North Dakota by Great Plains Gasification Associates, a
partnership in which Transco Coal Gas Company was a partner in
the 1980s. The IRS took alternative positions that alleged
a disposition date for purposes of tax credit recapture that was
earlier than the position taken in the partnership tax return.
After settlement negotiations failed, the matter was tried
before the U.S. Tax Court in February 2005. On
December 27, 2006, the Tax Court ruled that the partnership
utilized the appropriate disposition date for purposes of tax
credit recapture.
Significant components of deferred tax liabilities and
deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2006, and
2005, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
2,898.5
|
|
|
$
|
2,718.9
|
|
Derivatives net
|
|
|
223.4
|
|
|
|
61.3
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
210.2
|
|
|
|
158.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
100.4
|
|
|
|
96.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
3,432.5
|
|
|
|
3,035.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum tax credits
|
|
|
145.6
|
|
|
|
163.8
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
510.2
|
|
|
|
285.2
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
39.3
|
|
Federal carryovers
|
|
|
182.8
|
|
|
|
286.0
|
|
Foreign carryovers
|
|
|
36.1
|
|
|
|
30.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
33.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
|
925.9
|
|
|
|
804.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less valuation allowance
|
|
|
36.1
|
|
|
|
37.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
|
889.8
|
|
|
|
767.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall net deferred tax
liabilities
|
|
$
|
2,542.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,267.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The valuation allowance at December 31, 2006, serves
to reduce the recognized tax benefit associated with foreign
carryovers to an amount that will, more likely than not, be
realized. The valuation allowance at December 31,
2005 serves to reduce the recognized tax benefit associated with
charitable contribution carryovers and foreign carryovers to an
amount that will, more likely than not, be realized.
Undistributed earnings of certain consolidated foreign
subsidiaries at December 31, 2006, totaled approximately
$198 million. No provision for deferred U.S. income
taxes has been made for these subsidiaries because we intend to
permanently reinvest such earnings in foreign operations.
102
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Cash payments for income taxes (net of refunds) were
$79 million, $230 million, and $8 million in
2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Cash tax payments include
settlements with taxing authorities associated with prior period
audits of $42 million and $204 million in 2006 and
2005, respectively.
At December 31, 2006, federal net operating loss carryovers
are $509 million. We expect to utilize our net operating
loss carryovers prior to expiration in 2022 through 2025. We
also expect to utilize $13 million of charitable
contribution carryovers prior to their expiration in 2007
through 2010. We do not expect to be able to utilize our
$36.1 million foreign deferred tax assets related to
carryovers.
In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109
(FIN 48). We adopted the Interpretation beginning
January 1, 2007. The impact of this adoption is more fully
described in Note 1.
|
|
Note 6.
|
Earnings
Per Common Share from Continuing Operations
|
Basic and diluted earnings per common share for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in millions, except per-share
|
|
|
|
amounts; shares in thousands)
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
available to common stockholders for basic and diluted earnings
per share(1)
|
|
$
|
332.8
|
|
|
$
|
317.4
|
|
|
$
|
93.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted-average shares(2)
|
|
|
595,053
|
|
|
|
570,420
|
|
|
|
529,188
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unvested restricted stock units(3)
|
|
|
1,029
|
|
|
|
2,890
|
|
|
|
2,631
|
|
Stock options
|
|
|
4,440
|
|
|
|
4,989
|
|
|
|
3,792
|
|
Convertible debentures
|
|
|
8,105
|
|
|
|
27,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted-average shares
|
|
|
608,627
|
|
|
|
605,847
|
|
|
|
535,611
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per common share from
continuing operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
.56
|
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
.55
|
|
|
$
|
.53
|
|
|
$
|
.18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, include
$3.0 million and $10.2 million of interest expense,
net of tax, associated with our convertible debentures. (See
Note 12.) These amounts have been added back to income
from continuing operations available to common stockholders
to calculate diluted earnings per common share. (See
discussion of antidilutive items below.) |
|
(2) |
|
During January 2006, we issued 20.2 million shares of
common stock related to a conversion offer for our
5.5 percent convertible debentures. In February 2005 and
October 2004, we issued 10.9 million and 33.1 million,
respectively, common shares associated with our FELINE PACS
units. |
|
(3) |
|
The unvested restricted stock units outstanding at
December 31, 2006, will vest over the period from January
2007 to December 2009. |
Approximately 27.5 million weighted-average shares related
to the assumed conversion of convertible debentures, as well as
the related interest, have been excluded from the computation of
diluted earnings per common share for the year ended
December 31, 2004. Inclusion of these shares would have an
antidilutive effect on diluted earnings per common share. If no
other components used to calculate diluted earnings per common
share change, we estimate the assumed conversion of convertible
debentures would have become dilutive and therefore would be
included in diluted earnings per common share at an income
from continuing operations available to common stockholders
amount of $198.1 million for the year ended
December 31, 2004.
103
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The table below includes information related to stock options
that were outstanding at the end of each respective year but
have been excluded from the computation of weighted-average
stock options due to the option exercise price exceeding the
fourth quarter weighted-average market price of our common
shares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Options excluded (millions)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
Weighted-average exercise prices
of options excluded
|
|
$
|
36.14
|
|
|
$
|
35.22
|
|
|
$
|
28.21
|
|
Exercise price ranges of options
excluded
|
|
$
|
26.79 - $42.29
|
|
|
$
|
22.68 - $42.29
|
|
|
$
|
14.61 - $42.29
|
|
Fourth quarter weighted-average
market price
|
|
$
|
25.77
|
|
|
$
|
22.41
|
|
|
$
|
14.41
|
|
|
|
Note 7.
|
Employee
Benefit Plans
|
We have noncontributory defined benefit pension plans in which
all eligible employees participate. Currently, eligible
employees earn benefits primarily based on a cash balance
formula. Various other formulas, as defined in the plan
documents, are utilized to calculate the retirement benefits for
plan participants not covered by the cash balance formula. At
the time of retirement, participants may receive annuity
payments, a lump sum payment or a combination of lump sum and
annuity payments. In addition to our pension plans, we currently
provide subsidized medical and life insurance benefits (other
postretirement benefits) to certain eligible participants.
Generally, employees hired after December 31, 1991, are not
eligible for these benefits, except for participants that were
employees of Transco Energy Company on December 31, 1995,
and other miscellaneous defined participant groups. Certain of
these other postretirement benefit plans, particularly the
subsidized medical benefit plans, provide for retiree
contributions and contain other cost-sharing features such as
deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance. The accounting for
these plans anticipates future cost-sharing that is consistent
with our expressed intent to increase the retiree contribution
level generally in line with health care cost increases.
SFAS No. 158
Adoption
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158,
Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and
Other Postretirement Plans an amendment of FASB
Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R)
(SFAS No. 158). This Statement requires sponsors of
defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans
to recognize the funded status of their pension and other
postretirement benefit plans in the statement of financial
position, measure the fair value of plan assets and benefit
obligations as of the date of the fiscal year-end statement of
financial position, and provide additional disclosures. On
December 31, 2006, we adopted the recognition and
disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 158, the effect of
which has been reflected in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2006, as described
below. The adoption had no impact on the consolidated financial
statements at December 31, 2005 or 2004.
SFAS No. 158s provisions regarding the change in
the measurement date of postretirement benefit plans are not
applicable as we already use a measurement date of
December 31. There is no effect on our Consolidated
Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 2006,
or for any periods presented related to the adoption of
SFAS No. 158, nor will our future operating results be
affected by the adoption.
Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 158, accounting
rules allowed for the delayed recognition of certain actuarial
gains and losses caused by differences between actual and
assumed outcomes, as well as charges or credits caused by plan
changes impacting the benefit obligations which were attributed
to participants prior service. These unrecognized net
actuarial gains or losses and unrecognized prior service costs
or credits represented the difference between the plans
funded status and the amount recognized on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. In accordance with SFAS No. 158, we
recorded adjustments to accumulated other comprehensive
loss, net of income taxes, to recognize the funded status of
our pension and other postretirement benefit plans on our
Consolidated Balance Sheet. For our FERC-regulated gas
pipelines, we recorded the adjustment to net regulatory
liabilities for our other postretirement benefit plans.
These
104
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
adjustments represent the previously unrecognized net actuarial
gains and losses and unrecognized prior service costs or
credits. The detail of the effect of adopting
SFAS No. 158 is provided in the following table.
The adjustments recorded to accumulated other comprehensive
loss and net regulatory liabilities will be
recognized as components of net periodic pension expense
or net periodic other postretirement benefit expense
and amortized over future periods in accordance with
SFAS No. 87, Employers Accounting for
Pensions, and SFAS No. 106,
Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits
Other Than Pensions, in the same manner as prior to the
adoption of SFAS No. 158. Actuarial gains and losses
that arise in subsequent periods and are not recognized as
net periodic pension or other postretirement benefit
expense in the same period will now be recognized in
other comprehensive income (loss) and net regulatory
liabilities. These amounts will be recognized subsequently
as a component of net periodic pension or other
postretirement benefit expense following the same basis as
the amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive
loss and net regulatory liabilities upon adoption of
SFAS No. 158.
The effects of adopting SFAS No. 158 on our
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December, 31, 2006, are
presented in the following tables. The disclosures in this note
exclude the impact of a pension plan of an equity method
investee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to
|
|
|
Effect of
|
|
|
After
|
|
|
|
SFAS No. 158
|
|
|
SFAS No. 158
|
|
|
SFAS No. 158
|
|
|
|
Adoption(1)
|
|
|
Adoption(1)
|
|
|
Adoption(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances related to pension plans
within:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
$
|
330.8
|
|
|
$
|
(216.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
114.1
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
Net regulatory liabilities
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
18.9
|
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
|
|
39.1
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
(3.1
|
)
|
|
|
(91.6
|
)
|
|
|
(94.7
|
)
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
(148.5
|
)
|
|
|
(153.4
|
)
|
Balances related to other
postretirement benefits plans within:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
$
|
13.6
|
|
|
$
|
(13.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
Net regulatory liabilities
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
12.8
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
133.2
|
|
|
|
(10.5
|
)
|
|
|
122.7
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12.5
|
)
|
|
|
(12.5
|
)
|
Stockholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts in brackets represent a reduction within the line item
balance included on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. |
Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 158, we had computed
an additional minimum pension liability of $10.2 million.
The effect of recognizing this additional minimum pension
liability is included as accumulated other comprehensive loss
of $4.9 million (net of taxes of $3.1 million) and
net regulatory liabilities of $2.2 million under the
Prior to SFAS No. 158 Adoption column
within the previous table.
105
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Accumulated
other comprehensive loss
at
December 31, 2006 includes the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net of Tax
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Net of Tax
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Amounts not yet recognized in net
periodic benefit expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized prior service cost
|
|
$
|
(5.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.1
|
)
|
Unrecognized net actuarial gains
(losses)
|
|
|
(242.4
|
)
|
|
|
(149.9
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Amounts expected to be recognized
in net periodic benefit expense (income) in 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior service cost (credit)
|
|
$
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
.7
|
|
Net actuarial (gains) losses
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.1
|
)
|
Net regulatory liabilities includes unrecognized prior
service credits of $4.6 million and unrecognized net
actuarial gains of $8.2 million associated with our
FERC-regulated gas pipelines. These amounts have not yet been
recognized in net periodic other postretirement benefit
expense. The prior service credit included in net
regulatory liabilities and expected to be recognized in
net periodic other postretirement benefit expense in 2007
is $1.5 million. No actuarial gains included in net
regulatory liabilities are expected to be recognized in
net periodic other postretirement benefit expense in 2007.
106
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Benefit
Obligations
The following table presents the changes in benefit obligations
and plan assets for pension benefits and other postretirement
benefits for the years indicated. It also presents a
reconciliation of the funded status of these benefit plans to
the amounts recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at
December 31, 2005. The annual measurement date for our
plans is December 31.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at beginning of
year
|
|
$
|
897.4
|
|
|
$
|
893.0
|
|
|
$
|
375.4
|
|
|
$
|
268.4
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
50.9
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
Plan participants
contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Settlement benefits paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(52.4
|
)
|
|
|
(58.2
|
)
|
|
|
(24.0
|
)
|
|
|
(24.0
|
)
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51.2
|
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
13.3
|
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
(64.2
|
)
|
|
|
51.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
|
931.3
|
|
|
|
897.4
|
|
|
|
312.4
|
|
|
|
375.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at
beginning of year
|
|
|
887.6
|
|
|
|
835.5
|
|
|
|
163.6
|
|
|
|
158.9
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
126.8
|
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
21.6
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
43.3
|
|
|
|
57.9
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
Plan participants
contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(52.4
|
)
|
|
|
(58.2
|
)
|
|
|
(24.0
|
)
|
|
|
(24.0
|
)
|
Settlement benefits paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end
of year
|
|
|
1,005.3
|
|
|
|
887.6
|
|
|
|
180.5
|
|
|
|
163.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status
overfunded (underfunded)
|
|
$
|
74.0
|
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(131.9
|
)
|
|
|
(211.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
309.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74.4
|
|
Unrecognized prior service cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid (accrued) benefit cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
305.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(135.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
871.6
|
|
|
$
|
831.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Amounts recognized in the Consolidated Balance Sheet at
December 31, 2005 consist of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Prepaid benefit cost
|
|
$
|
312.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Accrued benefit cost
|
|
|
(16.8
|
)
|
|
|
(135.7
|
)
|
Regulatory asset
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
loss (before tax)
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid (accrued) benefit cost
|
|
$
|
305.0
|
|
|
$
|
(135.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The net underfunded/overfunded status of our pension plans
presented in the previous table is recognized in the
December 31, 2006, Consolidated Balance Sheet in
noncurrent assets as $114.1 million for our
overfunded pension plans and in current liabilities as
$1.0 million and in noncurrent liabilities as
$39.1 million for our underfunded pension plans. The
underfunded status of our other postretirement benefit plans
presented in the previous table is recognized in the
December 31, 2006, Consolidated Balance Sheet in current
liabilities as $9.2 million and in noncurrent
liabilities as $122.7 million. The plan assets within
our other postretirement benefit plans are intended to be used
for the payment of benefits for certain groups of participants.
The current liabilities for the other postretirement
benefit plans represent the actuarial present value of benefits
included in the benefit obligation payable in 2007 for the
groups of participants whose benefits are not expected to be
paid from plan assets.
The regulatory asset shown in 2005 in the table above is
the portion of the additional minimum pension liability
recognized by our FERC-regulated gas pipelines. As required by
FERC accounting guidelines, our FERC-regulated gas pipelines
were required to record the effect of an additional minimum
pension liability to a regulatory asset instead of
accumulated other comprehensive loss.
The 2006 actuarial loss of $13.3 million for our
pension plans included in the table of changes in benefit
obligation is due primarily to the impact of actual results
differing from assumed results such as compensation and
participant deaths, offset by the net impact of changes in
assumptions utilized to calculate the benefit obligation
including the discount rate, mortality and expected form of
benefit payments. The 2005 actuarial gain of
$2.5 million for our pension plans included in the table of
changes in benefit obligation reflects a gain of approximately
$68 million for the cumulative impact of a correction of an
error determined to have occurred in 2003 and 2004. The error
was associated with our third-party actuarial computation of the
benefit obligation which resulted in the identification of
errors in certain Transco participant data involving annuity
contract information utilized for 2003 and 2004. This gain is
offset substantially by the impact of changes to the discount
rates utilized to determine the benefit obligation. The 2006
actuarial gain of $64.2 million for our other
postretirement benefit plans included in the table of changes in
benefit obligation is due primarily to the impact of changes in
assumptions utilized to calculate the benefit obligation
including claims costs, health care cost trend rates and the
discount rate, as well as actual results differing from assumed
results such as participant deaths and terminations prior to
retirement. The 2005 actuarial loss of $51.9 million
for our other postretirement benefit plans included in the table
of changes in benefit obligation is due primarily to the impact
of changes in assumptions utilized to calculate the benefit
obligation including the health care cost trend rates, discount
rate and estimated cost savings related to the Medicare
Prescription Drug Act.
The current accounting rules for the determination of net
periodic pension and other postretirement benefit expense
allow for the delayed recognition of gains and losses caused
by differences between actual and assumed outcomes for items
such as estimated return on plan assets, or caused by changes in
assumptions for items such as discount rates or estimated future
compensation levels. The unrecognized net actuarial loss
presented in the previous tables and recorded in
accumulated other comprehensive loss and net
regulatory liabilities at December 31, 2006, represents
the cumulative net deferred losses from these types of
differences or changes which have not yet
108
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
been recognized in the Consolidated Statement of Income. A
portion of the net unrecognized gains and losses are amortized
over the participants average remaining future years of
service, which is approximately 12 years for our pension
plans and 13 years for our other postretirement benefit
plans.
We have multiple pension plans that are aggregated as prescribed
for reporting purposes including both overfunded and underfunded
pension plans.
Information for pension plans with a projected benefit
obligation in excess of plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
479.8
|
|
|
$
|
428.6
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
439.7
|
|
|
|
359.7
|
|
Information for pension plans with an accumulated benefit
obligation in excess of plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
$
|
18.9
|
|
|
$
|
16.7
|
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
Periodic Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Expense
(Income)
Net periodic pension expense (income) and other
postretirement benefit expense for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, consists of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Components of net periodic pension
expense (income):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
22.1
|
|
|
$
|
21.5
|
|
|
$
|
24.0
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
50.9
|
|
|
|
47.6
|
|
|
|
50.5
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(66.8
|
)
|
|
|
(71.1
|
)
|
|
|
(64.9
|
)
|
Amortization of prior service
credit
|
|
|
(.6
|
)
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
Recognized net actuarial (gain)
loss
|
|
|
20.6
|
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
Regulatory asset amortization
(deferral)
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Settlement/curtailment expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension expense
(income)
|
|
$
|
26.0
|
|
|
$
|
(4.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
19.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Components of net periodic other
postretirement benefit expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
3.2
|
|
|
$
|
3.3
|
|
|
$
|
3.2
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(11.0
|
)
|
|
|
(11.5
|
)
|
|
|
(12.4
|
)
|
Amortization of transition
obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
(credit)
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)
|
|
|
.6
|
|
Recognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory asset amortization
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic other postretirement
benefit expense
|
|
$
|
16.2
|
|
|
$
|
17.8
|
|
|
$
|
19.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic pension expense (income) for 2005 includes a
$17.1 million reduction to expense to record the cumulative
impact of a correction of an error determined to have occurred
in 2003 and 2004. The error was associated with our third-party
actuarial computation of annual net periodic pension expense
which resulted from the identification of errors in certain
Transco participant data involving annuity contract information
utilized for 2003 and 2004. The adjustment is reflected as
$16.1 million within recognized net actuarial (gain)
loss and $1.0 million within regulatory asset
amortization (deferral).
The differences in the amount of actuarially determined net
periodic other postretirement benefit expense and the other
postretirement benefit costs recovered in rates for our
FERC-regulated gas pipelines are deferred as a regulatory asset
or liability. At December 31, 2006, we have a regulatory
asset of $8.5 million for Transco and a regulatory
liability of $13.3 million for Northwest Pipeline related
to these deferrals. At December 31, 2005, we had a
regulatory asset of $24.3 million for Transco and a
regulatory liability of $10.8 million at Northwest Pipeline
related to these deferrals. These amounts will be reflected in
future rates based on Transco and Northwest Pipelines rate
structures.
Key
Assumptions
The weighted-average assumptions utilized to determine benefit
obligations as of December 31, 2006, and 2005, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.80
|
%
|
|
|
5.65
|
%
|
|
|
5.80
|
%
|
|
|
5.60
|
%
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
The weighted-average assumptions utilized to determine net
periodic pension and other postretirement benefit expense
for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004,
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.65
|
%
|
|
|
5.86
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
5.60
|
%
|
|
|
5.63
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
Expected long-term rate of return
on plan assets
|
|
|
7.75
|
|
|
|
8.50
|
|
|
|
8.50
|
|
|
|
6.95
|
|
|
|
7.45
|
|
|
|
8.50
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
110
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The discount rates for our pension and other postretirement
benefit plans were determined separately based on an approach
specific to our plans and their respective expected benefit cash
flows. With the assistance of our third-party actuary, the plans
were analyzed and discount rates based on a yield curve
comprised of high-quality corporate bonds published by a large
securities firm were matched to a highly correlated published
index of high-quality corporate bonds. Based on an analysis
performed between each of the plans yield curve discount
rates and the index, a formula was developed to determine the
December 31, 2006, discount rates based upon the year-end
published index.
The expected long-term rates of return on plan assets were
determined by combining a review of the historical returns
realized within the portfolio, the investment strategy included
in the plans Investment Policy Statement, and the capital
market projections provided by our independent investment
consultant for the asset classifications in which the portfolio
is invested and the target weightings of each asset
classification.
The mortality assumptions used to determine the obligations for
our pension and other postretirement benefit plans are related
to the experience of the plans and to our third-party
actuarys best estimate of expected plan mortality. The
selected mortality tables are among the most recent tables
available.
The assumed health care cost trend rate for 2007 is
9.3 percent, and systematically decreases to
5.5 percent by 2013. The health care cost trend rate
assumption has a significant effect on the amounts reported. A
one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend
rates would have the following effects:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point increase
|
|
|
Point decrease
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Effect on total of service and
interest cost components
|
|
$
|
3.3
|
|
|
$
|
(4.1
|
)
|
Effect on postretirement benefit
obligation
|
|
|
60.5
|
|
|
|
(48.1
|
)
|
Medicare
Prescription Drug Act
In December 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement,
and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act) was signed into law. The
Act introduced a prescription drug benefit under Medicare
(Medicare Part D) beginning in 2006 as well as a
federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care benefit plans
that provide a benefit that is at least actuarially equivalent
to Medicare Part D. Our health care plans for retirees
include prescription drug coverage. Prior to 2005, our plans
were amended to coordinate and pay secondary to any part of
Medicare, including prescription drug benefits covered by
Medicare Part D, which resulted in a decrease in the
benefit obligation of $75.5 million. Beginning in 2005, the
net reduction to the obligation was being amortized over
approximately seven years which was the participants
average remaining years of service to full eligibility for
benefits. It is reflected in the amortization of prior
service credit in the table of components of net periodic
other postretirement benefit expense for 2005.
Due to anticipated difficulties to administer our plans as
previously amended to coordinate and pay secondary to Medicare
Part D in 2006, we amended our plans in June 2005 to
generally provide primary prescription drug coverage and apply
for the federal subsidy in 2006. As a result of the amendment,
generally our plans are designed to be actuarially equivalent to
the standard coverage under Medicare Part D. The amendment
increased our benefit obligation by $51.2 million at
June 30, 2005, and is reflected as a plan amendment
in the table of changes in benefit obligation for 2005.
Beginning in the third quarter of 2005, the increase to the
obligation is being amortized over the participants
average remaining years of service to full eligibility for
benefits, which is approximately seven years. Net periodic
other postretirement benefit expense for 2005, reflects an
increase of $7.1 million, including an increase in
recognized net actuarial loss of $.3 million, an
increase in service cost of $.3 million, an increase
in interest cost of $2.6 million, and an increase in
amortization of prior service credit of
$3.9 million, resulting from the plan amendment. We are
continuing to evaluate coordination with Medicare Part D as
a strategy to decrease our benefit obligation in the future and
will closely monitor the development of systems and capabilities
of third-party administrators to coordinate prescription drug
benefits with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services.
111
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Plan
Assets
The investment policy for our pension and other postretirement
benefit plans articulates an investment philosophy in accordance
with ERISA which governs the investment of the assets in a
diversified portfolio. The investment strategy for the assets of
the pension plans and approximately one half of the assets of
the other postretirement benefit plans include maximizing
returns with reasonable and prudent levels of risk. The
investment returns on the approximate one half of remaining
assets of the other postretirement benefit plans is subject to
federal income tax, therefore the investment strategy also
includes investing in a tax efficient manner.
The following table presents the weighted-average asset
allocations at December 31, 2006, and 2005 and target asset
allocation at December 31, 2006, by asset category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Equity securities
|
|
|
82
|
%
|
|
|
81
|
%
|
|
|
84
|
%
|
|
|
77
|
%
|
|
|
78
|
%
|
|
|
80
|
%
|
Debt securities
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in equity securities are investments in commingled
funds that invest entirely in equity securities and comprise
38 percent and 37 percent of the pension plans
weighted-average assets at December 31, 2006, and 2005,
respectively, and 27 percent and 26 percent of the
other postretirement benefit plans weighted-average assets
at December 31, 2006, and 2005, respectively. Other assets
are comprised primarily of cash and cash equivalents for the
pension plans and other postretirement benefit plans.
The assets are invested in accordance with the target
allocations identified in the previous table. The investment
policy provides for minimum and maximum ranges for the broad
asset classes in the previous table. Additional target
allocations are identified for specific classes of equity
securities. The asset allocation ranges established by the
investment policy are based upon a long-term investment
perspective. The ranges are more heavily weighted toward equity
securities since the liabilities of the pension and other
postretirement benefit plans are long-term in nature and
historically equity securities have significantly outperformed
other asset classes over long periods of time.
Equity security investments are restricted to high-quality,
readily marketable securities that are actively traded on the
major U.S. and foreign national exchanges. Investment in
Williams securities or an entity in which Williams has a
majority ownership is prohibited except where these securities
may be owned in a commingled investment vehicle in which the
pension plans trust invests. No more than five percent of
the total stock portfolio valued at market may be invested in
the common stock of any one corporation. The following
securities and transactions are not authorized: unregistered
securities, commodities or commodity contracts, short sales or
margin transactions or other leveraging strategies. Investment
strategies using options or futures are not authorized.
Debt security investments are restricted to high-quality,
marketable securities that include U.S. Treasury, federal
agencies and U.S. Government guaranteed obligations, and
investment grade corporate issues. The overall rating of the
debt security assets is required to be at least A,
according to the Moodys or Standard & Poors
rating system. No more than five percent of the total portfolio
at the time of purchase may be invested in the debt securities
of any one issuer. U.S. Government guaranteed and agency
securities are exempt from this provision.
During 2006, 11 active investment managers and one passive
investment manager managed substantially all of the pension and
other postretirement benefit plans funds, each of whom had
responsibility for managing a specific portion of these assets.
112
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Periodically, an asset and liability study is performed to
determine the optimal asset mix to meet future benefit
obligations. The most recent pension asset and liability study
was performed in 2001.
Plan
Benefit Payments and Employer Contributions
The following are the expected benefits to be paid by the plan
and the expected federal prescription drug subsidy to be
received in the next ten years. These estimates are based on the
same assumptions previously discussed and reflect future service
as appropriate. The actuarial assumptions are based on long-term
expectations and include, but are not limited to, assumptions as
to average expected retirement age and form of benefit payment.
Actual benefit payments could differ significantly from expected
benefit payments if near-term participant behaviors differ
significantly from the actuarial assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Prescription
|
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
|
Drug
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
Subsidy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
45.5
|
|
|
$
|
21.3
|
|
|
$
|
(2.0
|
)
|
2008
|
|
|
39.6
|
|
|
|
21.9
|
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
2009
|
|
|
35.7
|
|
|
|
22.2
|
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)
|
2010
|
|
|
33.7
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
2011
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
21.5
|
|
|
|
(2.3
|
)
|
2012-2016
|
|
|
240.3
|
|
|
|
105.8
|
|
|
|
(13.4
|
)
|
We expect to contribute approximately $41 million to our
pension plans and approximately $16 million to our other
postretirement benefit plans in 2007.
Defined
Contribution Plans
We also maintain defined contribution plans for the benefit of
substantially all of our employees. Generally, plan participants
may contribute a portion of their compensation on a pre-tax and
after-tax basis in accordance with the plans guidelines.
We match employees contributions up to certain limits.
Costs recognized for these plans were $18.7 million in
2006, $16.8 million in 2005, and $16.9 million in
2004. One of our defined contribution plans was amended as of
July 1, 2005, to convert one of the funds within the plan
to a nonleveraged employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). The 2005
compensation cost related to the ESOP of $.7 million is
included in the $16.8 million of contributions, previously
mentioned above, and represents the contribution made in
consideration for employee services rendered in 2005. It is
measured by the amount of cash contributed to the ESOP. The
shares held by the ESOP are treated as outstanding when
computing earnings per share and the dividends on the shares
held by the ESOP are recorded as a component of retained
earnings. For 2006 and future years, there are no contributions
to this ESOP, other than dividend reinvestment, as contributions
for purchase of our stock is now restricted within this defined
contribution plan.
Inventories at December 31, 2006, and 2005, are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Natural gas liquids
|
|
$
|
77.9
|
|
|
$
|
100.0
|
|
Natural gas in underground storage
|
|
|
77.6
|
|
|
|
90.4
|
|
Materials, supplies and other
|
|
|
85.9
|
|
|
|
82.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
241.4
|
|
|
$
|
272.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Inventories determined using the LIFO cost method were
approximately 11 percent and 8 percent of
inventories at December 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively. The remaining inventories were primarily
determined using the average-cost method.
If inventories valued using the LIFO cost method at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, were valued at current
replacement cost, the amounts would increase by $22 million
and $59 million, respectively.
Natural gas in underground storage reflects a
$32.1 million charge recorded in 2005 for prior period
accounting and valuation corrections.
|
|
Note 9.
|
Property,
Plant and Equipment
|
Property, plant and equipment net at
December 31, 2006, and 2005, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration & Production
|
|
$
|
5,918.2
|
|
|
$
|
4,458.9
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
9,127.3
|
|
|
|
8,371.1
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids(1)
|
|
|
4,545.5
|
|
|
|
4,351.4
|
|
Power
|
|
|
155.3
|
|
|
|
154.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
245.6
|
|
|
|
235.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,991.9
|
|
|
|
17,571.8
|
|
Accumulated depreciation,
depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(5,811.2
|
)
|
|
|
(5,162.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
14,180.7
|
|
|
$
|
12,409.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Certain assets above are currently pledged as collateral to
secure debt. (See Note 11.) |
Depreciation, depletion and amortization expense for
property, plant and equipment net was
$865.1 million in 2006, $739 million in 2005, and
$667.4 million in 2004.
Property, plant and equipment net includes
approximately $685 million at December 31, 2006, and
$374 million at December 31, 2005, of construction in
progress which is not yet subject to depreciation. In addition,
property of Exploration & Production includes
approximately $414 million at December 31, 2006, and
$443 million at December 31, 2005, of capitalized
costs related to properties with unproven reserves not yet
subject to depletion.
Property, plant and equipment net includes
approximately $1.1 billion at December 31, 2006, and
$1.2 billion at December 31, 2005, related to amounts
in excess of the original cost of the regulated facilities
within Gas Pipeline as a result of our prior acquisitions. This
amount is being amortized over 40 years using the
straight-line amortization method. Current FERC policy does not
permit recovery through rates for amounts in excess of original
cost of construction.
Asset
Retirement Obligations
In March 2005, the FASB issued FIN 47, Accounting for
Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 143. The
Interpretation clarifies that the term conditional asset
retirement as used in SFAS No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, refers
to a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in
which the timing
and/or
method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may
or may not be within the control of the entity. The
Interpretation also clarifies when an entity would have
sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of
an asset retirement obligation.
114
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
We adopted the Interpretation on December 31, 2005. In
accordance with the Interpretation, we estimated future
retirement obligations for certain assets previously considered
to have an indeterminate life. As a result, we recorded an
increase in other liabilities and deferred income of
$29.4 million, an increase in property, plant and
equipment net of $12.2 million, and a
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle of
$1.7 million (net of $1.0 million of taxes). We also
recorded a $14.5 million regulatory asset in other
assets and deferred charges for retirement costs expected to
be recovered through regulated rates. Had we implemented the
Interpretation at the beginning of 2003, the financial statement
impact at December 31, 2004 would not be substantially
different than the impact at December 31, 2005.
The asset retirement obligation at December 31, 2006 and
2005 is $333 million and $93 million, respectively.
The increase in the obligation in 2006 is due primarily to
obtaining additional information that revised our estimation of
our asset retirement obligation for certain assets in our
Exploration & Production, Gas Pipeline and Midstream
segments. Factors affected by the additional information
included estimated settlement dates, estimated settlement costs
and inflation rates.
The accrued obligations relate to producing wells, underground
storage caverns, offshore platforms, fractionation facilities,
gas gathering well connections and pipelines, and gas
transmission facilities. At the end of the useful life of each
respective asset, we are legally obligated to plug both
producing wells and storage caverns and remove any related
surface equipment, remove surface equipment and restore land at
fractionation facilities, to dismantle offshore platforms, to
cap certain gathering pipelines at the wellhead connection and
remove any related surface equipment, and to remove certain
components of gas transmission facilities from the ground.
|
|
Note 10.
|
Accounts
Payable and Accrued Liabilities
|
Under our cash-management system, certain cash accounts
reflected negative balances to the extent checks written have
not been presented for payment. These negative balances
represent obligations and have been reclassified to accounts
payable. Accounts payable includes approximately
$44 million of these negative balances at December 31,
2006, and $69 million at December 31, 2005.
On May 26, 2004, we were released from certain historical
indemnities, primarily related to environmental remediation, for
an agreement to pay $117.5 million. We had previously
deferred $113 million of a gain on sale related to these
indemnities. At the date of sale, the deferred revenue and
identified obligations related to the indemnities totaled
$102 million. The carrying value of this obligation is
$33.9 million at December 31, 2006, and
$51.3 million at December 31, 2005. The obligation
will be settled with a payment of $35 million on
July 1, 2007.
Accrued liabilities at December 31, 2006, and 2005,
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
243.3
|
|
|
$
|
245.0
|
|
Employee costs
|
|
|
165.8
|
|
|
|
147.2
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes
|
|
|
151.9
|
|
|
|
141.4
|
|
Accrual for Gulf Liquids
litigation contingency
|
|
|
94.7
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
80.8
|
|
|
|
58.2
|
|
Accrual for Power litigation
contingencies
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
52.2
|
|
Guarantees and payment obligations
related to WilTel
|
|
|
41.1
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
|
Structured indemnity settlement
|
|
|
33.9
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
386.5
|
|
|
|
417.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,241.4
|
|
|
$
|
1,123.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes $22 million of interest |
115
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 11.
|
Debt,
Leases and Banking Arrangements
|
Long-Term
Debt
Long-term debt at December 31, 2006 and 2005, is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
Rate(1)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Secured(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.62%-9.45%, payable through 2016
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
171.7
|
|
|
$
|
195.7
|
|
Adjustable rate, payable through
2016
|
|
|
6.2
|
%
|
|
|
74.4
|
|
|
|
572.2
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
Unsecured
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.5%-10.25%, payable through 2033
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
|
|
7,690.4
|
|
|
|
6,867.3
|
|
Adjustable rate, due 2008
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
Other, payable through 2007
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt, including
current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,014.1
|
|
|
|
7,713.1
|
|
Long-term debt due within one year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(392.1
|
)
|
|
|
(122.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,622.0
|
|
|
$
|
7,590.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
At December 31, 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes $246.1 million at December 31, 2006,
collateralized by certain fixed assets of two of our Venezuelan
subsidiaries with a net book value of $380 million at
December 31, 2006. |
Revolving
credit and letter of credit facilities (credit
facilities)
In May 2006, we obtained an unsecured, three-year,
$1.5 billion revolving credit facility, replacing our
$1.275 billion secured revolving credit facility. The new
unsecured facility contains similar terms and financial
covenants as the secured facility, but contains additional
restrictions on asset sales, certain subsidiary debt and
sale-leaseback transactions. The facility is guaranteed by
Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC and we guarantee obligations
of Williams Partners L.P. for up to $75 million. Northwest
Pipeline and Transco each have access to $400 million and
Williams Partners L.P. has access to $75 million under the
facility to the extent not otherwise utilized by us. Interest is
calculated based on a choice of two methods: a fluctuating rate
equal to the lenders base rate plus an applicable margin
or a periodic fixed rate equal to LIBOR plus an applicable
margin. We are required to pay a commitment fee (currently
.25 percent annually) based on the unused portion of the
facility. The margins and commitment fee are generally based on
the specific borrowers senior unsecured long-term debt
ratings. Significant financial covenants under the credit
agreement include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Our ratio of debt to capitalization must be no greater than
65 percent. At December 31, 2006, we are in compliance
with this covenant as our ratio of debt to capitalization, as
calculated under this covenant, is approximately 53 percent.
|
|
|
|
Ratio of debt to capitalization must be no greater than
55 percent for Northwest Pipeline and Transco. At
December 31, 2006, we are in compliance with this covenant
as our ratio of debt to capitalization, as calculated under this
covenant, is approximately 44 percent for Northwest
Pipeline and 32 percent for Transco.
|
116
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
Our ratio of EBITDA to interest, on a rolling four quarter
basis, must be no less than 2.5 for the period ending
December 31, 2007 and 3.0 for the remaining term of the
agreement. Through December 31, 2006, we are in compliance
with this covenant as we exceed the compliance level by
approximately 50 percent.
|
Our $500 million and $700 million facilities provide
for both borrowings and issuing letters of credit but are
expected to be used primarily for issuing letters of credit. We
are required to pay the funding bank fixed fees at a
weighted-average interest rate of 3.64 percent and
2.29 percent for the $500 million and
$700 million facilities, respectively, on the total
committed amount of the facilities. In addition, we pay interest
on any borrowings at a fluctuating rate comprised of either a
base rate or LIBOR.
The funding bank syndicated its associated credit risk through a
private offering that allows for the resale of certain
restricted securities to qualified institutional buyers. To
facilitate the syndication of these facilities, the bank
established trusts funded by the institutional investors. The
assets of the trusts serve as collateral to reimburse the bank
for our borrowings in the event that the facilities are
delivered to the investors as described below. Thus, we have no
asset securitization or collateral requirements under the
facilities. Upon the occurrence of certain credit events,
letters of credit under the agreement become cash collateralized
creating a borrowing under the facilities. Concurrently, the
funding bank can deliver the facilities to the institutional
investors, whereby the investors replace the funding bank as
lender under the facilities. Upon such occurrence, we will pay:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$500 Million Facility
|
|
|
$700 Million Facility
|
|
|
|
$400 million
|
|
|
$100 million
|
|
|
$500 million
|
|
|
$200 million
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
3.57 percent
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
|
|
4.35 percent
|
|
|
|
LIBOR
|
|
Facility Fixed Fee
|
|
3.19 percent
|
|
2.29 percent
|
At December 31, 2006, no loans are outstanding under our
credit facilities. Letters of credit issued under our credit
facilities are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letters of Credit at
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
$500 million unsecured credit
facilities
|
|
$
|
370.1
|
|
$700 million unsecured credit
facilities
|
|
$
|
525.0
|
|
$1.5 billion unsecured credit
facility
|
|
$
|
28.8
|
|
Exploration
& Productions Credit Agreement
Exploration & Production has recently entered into a
five-year unsecured credit agreement with certain banks in order
to reduce margin requirements related to our hedging activities
as well as lower transaction fees. Margin requirements, if any,
under this new facility are dependent on the level of hedging
and on natural gas reserves value.
Issuances
and retirements
On May 28, 2003, we issued $300 million of
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures due
2033. These notes, which are callable after seven years, are
convertible at the option of the holder into our common stock at
a conversion price of approximately $10.89 per share. In
November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert these debentures
to shares of our common stock. In January 2006, we converted
approximately $220.2 million of the debentures. (See
Note 12.)
In April 2006, Transco issued $200 million aggregate
principal amount of 6.4 percent senior unsecured notes due
2016 to certain institutional investors in a private debt
placement. In October 2006, Transco completed an exchange of
these notes for substantially identical new notes that are
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
117
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In April 2006, we retired a secured floating-rate term loan for
$488.9 million, including outstanding principal and accrued
interest. The loan was due in 2008 and secured by substantially
all of the assets of Williams Production RMT Company. The loan
was retired using a combination of cash and revolving credit
borrowings.
In June 2006, Northwest Pipeline issued $175 million
aggregate principal amount of 7 percent senior unsecured
notes due 2016 to certain institutional investors in a private
debt placement. In October 2006, Northwest Pipeline completed an
exchange of these notes for substantially identical new notes
that are registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
In June 2006, Williams Partners L.P. acquired 25.1 percent
of our interest in Williams Four Corners LLC for
$360 million. The acquisition was completed after Williams
Partners L.P. successfully closed a $150 million private
debt offering of 7.5 percent senior unsecured notes due
2011 and an equity offering of approximately $225 million
in net proceeds. In December 2006, Williams Partners L.P.
acquired the remaining 74.9 percent interest in Williams
Four Corners LLC for $1.223 billion. The acquisition was
completed after Williams Partners L.P. successfully closed a
$600 million private debt offering of 7.25 percent
senior unsecured notes due 2017, a private equity offering of
approximately $350 million of common and Class B
units, and a public equity offering of approximately
$294 million in net proceeds. The debt and equity issued by
Williams Partners L.P. is reported as a component of our
consolidated debt balance and minority interest balance,
respectively. Williams Four Corners LLC owns certain gathering,
processing and treating assets in the San Juan Basin in
Colorado and New Mexico.
Aggregate minimum maturities of long-term debt (excluding
capital leases and unamortized discount and premium) for each of
the next five years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
391.4
|
|
2008
|
|
|
238.0
|
|
2009
|
|
|
53.1
|
|
2010
|
|
|
217.3
|
|
2011
|
|
|
1,168.0
|
|
Cash payments for interest (net of amounts capitalized) were as
follows: 2006 $611 million; 2005
$625 million; and 2004 $849 million.
Leases-Lessee
Future minimum annual rentals under noncancelable operating
leases as of December 31, 2006, are payable as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
225.4
|
|
2008
|
|
|
227.0
|
|
2009
|
|
|
205.9
|
|
2010
|
|
|
185.8
|
|
2011
|
|
|
179.8
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,120.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,144.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above amounts include obligations of approximately
$1.9 billion related to a tolling agreement at Power that
is accounted for as an operating lease as a result of changes to
the contract terms in 2004 after implementation of EITF
01-8. (See
Note 1.) Under the tolling agreement, Power has the
exclusive right to capacity and fuel conversion services as well
as ancillary services associated with electric generation
facilities that are currently in
118
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
operation in southern California. Current annual rentals under
this tolling agreement range from approximately
$157 million to $169 million through 2017, with
approximately $70 million remaining to be paid in 2018.
Certain transactions resulting from the tolling agreements are
accounted for as operating subleases. Total rentals to be
received from these operating subleases are approximately
$1.1 billion with approximately 4 years remaining on
the agreements as of December 31, 2006.
Total rent expense was $242 million in 2006,
$226 million in 2005 and $206 million in 2004. Rent
expense at Power, primarily related to the tolling agreement,
was $175 million (including $11 million of contingent
rentals) in 2006 and $161 million (including
($1) million of contingent rentals) in 2005. Powers
rent expense was offset by approximately $264 million
(including $8 million of contingent rental income) in 2006
and $172 million (including $7 million of contingent
rental income) in 2005 resulting from sales and other
transactions made possible by the tolling agreement. Contingent
rentals are primarily based on utilization of the leased
property or changes in the capacity and availability of the
power generating facility.
|
|
Note 12.
|
Stockholders
Equity
|
In November 2005, we initiated an offer to convert our
5.5 percent junior subordinated convertible debentures into
our common stock. In January 2006, we converted approximately
$220.2 million of the debentures in exchange for
20.2 million shares of common stock, a $25.8 million
cash premium, and $1.5 million of accrued interest.
We maintain a Stockholder Rights Plan, as amended and restated
on September 21, 2004, under which each outstanding share
of our common stock has a right (as defined in the plan)
attached. Under certain conditions, each right may be exercised
to purchase, at an exercise price of $50 (subject to
adjustment), one two-hundredth of a share of Series A
Junior Participating Preferred Stock. The rights may be
exercised only if an Acquiring Person acquires (or obtains the
right to acquire) 15 percent or more of our common stock or
commences an offer for 15 percent or more of our common
stock. The rights, which until exercised do not have voting
rights, expire in 2014 and may be redeemed at a price of
$.01 per right prior to their expiration, or within a
specified period of time after the occurrence of certain events.
In the event a person becomes the owner of more than
15 percent of our common stock, each holder of a right
(except an Acquiring Person) shall have the right to receive,
upon exercise, our common stock having a value equal to two
times the exercise price of the right. In the event we are
engaged in a merger, business combination, or 50 percent or
more of our assets, cash flow or earnings power is sold or
transferred, each holder of a right (except an Acquiring Person)
shall have the right to receive, upon exercise, common stock of
the acquiring company having a value equal to two times the
exercise price of the right.
|
|
Note 13.
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
Plan
Information
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2002 Incentive Plan (the Plan) was
approved by stockholders on May 16, 2002, and amended and
restated on May 15, 2003, and January 23, 2004. The
Plan provides for common-stock-based awards to both employees
and nonmanagement directors. Upon approval by the stockholders,
all prior stock plans were terminated resulting in no further
grants being made from those plans. However, awards outstanding
in those prior plans remain in those plans with their respective
terms and provisions.
The Plan permits the granting of various types of awards
including, but not limited to, stock options and restricted
stock units. Restricted stock units represent deferred share
awards subject to time
and/or
performance-based vesting requirements. Awards may be granted
for no consideration other than prior and future services or
based on certain financial performance targets being achieved.
At December 31, 2006, 41.7 million shares of our
common stock were reserved for issuance pursuant to existing and
future stock awards, of which 20 million shares were
available for future grants. At December 31, 2005,
45 million shares of our common stock were reserved for
issuance, of which 21.6 million were available for future
grants.
119
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock
Options
Stock options are valued at the date of award, which does not
precede the approval date, and compensation cost is recognized
on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures, over the
requisite service period. Stock options generally become
exercisable over a three-year period from the date of grant and
generally expire ten years after the grant.
The following summary reflects stock option activity and related
information for the year ending December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
Stock Options
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31,
2005
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
$
|
16.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
$
|
21.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
11.72
|
|
|
$
|
36.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
32.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31,
2006
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
$
|
16.96
|
|
|
$
|
198.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31,
2006
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
$
|
16.90
|
|
|
$
|
157.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total intrinsic value of options exercised during the years
ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 was
$36.4 million, $42.2 million, and $42.4 million,
respectively.
The following summary provides additional information about
stock options that are outstanding and exercisable at
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options Outstanding
|
|
|
Stock Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
Range of Exercise Prices
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Life
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
$2.27 to $10.00
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
$
|
7.05
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
$
|
6.52
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
$10.38 to $16.40
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
15.43
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
$
|
15.49
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
$17.10 to $31.58
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
$
|
21.22
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
$
|
22.81
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
$33.51 to $42.29
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
$
|
37.59
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
$
|
37.59
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
$
|
16.96
|
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
$
|
16.90
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated fair value at date of grant of options for our
common stock granted in 2006, 2005, and 2004, using the
Black-Scholes option pricing model, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Weighted-average grant date fair
value of options for our
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
common stock granted during the
year
|
|
$
|
8.36
|
|
|
$
|
6.70
|
|
|
$
|
4.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
1.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Volatility
|
|
|
36.3
|
%
|
|
|
33.3
|
%
|
|
|
50.0
|
%
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
120
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The expected dividend yield is based on the average annual
dividend yield as of the grant date. Expected volatility is
based on the historical volatility of our stock and the implied
volatility of our stock based on traded options. In calculating
historical volatility, returns during calendar year 2002 were
excluded as the extreme volatility during that time is not
reasonably expected to be repeated in the future. The risk-free
interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury Constant
Maturity rates as of the grant date. The expected life of the
option is based on historical exercise behavior and expected
future experience.
Cash received from stock option exercises was
$34.3 million, $39.4 million and $21.6 million
during 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The tax benefit
realized from stock options exercised during 2006, 2005 and 2004
was $13.9 million, $14.2 million and
$13.7 million, respectively.
Nonvested
Restricted Stock Units
Restricted stock units are generally valued at market value on
the grant date of the award and generally vest over three years.
Restricted stock unit expense, net of estimated forfeitures, is
generally recognized over the vesting period on a straight-line
basis.
The following summary reflects nonvested restricted stock unit
activity and related information for the year ended
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Restricted Stock Units
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair Value*
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
$
|
14.60
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
$
|
23.39
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
17.76
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
(.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
11.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
$
|
20.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Performance-based shares are valued at the
end-of-period
market price. All other shares are valued at the grant-date
market price. |
Other
restricted stock unit information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Weighted-average grant date fair
value of restricted stock units granted during the year, per
share
|
|
$
|
23.39
|
|
|
$
|
19.35
|
|
|
$
|
10.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fair value of restricted
stock units vested during the year ($s in millions)
|
|
$
|
14.5
|
|
|
$
|
13.7
|
|
|
$
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance-based share awards issued under the Plan represent
34 percent of nonvested restricted stock units outstanding
at December 31, 2006. These awards are generally earned at
the end of a three-year period based on actual performance
against a performance target. Expense associated with these
performance-based awards will be recognized in future periods
when performance targets are established. Based on the extent to
which certain financial targets are achieved, vested shares may
range from zero percent to 200 percent of the original
award amount.
121
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 14.
|
Financial
Instruments, Derivatives, Guarantees and Concentration of Credit
Risk
|
Financial
Instruments
Fair-value
methods
We use the following methods and assumptions in estimating our
fair-value disclosures for financial instruments:
Cash and cash equivalents and restricted
cash: The carrying amounts of cash equivalents
reported in the balance sheet approximate fair value due to the
short-term maturity of these instruments.
Other securities, notes and other noncurrent receivables,
structured indemnity settlement obligation, margin deposits, and
customer margin deposits payable: The carrying
amounts reported in the balance sheet approximate fair value as
these instruments have interest rates approximating market.
Other securities in the table below consists of auction rate
securities and
held-to-maturity
securities and are reported in other current assets and
deferred charges in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
Long-term debt: The fair value of our publicly
traded long-term debt is valued using indicative year-end traded
bond market prices. Private debt is valued based on the prices
of similar securities with similar terms and credit ratings. At
December 31, 2006 and 2005, approximately 87 percent
and 89 percent, respectively, of our long-term debt was
publicly traded. We use the expertise of outside investment
banking firms to assist with the estimate of the fair value of
our long-term debt.
Guarantees: The guarantees represented
in the table below consists primarily of guarantees we have
provided in the event of nonpayment by our previously owned
communications subsidiary, Williams Communications Group
(WilTel), on certain lease performance obligations. To estimate
the fair value of the guarantees, the estimated default rate is
determined by obtaining the average cumulative issuer-weighted
corporate default rate for each guarantee based on the credit
rating of WilTels current owner and the term of the
underlying obligation. The default rates are published by
Moodys Investors Service.
Energy derivatives: Energy derivatives include:
|
|
|
|
|
Futures contracts;
|
|
|
|
Forward contracts;
|
|
|
|
Swap agreements;
|
|
|
|
Option contracts.
|
The fair value of energy derivatives is determined based on the
nature of the underlying transaction and the market in which the
transaction is executed. We execute most of these transactions
on an organized commodity exchange or in
over-the-counter
markets in which quoted prices exist for active periods. For
contracts with terms that exceed the time period for which
actively quoted prices are available, we determine fair value by
estimating commodity prices during the illiquid periods
utilizing internally developed valuations incorporating
information obtained from commodity prices in actively quoted
markets, quoted prices in less active markets, prices reflected
in current transactions, and other market fundamental analysis.
122
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Carrying
amounts and fair values of our financial instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
|
Asset (Liability)
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,268.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,597.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,597.2
|
|
Restricted cash (current and
noncurrent)
|
|
|
126.1
|
|
|
|
126.1
|
|
|
|
129.4
|
|
|
|
129.4
|
|
Other securities
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
|
|
103.2
|
|
|
|
122.9
|
|
|
|
122.9
|
|
Notes and other noncurrent
receivables
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
|
|
26.6
|
|
Cost based investments (see
Note 3)
|
|
|
51.6
|
|
|
|
(a
|
)
|
|
|
56.7
|
|
|
|
(a
|
)
|
Long-term debt, including current
portion (see Note 11)(b)
|
|
|
(8,011.6
|
)
|
|
|
(8,480.0
|
)
|
|
|
(7,710.3
|
)
|
|
|
(8,599.4
|
)
|
Structured indemnity settlement
obligation (see Note 10)
|
|
|
(33.9
|
)
|
|
|
(33.9
|
)
|
|
|
(51.3
|
)
|
|
|
(51.3
|
)
|
Margin deposits
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
349.2
|
|
|
|
349.2
|
|
Customer margin deposits payable
|
|
|
(128.7
|
)
|
|
|
(128.7
|
)
|
|
|
(320.7
|
)
|
|
|
(320.7
|
)
|
Guarantees
|
|
|
(41.6
|
)
|
|
|
(34.8
|
)
|
|
|
(43.3
|
)
|
|
|
(43.3
|
)
|
Net energy derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy commodity cash flow hedges
|
|
|
365.1
|
|
|
|
365.1
|
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
Other energy derivatives
|
|
|
69.8
|
|
|
|
69.8
|
|
|
|
106.9
|
|
|
|
106.9
|
|
Other derivatives(c)
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
These investments are primarily in nonpublicly traded companies
for which it is not practicable to estimate fair value. |
|
(b) |
|
Excludes capital leases. |
|
(c) |
|
Consists of nonenergy cash flow hedges. |
Energy
Derivatives
Our energy derivative contracts include the following:
Futures contracts: Futures contracts are
standardized commitments through an organized commodity exchange
to either purchase or sell a commodity at a future date for a
specified price. Futures are generally settled in cash, but may
be settled through delivery of the underlying commodity. The
fair value of these contacts is generally determined using
quoted prices.
Forward contracts: Forward contracts are
over-the-counter
commitments to either purchase or sell a commodity at a future
date for a specified price, which involve physical delivery of
energy commodities, and may contain either fixed or variable
pricing terms. Forward contracts are valued based on prices of
the underlying energy commodities over the contract life and
contractual or notional volumes with the resulting expected
future cash flows discounted to a present value using a
risk-free market interest rate.
Swap agreements: Swap agreements require us to
make payments to (or receive payments from) counterparties based
upon the differential between a fixed and variable price or
between variable prices of energy commodities at different
locations. Swap agreements are valued based on prices of the
underlying energy commodities over the contract life and
contractual or notional volumes with the resulting expected
future cash flows discounted to a present value using a
risk-free market interest rate.
Option contracts: Physical and financial
option contracts give the buyer the right to exercise the option
and receive the difference between a predetermined strike price
and a market price at the date of exercise. These
123
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
contracts are valued based on option pricing models considering
prices of the underlying energy commodities over the contract
life, volatility of the commodity prices, contractual volumes,
estimated volumes under option and other arrangements, and a
risk-free market interest rate.
Energy
commodity cash flow hedges
We are exposed to market risk from changes in energy commodity
prices within our operations. We utilize derivatives to manage
our exposure to the variability in expected future cash flows
from forecasted purchases and sales of natural gas and
electricity attributable to commodity price risk. Certain of
these derivatives have been designated as cash flow hedges under
SFAS No. 133.
Our Power segment sells electricity produced by our electric
generation facilities, obtained contractually through tolling
agreements or obtained through marketplace transactions at
different locations throughout the United States. We also buy
electricity and capacity to serve our full requirements
agreements in the Southeast. To reduce exposure to a decrease in
revenues and increase in costs from fluctuations in electricity
prices, we enter into fixed-price forward physical sales and
purchase contracts and financial option contracts to mitigate
the price risk on forecasted electricity sales and purchases.
Our electric generation facilities and tolling agreements
require natural gas for the production of electricity. To reduce
our exposure to increasing costs of natural gas due to changes
in market prices, we enter into natural gas futures contracts,
swap agreements, fixed-price forward physical purchases and
financial option contracts to mitigate the price risk on
anticipated purchases of natural gas.
Powers cash flow hedges are expected to be highly
effective in offsetting cash flows attributable to the hedged
risk during the term of the hedge. However, ineffectiveness may
be recognized primarily as a result of locational differences
between the hedging derivative and the hedged item, changes in
the creditworthiness of counterparties, and the hedging
derivative contract having an initial fair value upon
designation.
Our Exploration & Production segment produces, buys and
sells natural gas at different locations throughout the United
States. To reduce exposure to a decrease in revenues from
fluctuations in natural gas market prices, we hedge price risk
by entering into natural gas futures contracts, swap agreements,
and financial option contracts to mitigate the price risk on
forecasted sales and purchases of natural gas. We also enter
into basis swap agreements to reduce the locational price risk
associated with our producing basins. Exploration &
Productions cash flow hedges are expected to be highly
effective in offsetting cash flows attributable to the hedged
risk during the term of the hedge. However, ineffectiveness may
be recognized primarily as a result of locational differences
between the hedging derivative and the hedged item.
Changes in the fair value of our cash flow hedges are deferred
in other comprehensive income and are reclassified into
revenues in the same period or periods in which the
hedged forecasted purchases or sales affect earnings, or when it
is probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will not
occur by the end of the originally specified time period. During
2006, we reclassified approximately $1 million of net gains
from other comprehensive income to earnings as a result of the
discontinuance of cash flow hedges because the forecasted
transaction did not occur by the end of the originally specified
time period. Approximately $20 million and $2 million
of net gains from hedge ineffectiveness are included in
revenues in the Consolidated Statement of Income during
2006 and 2005, respectively. For 2006 and 2005, there are no
derivative gains or losses excluded from the assessment of hedge
effectiveness. As of December 31, 2006, we have hedged
portions of future cash flows associated with anticipated energy
commodity purchases and sales for up to nine years. Based on
recorded values at December 31, 2006, approximately
$9 million of net gains (net of income tax provision of
$6 million) will be reclassified into earnings within the
next year. These recorded values are based on market prices of
the commodities as of December 31, 2006. Due to the
volatile nature of commodity prices and changes in the
creditworthiness of counterparties, actual gains or losses
realized in 2007 will likely differ from these values. These
gains or losses will offset net losses or gains that
124
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
will be realized in earnings from previous unfavorable or
favorable market movements associated with underlying hedged
transactions.
Power elected hedge accounting for certain of its nontrading
derivatives in the fourth quarter of 2004 after our Board
decided in September 2004 to retain the Power business. Before
this election, net changes in the fair value of these
derivatives were recognized as revenues in the Consolidated
Statement of Income.
Other
energy derivatives
Our Power segment has other energy derivatives that have not
been designated or do not qualify as SFAS No. 133
hedges. As such, the net change in their fair value is
recognized in revenues in the Consolidated Statement of Income.
Even though they do not qualify for hedge accounting (see
derivative instruments and hedging activities in
Note 1 for a description of hedge accounting), certain of
these derivatives hedge Powers future cash flows on an
economic basis.
In addition, our Exploration & Production segment
enters into natural gas basis swap agreements that are not
designated in a hedging relationship under
SFAS No. 133. The fair value of these contracts is
approximately $22 million as of December 31, 2006.
Other
energy-related contracts
We also hold significant nonderivative energy-related contracts
in our Power portfolios. These have not been included in the
financial instruments table above or in our Consolidated Balance
Sheet because they are not derivatives as defined by
SFAS No. 133.
Guarantees
In addition to the guarantees and payment obligations discussed
elsewhere in these footnotes (see Notes 3 and 15), we
have issued guarantees and other similar arrangements with
off-balance sheet risk as discussed below.
In connection with agreements executed prior to our acquisition
of Transco to resolve
take-or-pay
and other contract claims and to amend gas purchase contracts,
Transco entered into certain settlements with producers which
may require the indemnification of certain claims for additional
royalties that the producers may be required to pay as a result
of such settlements. Transco, through its agent, Power,
continues to purchase gas under contracts which extend, in some
cases, through the life of the associated gas reserves. Certain
of these contracts contain royalty indemnification provisions
that have no carrying value. Producers have received certain
demands and may receive other demands, which could result in
claims pursuant to royalty indemnification provisions.
Indemnification for royalties will depend on, among other
things, the specific lease provisions between the producer and
the lessor and the terms of the agreement between the producer
and Transco. Consequently, the potential maximum future payments
under such indemnification provisions cannot be determined.
However, management believes that the probability of material
payments is remote.
In connection with the 1993 public offering of units in the
Williams Coal Seam Gas Royalty Trust (Royalty Trust), our
Exploration & Production segment entered into a gas
purchase contract for the purchase of natural gas in which the
Royalty Trust holds a net profits interest. Under this
agreement, we guarantee a minimum purchase price that the
Royalty Trust will realize in the calculation of its net profits
interest. We have an annual option to discontinue this minimum
purchase price guarantee and pay solely based on an index price.
The maximum potential future exposure associated with this
guarantee is not determinable because it is dependent upon
natural gas prices and production volumes. No amounts have been
accrued for this contingent obligation as the index price
continues to substantially exceed the minimum purchase price.
We are required by certain foreign lenders to ensure that the
interest rates received by them under various loan agreements
are not reduced by taxes by providing for the reimbursement of
any domestic taxes required to be paid
125
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
by the foreign lender. The maximum potential amount of future
payments under these indemnifications is based on the related
borrowings. These indemnifications generally continue
indefinitely unless limited by the underlying tax regulations
and have no carrying value. We have never been called upon to
perform under these indemnifications.
We have provided guarantees in the event of nonpayment by our
previously owned communications subsidiary, WilTel, on certain
lease performance obligations that extend through 2042. The
maximum potential exposure is approximately $46 million at
December 31, 2006, and $47 million at
December 31, 2005. Our exposure declines systematically
throughout the remaining term of WilTels obligations. The
carrying value of these guarantees is approximately
$41 million at December 31, 2006.
Former managing directors of Gulf Liquids are involved in
litigation related to the construction of gas processing plants.
Gulf Liquids has indemnity obligations to the former managing
directors for legal fees and potential losses that may result
from this litigation. Claims against these former managing
directors have been settled and dismissed after payments on
their behalf by directors and officers insurers. Some unresolved
issues remain between us and these insurers, but no amounts have
been accrued for any potential liability.
We have guaranteed the performance of a former subsidiary of our
wholly owned subsidiary MAPCO Inc., under a coal supply
contract. This guarantee was granted by MAPCO Inc. upon the sale
of its former subsidiary to a third-party in 1996. The
guaranteed contract provides for an annual supply of a minimum
of 2.25 million tons of coal. Our potential exposure is
dependent on the difference between current market prices of
coal and the pricing terms of the contract, both of which are
variable, and the remaining term of the contract. Given the
variability of the terms, the maximum future potential payments
cannot be determined. We believe that our likelihood of
performance under this guarantee is remote. In the event we are
required to perform, we are fully indemnified by the purchaser
of MAPCO Inc.s former subsidiary. This guarantee expires
in December 2010 and has no carrying value.
Concentration
of Credit Risk
Cash
equivalents
Our cash equivalents consist of high-quality securities placed
with various major financial institutions with credit ratings at
or above BBB by Standard & Poors or Baa1 by
Moodys Investors Service.
Accounts
and notes receivable
The following table summarizes concentration of receivables, net
of allowances, by product or service at December 31, 2006
and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Receivables by product or service:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale or transportation of natural
gas and related products
|
|
$
|
894.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,142.6
|
|
Sales of power and related services
|
|
|
270.2
|
|
|
|
394.5
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
38.6
|
|
|
|
32.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,212.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,613.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas customers include pipelines, distribution companies,
producers, gas marketers and industrial users primarily located
in the eastern and northwestern United States, Rocky Mountains,
Gulf Coast, Venezuela and Canada. Customers for power include
the California Independent System Operator (ISO), the California
Department of Water Resources, and other power marketers and
utilities located throughout the United States. As a general
policy, collateral is not required for receivables, but
customers financial condition and credit worthiness are
evaluated regularly.
126
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Derivative
assets and liabilities
We have a risk of loss as a result of counterparties not
performing pursuant to the terms of their contractual
obligations. Risk of loss results from items including credit
considerations and the regulatory environment for which a
counterparty transacts. We attempt to minimize credit-risk
exposure to derivative counterparties and brokers through formal
credit policies, consideration of credit ratings from public
ratings agencies, monitoring procedures, master netting
agreements and collateral support under certain circumstances.
The concentration of counterparties within the energy and energy
trading industry impacts our overall exposure to credit risk in
that these counterparties are similarly influenced by changes in
the economy and regulatory issues. Additional collateral support
could include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Letters of credit;
|
|
|
|
Payment under margin agreements;
|
|
|
|
Guarantees of payment by credit worthy parties.
|
We also enter into master netting agreements to mitigate
counterparty performance and credit risk.
The gross credit exposure from our derivative contracts as of
December 31, 2006, is summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
248.0
|
|
|
$
|
249.9
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
412.7
|
|
|
|
1,784.3
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
|
|
2,219.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
29.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,903.4
|
|
|
|
4,283.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,263.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We assess our credit exposure on a net basis to reflect master
netting agreements in place with certain counterparties. We
offset our credit exposure to each counterparty with amounts we
owe the counterparty under derivative contracts. The net credit
exposure from our derivatives as of December 31, 2006, is
summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty Type
|
|
Grade(a)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Gas and electric utilities
|
|
$
|
120.4
|
|
|
$
|
120.5
|
|
Energy marketers and traders
|
|
|
209.0
|
|
|
|
455.4
|
|
Financial institutions
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
|
|
325.5
|
|
Other
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
675.3
|
|
|
|
921.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net credit exposure from
derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
901.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
We determine investment grade primarily using publicly available
credit ratings. We included counterparties with a minimum
Standard & Poors of BBB- or Moodys
Investors Service rating of Baa3 in investment grade. |
127
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
We also classify counterparties that have provided sufficient
collateral, such as cash, standby letters of credit, parent
company guarantees, and property interests, as investment grade. |
Revenues
In 2006, 2005 and 2004, there were no customers for which our
sales exceeded 10 percent of our consolidated revenues.
|
|
Note 15.
|
Contingent
Liabilities and Commitments
|
Rate
and Regulatory Matters and Related Litigation
Our interstate pipeline subsidiaries have various regulatory
proceedings pending. As a result of rulings in certain of these
proceedings, a portion of the revenues of these subsidiaries has
been collected subject to refund. The natural gas pipeline
subsidiaries have accrued approximately $2 million for
potential refunds as of December 31, 2006.
Issues
Resulting From California Energy Crisis
Subsidiaries of our Power segment are engaged in power marketing
in various geographic areas, including California. Prices
charged for power by us and other traders and generators in
California and other western states in 2000 and 2001 were
challenged in various proceedings, including those before the
FERC. These challenges included refund proceedings, summer 2002
90-day
contracts, investigations of alleged market manipulation
including withholding, gas indices and other gaming of the
market, new long-term power sales to the State of California
that were subsequently challenged and civil litigation relating
to certain of these issues. We have entered into settlements
with the State of California (State Settlement), major
California utilities (Utilities Settlement), and others that
substantially resolved each of these issues with these parties.
As a result of a December 19, 2006 Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals decision, certain contracts that Power entered into
during 2000 and 2001 may be subject to partial refunds. These
contracts, under which Power sold electricity, totaled
approximately $89 million in revenue. While Power is not a
party to the cases involved in the appellate court decision, the
buyer of electricity from Power is a party to the cases and
claims that Power must refund to the buyer any loss it suffers
due to the decision and the FERCs reconsideration of the
contract terms at issue in the decision.
Certain other issues also remain open at the FERC and for other
nonsettling parties.
Refund
proceedings
Although we entered into the State Settlement and Utilities
Settlement, which resolved the refund issues among the settling
parties, we continue to have potential refund exposure to
nonsettling parties, such as various California end users that
did not participate in the Utilities Settlement. As a part of
the Utilities Settlement, we funded escrow accounts that we
anticipate will satisfy any ultimate refund determinations in
favor of the nonsettling parties. We are also owed interest from
counterparties in the California market during the refund period
for which we have recorded a receivable totaling approximately
$31 million at December 31, 2006. Collection of the
interest is subject to the conclusion of this proceeding.
Therefore, we continue to participate in the FERC refund case
and related proceedings. Challenges to virtually every aspect of
the refund proceeding, including the refund period, were made to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 2, 2006, the
Ninth Circuit issued its order that largely upheld the
FERCs prior rulings, but it expanded the types of
transactions that were made subject to refund. Because of our
settlement, we do not expect this decision will have a material
impact on us. No final refund calculation, however, has been
made, and certain aspects of the refund calculation process
remain unclear and prevent that final refund calculation. As
part of the State Settlement, an additional $45 million,
previously accrued, remains to be paid
128
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
to the California Attorney General (or his designee) over the
next three years, with the final payment of $15 million due
on January 1, 2010.
Reporting
of Natural Gas-Related Information to Trade
Publications
We disclosed on October 25, 2002, that certain of our
natural gas traders had reported inaccurate information to a
trade publication that published gas price indices. In 2002, we
received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in northern
California seeking documents related to our involvement in
California markets, including our reporting to trade
publications for both gas and power transactions. We have
completed our response to the subpoena. Three former traders
with Power have pled guilty to manipulation of gas prices
through misreporting to an industry trade periodical. One former
trader has pled not guilty. On February 21, 2006, we
entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) that is intended to resolve this
matter. The agreement obligated us to pay a total of
$50 million, of which $20 million was paid in March
2006. The remaining $30 million has been paid in February
2007. Absent a breach, the agreement will expire 15 months
from the date of execution of the agreement and no further
action will be taken by the DOJ.
Civil suits based on allegations of manipulating the gas indices
have been brought against us and others, in each case seeking an
unspecified amount of damages. We are currently a defendant in:
|
|
|
|
|
Class action litigation in federal court in Nevada alleging that
we manipulated gas prices for direct purchasers of gas in
California. We have reached settlement of this matter for
$2.4 million. Legal documents will be filed with the court
and the settlement is subject to court approval.
|
|
|
|
Class action litigation in state court in California alleging
that we manipulated prices for indirect purchasers of gas in
California. On December 11, 2006, the court granted final
approval of our settlement of this matter for $15.6 million.
|
|
|
|
State court in California on behalf of certain individual gas
users.
|
|
|
|
Class action litigation in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct
and indirect purchasers of gas in those states. On
February 2, 2007, the Tennessee court dismissed the case
before it because the claims could only be asserted at the FERC.
|
Earlier this year, we settled a case for $9.15 million in
Federal court in New York based on an allegation of manipulation
of the NYMEX gas market. It is reasonably possible that
additional amounts may be necessary to resolve the remaining
outstanding litigation in this area, the amount of which cannot
be reasonably estimated at this time.
Mobile
Bay Expansion
In December 2002, an administrative law judge at the FERC issued
an initial decision in Transcos 2001 general rate case
which, among other things, rejected the recovery of the costs of
Transcos Mobile Bay expansion project from its shippers on
a rolled-in basis and found that incremental pricing
for the Mobile Bay expansion project is just and reasonable. In
March 2004, the FERC issued an Order on Initial Decision in
which it reversed certain parts of the administrative law
judges decision and accepted Transcos proposal for
rolled-in rates. Power holds long-term transportation capacity
on the Mobile Bay expansion project. If the FERC had adopted the
decision of the administrative law judge on the pricing of the
Mobile Bay expansion project and also required that the decision
be implemented effective September 1, 2001, Power could
have been subject to surcharges of approximately
$111 million, including interest, through December 31,
2006, in addition to increased costs going forward. Certain
parties have filed appeals in federal court seeking to have the
FERCs ruling on the rolled-in rates overturned.
129
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Enron
Bankruptcy
We have outstanding claims against Enron Corp. and various of
its subsidiaries (collectively Enron) related to its
bankruptcy filed in December 2001. In 2002, we sold
$100 million of our claims against Enron to a third party
for $24.5 million. In 2003, Enron filed objections to these
claims. We have resolved Enrons objections, subject to
court approval. Pursuant to the sales agreement, the purchaser
of the claims has demanded repayment of the purchase price for
the reduced portions of the claims. In January 2007, we entered
into an
agreement-in-principle
with the purchaser to settle any potential repayment obligations.
Environmental
Matters
Continuing
operations
Since 1989, our Transco subsidiary has had studies underway to
test certain of its facilities for the presence of toxic and
hazardous substances to determine to what extent, if any,
remediation may be necessary. Transco has responded to data
requests from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and state agencies regarding such potential contamination
of certain of its sites. Transco has identified polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) contamination in compressor systems, soils and
related properties at certain compressor station sites. Transco
has also been involved in negotiations with the EPA and state
agencies to develop screening, sampling and cleanup programs. In
addition, Transco commenced negotiations with certain
environmental authorities and other programs concerning
investigative and remedial actions relative to potential mercury
contamination at certain gas metering sites. The costs of any
such remediation will depend upon the scope of the remediation.
At December 31, 2006, we had accrued liabilities of
$6 million related to PCB contamination, potential mercury
contamination, and other toxic and hazardous substances. Transco
has been identified as a potentially responsible party at
various Superfund and state waste disposal sites. Based on
present volumetric estimates and other factors, we have
estimated our aggregate exposure for remediation of these sites
to be less than $500,000, which is included in the environmental
accrual discussed above.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, our Northwest Pipeline
subsidiary evaluated many of its facilities for the presence of
toxic and hazardous substances to determine to what extent, if
any, remediation might be necessary. Consistent with other
natural gas transmission companies, Northwest Pipeline
identified PCB contamination in air compressor systems, soils
and related properties at certain compressor station sites.
Similarly, Northwest Pipeline identified hydrocarbon impacts at
these facilities due to the former use of earthen pits and
mercury contamination at certain gas metering sites. The PCBs
were remediated pursuant to a Consent Decree with the EPA in the
late 1980s and Northwest Pipeline conducted a voluntary
clean-up of
the hydrocarbon and mercury impacts in the early 1990s. In 2005,
the Washington Department of Ecology required Northwest Pipeline
to reevaluate its previous mercury
clean-ups in
Washington. Currently, Northwest Pipeline is assessing the
actions needed for the sites to comply with Washingtons
current environmental standards. At December 31, 2006, we
have accrued liabilities totaling approximately $5 million
for these costs. We expect that these costs will be recoverable
through Northwest Pipelines rates.
We also accrue environmental remediation costs for natural gas
underground storage facilities, primarily related to soil and
groundwater contamination. At December 31, 2006, we have
accrued liabilities totaling approximately $7 million for
these costs.
In August 2005, our subsidiary, Williams Production RMT Company,
voluntarily disclosed to the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) two air permit violations. We
have reached an agreement in principle with the CDPHE in which
we agree to pay a $500,000 penalty and conduct a supplemental
environmental project. A definitive agreement will be finalized
soon.
In March 2006, the CDPHE issued a notice of violation (NOV) to
Williams Production RMT Company related to our operating permit
for the Rulison oil separation and evaporation facility. On
April 12, 2006, we met with the
130
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
CDPHE to discuss the allegations contained in the NOV. In May
2006, we provided additional information to the agency regarding
the emission estimates for operations from 1997 through 2003 and
applied for updated permits.
In July 2006, the CDPHE issued an NOV to Williams Production RMT
Company related to operating permits for our Roan Cliffs
and Hayburn Gas Plants in Garfield County, Colorado. In
September 2006, we met with the CDPHE to discuss the allegations
contained in the NOV, and in October 2006, we provided
additional requested information to the agency.
In August 2006, the CDPHE issued a NOV to Williams Production
RMT Company related to our Grand Valley Oil Separation and
Evaporation Facility located in Garfield County, Colorado in
which the CDPHE alleged that we failed to obtain a construction
permit and to comply with certain provisions of our existing
permit. In September, 2006, we met with the CDPHE, and in
October 2006, we provided additional requested information to
the agency.
In July 2001, the EPA issued an information request asking for
information on oil releases and discharges in any amount from
our pipelines, pipeline systems, and pipeline facilities used in
the movement of oil or petroleum products, during the period
from July 1, 1998 through July 2, 2001. In November
2001, we furnished our response. In March 2004, the DOJ invited
the new owner of Williams Energy Partners and Magellan Midstream
Partners, L.P. (Magellan) to enter into negotiations regarding
alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. With the exception of
four minor release events that underwent earlier cleanup
operation under state enforcement actions, our environmental
indemnification obligations to Magellan were released in a 2004
buyout. We do not expect further enforcement action with respect
to the four release events or two 2006 spills at our Colorado
and Wyoming facilities after providing additional requested
information to the DOJ.
Former
operations, including operations classified as
discontinued
In connection with the sale of certain assets and businesses, we
have retained responsibility, through indemnification of the
purchasers, for environmental and other liabilities existing at
the time the sale was consummated, as described below.
Agrico
In connection with the 1987 sale of the assets of Agrico
Chemical Company, we agreed to indemnify the purchaser for
environmental cleanup costs resulting from certain conditions at
specified locations to the extent such costs exceed a specified
amount. At December 31, 2006, we have accrued liabilities
of approximately $9 million for such excess costs.
Other
At December 31, 2006, we have accrued environmental
liabilities totaling approximately $25 million related
primarily to our:
|
|
|
|
|
Potential indemnification obligations to purchasers of our
former retail petroleum and refining operations;
|
|
|
|
Former propane marketing operations, bio-energy facilities,
petroleum products and natural gas pipelines;
|
|
|
|
Discontinued petroleum refining facilities;
|
|
|
|
Former exploration and production and mining operations.
|
These costs include certain conditions at specified locations
related primarily to soil and groundwater contamination and any
penalty assessed on Williams Refining & Marketing,
L.L.C. (Williams Refining) associated with noncompliance with
the EPAs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). In 2002, Williams Refining submitted a
self-disclosure letter to the EPA indicating noncompliance with
those regulations. This unintentional noncompliance had occurred
due to a regulatory interpretation that resulted in
under-counting the total annual benzene level at Williams
Refinings Memphis refinery. Also in 2002, the EPA
conducted an all-
131
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
media audit of the Memphis refinery. In 2004, Williams Refining
and the new owner of the Memphis refinery met with the EPA and
the DOJ to discuss alleged violations and proposed penalties due
to noncompliance issues identified in the report, including the
benzene NESHAP issue. In July and August 2006, we finalized our
agreements that resolved both the governments claims
against us for alleged violations and an indemnity dispute with
the purchaser in connection with our 2003 sale of the Memphis
refinery. We have paid the required settlement amounts to the
purchaser, and our payment to the government awaits the filing
of the settlement with the court.
In 2004, our Gulf Liquids subsidiary initiated a self-audit of
all environmental conditions (air, water, waste) at three
facilities: Geismar, Sorrento, and Chalmette, Louisiana. The
audit revealed numerous infractions of Louisiana environmental
regulations and resulted in a Consolidated Compliance Order and
Notice of Potential Penalty from the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ). No specific penalty amount was
assessed. Instead, LDEQ was required by Louisiana law to demand
a profit and loss statement to determine the financial benefit
obtained by noncompliance and to assess a penalty accordingly.
Gulf Liquids offered $91,500 as a single, final, global
multi-media settlement. Subsequent negotiations have resulted in
a revised offer of $109,000, which LDEQ is currently reviewing.
Certain of our subsidiaries have been identified as potentially
responsible parties at various Superfund and state waste
disposal sites. In addition, these subsidiaries have incurred,
or are alleged to have incurred, various other hazardous
materials removal or remediation obligations under environmental
laws.
Summary
of environmental matters
Actual costs incurred for these matters could be substantially
greater than amounts accrued depending on the actual number of
contaminated sites identified, the actual amount and extent of
contamination discovered, the final cleanup standards mandated
by the EPA and other governmental authorities and other factors,
but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
Other
Legal Matters
Will
Price (formerly Quinque)
In 2001, fourteen of our entities were named as defendants in a
nationwide class action lawsuit in Kansas state court that had
been pending against other defendants, generally pipeline and
gathering companies, since 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants have engaged in mismeasurement techniques that
distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an
alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer
plaintiffs and sought an unspecified amount of damages. The
fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted all of
our defendant entities except two Midstream subsidiaries. All
remaining defendants have opposed class certification and a
hearing on plaintiffs second motion to certify the class
was held on April 1, 2005. We are awaiting a decision from
the court.
Grynberg
In 1998, the DOJ informed us that Jack Grynberg, an individual,
had filed claims on behalf of himself and the federal
government, in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado under the False Claims Act against us and certain of
our wholly owned subsidiaries. The claims sought an unspecified
amount of royalties allegedly not paid to the federal
government, treble damages, a civil penalty, attorneys
fees, and costs. In connection with our sales of Kern River Gas
Transmission in 2002 and Texas Gas Transmission Corporation in
2003, we agreed to indemnify the purchasers for any liability
relating to this claim, including legal fees. The maximum amount
of future payments that we could potentially be required to pay
under these indemnifications depends upon the ultimate
resolution of the claim and cannot currently be determined.
Grynberg had also filed claims against approximately 300 other
energy companies alleging that the defendants violated the False
Claims Act in connection with the measurement, royalty valuation
and purchase of hydrocarbons. In 1999, the DOJ announced that it
was declining to intervene in any of the Grynberg cases. Also in
1999, the Panel on Multi-District
132
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Litigation transferred all of these cases, including those filed
against us, to the federal court in Wyoming for pre-trial
purposes. Grynbergs measurement claims remained pending
against us and the other defendants; the court previously
dismissed Grynbergs royalty valuation claims. In May 2005,
the court-appointed special master entered a report which
recommended that the claims against our Gas Pipeline and
Midstream subsidiaries be dismissed but upheld the claims
against our Exploration & Production subsidiaries
against our jurisdictional challenge. In October 2006, the
District Court dismissed all claims against us and our wholly
owned subsidiaries, and in November 2006, Grynberg filed his
notice of appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On August 6, 2002, Jack J. Grynberg, and Celeste C.
Grynberg, Trustee on Behalf of the Rachel Susan Grynberg Trust,
and the Stephen Mark Grynberg Trust, served us and one of our
Exploration & Production subsidiaries with a complaint
in the state court in Denver, Colorado. The complaint alleges
that we have used mismeasurement techniques that distort the BTU
heating content of natural gas, resulting in the alleged
underpayment of royalties to Grynberg and other independent
natural gas producers. The complaint also alleges that we
inappropriately took deductions from the gross value of their
natural gas and made other royalty valuation errors. Under
various theories of relief, the plaintiff is seeking actual
damages of between $2 million and $20 million based on
interest rate variations and punitive damages in the amount of
approximately $1.4 million. In 2004, Grynberg filed an
amended complaint against one of our Exploration &
Production subsidiaries. This subsidiary filed an answer in
January 2005, denying liability for the damages claimed. Trial
in this case was originally set for May 2006, but the parties
have negotiated an agreement dismissing the measurement claims
and deferring further proceedings on the royalty claims until
resolution of an appeal in another case.
Securities
class actions
Numerous shareholder class action suits were filed against us in
2002 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma. The majority of the suits alleged that we
and co-defendants, WilTel, previously an owned subsidiary known
as Williams Communications, and certain corporate officers,
acted jointly and separately to inflate the stock price of both
companies. Other suits alleged similar causes of action related
to a public offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE
PACS offering. These cases were also filed in 2002 against us,
certain corporate officers, all members of our board of
directors and all of the offerings underwriters. WilTel
was dismissed as a defendant as a result of its bankruptcy.
These cases were consolidated and an order was issued requiring
separate amended consolidated complaints by our equity holders
and WilTel equity holders. The underwriter defendants have
requested indemnification and defense from these cases. If we
grant the requested indemnifications to the underwriters, any
related settlement costs will not be covered by our insurance
policies. We covered the cost of defending the underwriters. In
2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders
and of our securities holders added numerous claims related to
Power. On June 13, 2006, we announced that we had reached
an
agreement-in-principle
to settle the claims of our securities holders for a total
payment of $290 million. On October 4, 2006, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On
November 3, 2006, we paid into escrow approximately
$145 million in cash to fund the settlement, and the
balance of the total settlement amount was funded by our
insurers. On February 9, 2007, the court gave its final
approval to the settlement. We entered into indemnity agreements
with certain of our insurers to ensure their timely payment
related to this settlement. The carrying value of our estimated
liability related to these agreements is immaterial because we
believe the likelihood of any future performance is remote.
Litigation with the WilTel equity holders continues but the
trial has been stayed pending decisions on various motions for
summary judgment. Any obligation of ours to the WilTel equity
holders as a result of a settlement or as a result of trial will
not likely be covered by insurance, as our insurance coverage
has been fully utilized by the settlement described above. The
extent of the obligation is presently unknown and cannot be
estimated, but it is reasonably possible that our exposure
materially exceeds amounts accrued for this matter.
Derivative shareholder suits have been filed in state court in
Oklahoma all based on similar allegations. The state court
approved motions to consolidate and to stay these Oklahoma suits
pending action by the federal court in
133
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the shareholder suits. On December 23, 2006, our insurer
paid $1.2 million on our behalf to reimburse the
plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses which concluded the
settlement of these suits. We previously implemented certain
corporate governance and internal control enhancements that we
agreed to under the court-approved settlement agreement.
Federal
income tax litigation
One of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Transco Coal Gas Company,
was engaged in a dispute with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
regarding the recapture of certain income tax credits associated
with the construction of a coal gasification plant in North
Dakota by Great Plains Gasification Associates, in which Transco
Coal Gas Company was a partner. This case has been resolved.
(See Note 5.)
TAPS
Quality Bank
One of our subsidiaries, Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc. (WAPI),
is actively engaged in administrative litigation being conducted
jointly by the FERC and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) concerning the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) Quality
Bank. Primary issues being litigated include the appropriate
valuation of the naphtha, heavy distillate, vacuum gas oil and
residual product cuts within the TAPS Quality Bank as well as
the appropriate retroactive effects of the determinations. Due
to the sale of WAPIs interests on March 31, 2004, no
future Quality Bank liability will accrue but we are responsible
for any liability that existed as of that date including
potential liability for any retroactive payments that might be
awarded in these proceedings for the period prior to
March 31, 2004. In the third quarter of 2004, the FERC and
RCA presiding administrative law judges rendered their joint and
individual initial decisions. The initial decisions set forth
methodologies for determining the valuations of the product cuts
under review and also approved the retroactive application of
the approved methodologies for the heavy distillate and residual
product cuts. In
third-quarter
2004, we accrued approximately $134 million based on our
computation and assessment of ultimate ruling terms that were
considered probable.
The FERC and the RCA completed their reviews of the initial
decisions and in 2005 issued substantially similar orders
generally affirming the initial decisions. On June 1, 2006,
the FERC, after two sets of rehearing requests, entered its
final order (FERC Final Order). During this administrative
rehearing process all other appeals of the initial decisions
were stayed including ExxonMobils appeal to the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals asserting that the FERCs reliance
on the Highway Reauthorization Act as the basis for limiting the
retroactive effect violates, among other things, the separation
of powers under the U.S. Constitution by interfering with
the FERCs independent decision-making role. ExxonMobil
filed a similar appeal in the Alaska Superior Court. We also
appealed the FERCs order to the extent of its ruling on
the West Coast Heavy Distillate component.
The Quality Bank Administrator issued his interpretations of the
payment obligations under the FERC Final Order, and we and
others filed exceptions to these instructions with the FERC. We
expect the FERCs ruling on these payment instruction
exceptions later in the first quarter of 2007. Once the FERC
rules, the Administrator will invoice us for amounts due, and we
will be required to pay the invoiced amounts, subject to the
outcome of the appeals of the FERC Final Order. We estimate that
our net obligation could be as much as $116 million.
Amounts accrued in excess of this estimated obligation will be
retained pending resolution of all appeals.
Redondo
Beach taxes
On February 5, 2005, Power received a tax assessment
letter, addressed to AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C. and Power, from
the city of Redondo Beach, California, in which the city
asserted that approximately $33 million in back taxes and
approximately $39 million in interest and penalties are
owed related to natural gas used at the generating facility
operated by AES Redondo Beach. Hearings were held in July 2005
and in September 2005 the tax administrator for the city issued
a decision in which he found Power jointly and severally liable
with AES Redondo Beach for back taxes of approximately
$36 million and interest and penalties of approximately
134
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
$21 million. Both we and AES Redondo Beach filed notices of
appeal that were heard at the city level. On December 13,
2006, the city hearing officer for the appeal of the pre-2005
amounts issued a final decision affirming our utility user tax
liability and reversing AES Redondos liability because the
officer ruled that AES Redondo is an exempt public utility. Even
though we appealed this decision to the Los Angeles Superior
Court, we may be required to pay the full amount of any final
assessment prior to the resolution of this state court appeal.
Despite the city hearing officers unfavorable decision and
the potential payment to preserve our appeal rights, we do not
believe a contingent loss is probable.
The Citys current assessment of our liability (for the
periods from 1998 through September 2006) is approximately
$69 million (inclusive of interest and penalties). We have
protested all these assessments and requested hearings on them.
We and AES Redondo have also filed separate refund actions in
Los Angeles Superior Court related to certain taxes paid since
the initial 2005 notice of assessment. We believe that under our
tolling agreement related to the Redondo Beach generating
facility, AES Redondo Beach is responsible for taxes of the
nature asserted by the city; however, AES Redondo Beach has
notified us that it does not agree.
Gulf
Liquids litigation
Gulf Liquids contracted with Gulsby Engineering Inc. (Gulsby)
and Gulsby-Bay for the construction of certain gas processing
plants in Louisiana. National American Insurance Company (NAICO)
and American Home Assurance Company provided payment and
performance bonds for the projects. Gulsby and Gulsby-Bay
defaulted on the construction contracts. In the fall of 2001,
the contractors, sureties, and Gulf Liquids filed multiple cases
in Louisiana and Texas. In January 2002, NAICO added Gulf
Liquids co-venturer Power to the suits as a third-party
defendant. Gulf Liquids asserted claims against the contractors
and sureties for, among other things, breach of contract
requesting contractual and consequential damages from
$40 million to $80 million, any of which is subject to
a sharing arrangement with XL Insurance Company.
At the conclusion of the consolidated trial of the asserted
contract and tort claims, the jury returned its actual damages
verdict against Power and Gulf Liquids on July 31, 2006 and
its related punitive damages verdict on August 1, 2006. The
court is not expected to enter any judgment until the second or
third quarter of 2007. Based on our interpretation of the jury
verdicts, we have estimated exposure for actual damages of
approximately $68 million plus potential interest of
approximately $22 million, all of which have been accrued
as of December 31, 2006. In addition, it is reasonably
possible that any ultimate judgment may include additional
amounts of approximately $199 million in excess of our
accrual, which primarily represents our estimate of potential
punitive damage exposure under Texas law.
Hurricane
lawsuits
We were named as a defendant in two class action petitions for
damages filed in federal court in Louisiana in September and
October 2005 arising from hurricanes that struck Louisiana in
2005. The class action plaintiffs, purporting to represent
persons, businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who
have suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge
from the hurricanes, allege that the operating activities of the
two
sub-classes
of defendants, which are all oil and gas pipelines (including
Transco) that dredged pipeline canals or installed pipelines in
the marshes of south Louisiana and all oil and gas exploration
and production companies which drilled for oil and gas or
dredged canals in the marshes of south Louisiana, have altered
marshland ecology and caused marshland destruction which
otherwise would have averted all or almost all of the
destruction and loss of life caused by the hurricanes.
Plaintiffs requested that the court allow the lawsuits to
proceed as class actions and sought legal and equitable relief
in an unspecified amount. In September 2006, the court granted
our and the other defendants joint motion to dismiss the
class action petitions on various grounds. In August 2006, an
additional class action case containing substantially identical
allegations was filed against the same defendants, including
Transco. This case was dismissed on November 30, 2006.
135
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Wyoming
severance taxes
The Wyoming Department of Audit (DOA) audited the severance tax
reporting for our subsidiary Williams Production RMT Company for
the production years 2000 through 2002. In August 2006, the DOA
assessed additional severance tax and interest for those periods
of approximately $3 million. In addition, the DOA notified
us of an increase in the taxable value of our interests for ad
valorem tax purposes, which is estimated to result in additional
taxes of approximately $2 million, including interest. We
dispute the DOAs interpretation of the statutory
obligation and have appealed this assessment to the Wyoming
State Board of Equalization. If the DOA prevails in its
interpretation of our obligation and applies the same basis of
assessment to subsequent periods, it is reasonably possible that
we could owe a total of approximately $21 million to
$23 million in taxes and interest from January 1,
2003, through December 31, 2006.
Royalty
litigation
In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court
alleging that we improperly calculated oil and gas royalty
payments, failed to account for the proceeds that we received
from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly charged
certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in
excess of ad valorem tax obligations. The plaintiffs claim that
the class might be in excess of 500 individuals and seek an
accounting and damages. The parties have agreed to stay this
action in order to participate in a mediation to be scheduled.
Other
Divestiture Indemnifications
Pursuant to various purchase and sale agreements relating to
divested businesses and assets, we have indemnified certain
purchasers against liabilities that they may incur with respect
to the businesses and assets acquired from us. The indemnities
provided to the purchasers are customary in sale transactions
and are contingent upon the purchasers incurring liabilities
that are not otherwise recoverable from third parties. The
indemnities generally relate to breach of warranties, tax,
historic litigation, personal injury, environmental matters,
right of way and other representations that we have provided.
We sold a natural gas liquids pipeline system in 2002, and in
July 2006, the purchaser of that system filed its complaint
against us and our subsidiaries in state court in Houston,
Texas. The purchaser alleges that we breached certain warranties
under the purchase and sale agreement and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and our specific performance under certain
guarantees. On September 1, 2006, we filed our answer to
the purchasers complaint denying all liability. We
anticipate that the trial will occur in the fourth quarter 2007,
and our prior suit filed against the purchaser in Delaware state
court has been stayed pending resolution of the Texas case.
At December 31, 2006, we do not expect any of the
indemnities provided pursuant to the sales agreements to have a
material impact on our future financial position. However, if a
claim for indemnity is brought against us in the future, it may
have a material adverse effect on results of operations in the
period in which the claim is made.
In addition to the foregoing, various other proceedings are
pending against us which are incidental to our operations.
Summary
Litigation, arbitration, regulatory matters, and environmental
matters are subject to inherent uncertainties. Were an
unfavorable ruling to occur, there exists the possibility of a
material adverse impact on the results of operations in the
period in which the ruling occurs. Management, including
internal counsel, currently believes that the ultimate
resolution of the foregoing matters, taken as a whole and after
consideration of amounts accrued, insurance coverage, recovery
from customers or other indemnification arrangements, will not
have a materially adverse effect upon our future financial
position.
136
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Commitments
Power has entered into certain contracts giving it the right to
receive fuel conversion services as well as certain other
services associated with electric generation facilities that are
currently in operation throughout the continental United States.
At December 31, 2006, Powers estimated committed
payments under these contracts range from approximately
$406 million to $424 million annually through 2017 and
decline over the remaining five years to $59 million in
2022. Total committed payments under these contracts over the
next sixteen years are approximately $5.5 billion. Included
in the $5.5 billion is a $1.9 billion contract that is
accounted for as an operating lease. (See Leases-Lessee in
Note 11.) Total payments made under these contracts during
2006, 2005, and 2004 were $409 million, $403 million,
and $402 million, respectively.
Commitments for construction and acquisition of property, plant
and equipment are approximately $406 million at
December 31, 2006.
137
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 16.
|
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Loss
|
The table below presents changes in the components of
accumulated other comprehensive loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appreciation
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
Minimum
|
|
|
Prior
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Prior
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow
|
|
|
(Depreciation)
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Pension
|
|
|
Service
|
|
|
Actuarial
|
|
|
Service
|
|
|
Actuarial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedges
|
|
|
On Securities
|
|
|
Translation
|
|
|
Liability
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gain
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
$
|
(165.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
53.1
|
|
|
$
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(121.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 Change:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-income tax amount
|
|
|
(460.9
|
)
|
|
|
(2.4
|
)
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(444.5
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (provision)
|
|
|
176.5
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176.2
|
|
Net reclassification into earnings
of derivative instrument losses (net of a $87.8 million
income tax benefit)
|
|
|
141.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141.7
|
|
Realized losses on securities
reclassified into earnings (net of a $2.1 million income
tax benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142.7
|
)
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
(308.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68.9
|
|
|
|
(4.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(244.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 Change:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-income tax amount
|
|
|
(395.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(383.5
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (provision)
|
|
|
151.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
151.1
|
|
Net reclassification into earnings
of derivative instrument losses (net of a $110.8 million
income tax benefit)
|
|
|
178.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(65.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
(373.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80.3
|
|
|
|
(4.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(297.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 Change:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-income tax amount
|
|
|
423.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
417.2
|
|
Income tax benefit (provision)
|
|
|
(161.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(161.4
|
)
|
Net reclassification into earnings
of derivative instrument losses (net of a $82.3 million
income tax benefit)
|
|
|
132.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
394.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
(.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustment to initially apply
SFAS No. 158:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-income tax amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
(5.7
|
)
|
|
|
(243.2
|
)*
|
|
|
(6.7
|
)
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
(255.0
|
)
|
Income tax benefit (provision)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.1
|
)
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
92.5
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
104.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
|
(150.7
|
)
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
(150.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
20.5
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
75.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(150.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
2.1
|
|
|
$
|
(60.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Includes $0.8 million for the Net Actuarial Loss of an
equity method investee. |
138
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Available-for-Sale
Securities
During 2004, we received proceeds totaling $851.4 million
from the sale and maturity of available-for-sale securities. We
realized losses of $5.5 million from these transactions.
|
|
Note 17.
|
Segment
Disclosures
|
Our reportable segments are strategic business units that offer
different products and services. The segments are managed
separately because each segment requires different technology,
marketing strategies and industry knowledge. Our master limited
partnership, Williams Partners L.P., is consolidated within our
Midstream segment. (See Note 1.) Other primarily consists
of corporate operations.
Performance
Measurement
We currently evaluate performance based on segment profit
(loss) from operations, which includes segment revenues
from external and internal customers, segment costs and
expenses, depreciation, depletion and amortization, equity
earnings (losses) and income (loss) from investments
including impairments related to investments accounted for under
the equity method. The accounting policies of the segments are
the same as those described in Note 1. Intersegment sales
are generally accounted for at current market prices as if the
sales were to unaffiliated third parties.
During 2004, Power was party to intercompany interest rate swaps
with the corporate parent, the effect of which is included in
Powers segment revenues and segment profit
(loss) as shown in the reconciliation within the following
tables. We terminated these interest-rate derivatives in the
fourth quarter of 2004.
The majority of energy commodity hedging by certain of our
business units is done through intercompany derivatives with
Power which, in turn, enters into offsetting derivative
contracts with unrelated third parties. Power bears the
counterparty performance risks associated with the unrelated
third parties. External revenues of our Exploration &
Production segment includes third-party oil and gas sales, more
than offset by transportation expenses and royalties due third
parties on intersegment sales.
The following geographic area data includes revenues from
external customers based on product shipment origin and
long-lived assets based upon physical location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
11,418.3
|
|
|
$
|
394.6
|
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
2005
|
|
|
12,258.3
|
|
|
|
325.3
|
|
|
|
12,583.6
|
|
2004
|
|
|
12,167.8
|
|
|
|
293.5
|
|
|
|
12,461.3
|
|
Long-lived assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
14,510.4
|
|
|
$
|
681.7
|
|
|
$
|
15,192.1
|
|
2005
|
|
|
12,692.7
|
|
|
|
739.8
|
|
|
|
13,432.5
|
|
2004
|
|
|
12,149.0
|
|
|
|
762.0
|
|
|
|
12,911.0
|
|
Our foreign operations are primarily located in Venezuela,
Canada, and Argentina. Long-lived assets are comprised of
property, plant and equipment, goodwill and other intangible
assets.
139
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table reflects the reconciliation of segment
revenues and segment profit (loss) to revenues
and operating income (loss) as reported in the
Consolidated Statement of Income and other financial
information related to long-lived assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midstream
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration &
|
|
|
Gas
|
|
|
Gas &
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
Pipeline
|
|
|
Liquids
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Eliminations
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
$
|
(189.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,335.6
|
|
|
$
|
4,071.1
|
|
|
$
|
6,585.9
|
|
|
$
|
10.2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
Internal
|
|
|
1,677.5
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
|
|
|
53.6
|
|
|
|
876.5
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
(2,636.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
1,487.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,347.7
|
|
|
$
|
4,124.7
|
|
|
$
|
7,462.4
|
|
|
$
|
26.5
|
|
|
$
|
(2,636.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
11,812.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
551.5
|
|
|
$
|
467.4
|
|
|
$
|
658.3
|
|
|
$
|
(210.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,468.3
|
|
Less equity earnings
|
|
|
21.8
|
|
|
|
37.1
|
|
|
|
27.0
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
529.7
|
|
|
$
|
430.3
|
|
|
$
|
631.3
|
|
|
$
|
(223.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
1.9
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
1,369.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(132.1
|
)
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(167.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,070.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other financial information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
1,495.7
|
|
|
$
|
913.2
|
|
|
$
|
279.4
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
18.1
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,707.5
|
|
Depreciation, depletion &
amortization
|
|
$
|
360.2
|
|
|
$
|
281.7
|
|
|
$
|
201.2
|
|
|
$
|
10.7
|
|
|
$
|
11.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
865.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
$
|
(201.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,395.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,187.6
|
|
|
$
|
8,192.5
|
|
|
$
|
10.1
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
Internal
|
|
|
1,470.7
|
|
|
|
17.8
|
|
|
|
45.1
|
|
|
|
901.4
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
|
|
(2,452.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
1,269.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,412.8
|
|
|
$
|
3,232.7
|
|
|
$
|
9,093.9
|
|
|
$
|
27.2
|
|
|
$
|
(2,452.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,583.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
587.2
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
|
$
|
471.2
|
|
|
$
|
(256.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(105.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,282.5
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity earnings (losses)
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
(23.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65.6
|
|
Income (loss) from investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
(23.0
|
)
|
|
|
(87.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(109.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
568.4
|
|
|
$
|
542.2
|
|
|
$
|
446.6
|
|
|
$
|
(236.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
5.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
1,326.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145.5
|
)
|
Securities litigation settlement
and related costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,171.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other financial information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
794.7
|
|
|
$
|
420.2
|
|
|
$
|
133.2
|
|
|
$
|
5.9
|
|
|
$
|
4.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,358.7
|
|
Depreciation, depletion &
amortization
|
|
$
|
254.2
|
|
|
$
|
267.3
|
|
|
$
|
192.0
|
|
|
$
|
14.9
|
|
|
$
|
11.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
740.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External
|
|
$
|
(84.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,345.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,844.7
|
|
|
$
|
8,346.2
|
|
|
$
|
9.4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
Internal
|
|
|
861.6
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
|
912.5
|
|
|
|
23.4
|
|
|
|
(1,852.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment revenues
|
|
|
777.6
|
|
|
|
1,362.3
|
|
|
|
2,882.6
|
|
|
|
9,258.7
|
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
|
|
(1,852.7
|
)
|
|
|
12,461.3
|
|
Less intercompany interest rate
swap loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
777.6
|
|
|
$
|
1,362.3
|
|
|
$
|
2,882.6
|
|
|
$
|
9,272.4
|
|
|
$
|
32.8
|
|
|
$
|
(1,866.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,461.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment profit (loss)
|
|
$
|
235.8
|
|
|
$
|
585.8
|
|
|
$
|
549.7
|
|
|
$
|
76.7
|
|
|
$
|
(41.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,406.4
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity earnings (losses)
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49.9
|
|
Loss from investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)
|
|
|
(17.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35.5
|
)
|
Intercompany interest rate swap loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment operating income (loss)
|
|
$
|
223.9
|
|
|
$
|
557.6
|
|
|
$
|
552.2
|
|
|
$
|
86.5
|
|
|
$
|
(14.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
1,405.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General corporate expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,285.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other financial information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
445.4
|
|
|
$
|
300.1
|
|
|
$
|
91.3
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
$
|
6.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
843.8
|
|
Depreciation, depletion &
amortization
|
|
$
|
192.3
|
|
|
$
|
264.4
|
|
|
$
|
178.4
|
|
|
$
|
20.1
|
|
|
$
|
13.3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
668.5
|
|
140
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table reflects total assets and equity
method investments by reporting segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
|
Equity Method Investments
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Exploration &
Production(1)
|
|
$
|
7,850.9
|
|
|
$
|
8,672.0
|
|
|
$
|
5,576.4
|
|
|
$
|
58.8
|
|
|
$
|
58.4
|
|
|
$
|
44.9
|
|
Gas Pipeline
|
|
|
8,331.7
|
|
|
|
7,581.0
|
|
|
|
7,651.8
|
|
|
|
432.4
|
|
|
|
439.1
|
|
|
|
769.5
|
|
Midstream Gas & Liquids
|
|
|
5,483.8
|
|
|
|
4,677.7
|
|
|
|
4,211.7
|
|
|
|
304.1
|
|
|
|
314.2
|
|
|
|
273.3
|
|
Power(2)
|
|
|
6,884.8
|
|
|
|
14,989.2
|
|
|
|
8,204.1
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
19.2
|
|
|
|
45.6
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4,224.6
|
|
|
|
3,942.7
|
|
|
|
3,597.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.2
|
|
|
|
113.2
|
|
Eliminations(3)
|
|
|
(7,373.4
|
)
|
|
|
(10,420.0
|
)
|
|
|
(5,248.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$
|
25,402.4
|
|
|
$
|
29,442.6
|
|
|
$
|
23,993.0
|
|
|
$
|
814.4
|
|
|
$
|
831.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,246.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The 2006 decrease and 2005 increase in Exploration &
Productions total assets are due primarily to the
fluctuations in derivative assets as a result of the impact of
changes in commodity prices on existing derivative contracts.
Exploration & Productions derivatives are
primarily comprised of intercompany transactions with the Power
segment. |
|
(2) |
|
The 2006 decrease and 2005 increase in Powers total assets
are due primarily to the fluctuations in derivative assets as a
result of the impact of changes in commodity prices on existing
forward derivative contracts. Powers derivative assets are
substantially offset by their derivative liabilities. |
|
(3) |
|
The 2006 decrease and 2005 increase in Eliminations are due
primarily to the fluctuations in the intercompany derivative
balances. |
141
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
(Unaudited)
Summarized quarterly financial data are as follows (millions,
except per-share amounts).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
3,027.5
|
|
|
$
|
2,715.1
|
|
|
$
|
3,300.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,770.3
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
2,588.7
|
|
|
|
2,273.8
|
|
|
|
2,822.4
|
|
|
|
2,288.7
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
|
|
|
131.1
|
|
|
|
(63.9
|
)
|
|
|
110.1
|
|
|
|
155.5
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
131.9
|
|
|
|
(76.0
|
)
|
|
|
106.2
|
|
|
|
146.4
|
|
Basic earnings per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
|
|
|
.22
|
|
|
|
(.11
|
)
|
|
|
.19
|
|
|
|
.27
|
|
Diluted earnings per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
|
|
|
.22
|
|
|
|
(.11
|
)
|
|
|
.19
|
|
|
|
.25
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
2,954.0
|
|
|
$
|
2,871.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,082.3
|
|
|
$
|
3,676.1
|
|
Costs and operating expenses
|
|
|
2,390.3
|
|
|
|
2,491.6
|
|
|
|
2,826.2
|
|
|
|
3,162.9
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
202.2
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
68.8
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
201.1
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
68.5
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
201.1
|
|
|
|
41.3
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
66.8
|
|
Basic earnings per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
.36
|
|
|
|
.07
|
|
|
|
.01
|
|
|
|
.12
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.36
|
|
|
|
.07
|
|
|
|
.01
|
|
|
|
.12
|
|
Diluted earnings per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
.34
|
|
|
|
.07
|
|
|
|
.01
|
|
|
|
.11
|
|
Income before cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle
|
|
|
.34
|
|
|
|
.07
|
|
|
|
.01
|
|
|
|
.11
|
|
The sum of earnings per share for the four quarters may not
equal the total earnings per share for the year due to changes
in the average number of common shares outstanding and
rounding.
Net income (loss) for fourth quarter 2006 includes a
$40 million reduction to the tax provision associated with
a favorable U.S. Tax Court ruling, a $7.4 million
increase to the tax provision associated with an adjustment to
deferred income taxes (see Note 5) and the following
pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
A $16.4 million impairment of a Venezuelan cost-based
investment at Exploration & Production (see
Note 3);
|
|
|
|
A $14.7 million charge associated with an oil purchase
contract related to our former Alaska refinery (see Note 2).
|
Net income (loss) for third quarter 2006 includes the
following pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$12.7 million of income due to a reduction of contingent
obligations at our former distributive power generation business
at Power (see Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$10.6 million of expense related to an adjustment of an
accounts payable accrual at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
$6 million accrual for a loss contingency related to a
former exploration business (see Note 2);
|
142
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL DATA (Continued)
(Unaudited)
Net income (loss) for second quarter 2006 includes the
following pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$160.7 million accrual related to our securities litigation
settlement at Other (see Note 15);
|
|
|
|
$88 million accrual for Gulf Liquids litigation contingency
and associated interest expense at Midstream (see Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$19.2 million accrual for an adverse arbitration award
related to our former chemical fertilizer business (see
Note 2).
|
Net income (loss) for the first quarter 2006 includes the
following pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$27 million premium and conversion expenses related to the
convertible debenture conversion at Other (see Note 12);
|
|
|
|
$23.7 million gain on sale of certain receivables at Power;
|
|
|
|
$9 million of income related to the settlement of an
international contract dispute at Midstream;
|
|
|
|
$7 million associated with the reversal of an accrued
litigation contingency due to a favorable court ruling and the
related accrued interest income at our Gas Pipeline segment.
|
Net income for fourth quarter 2005 includes a
$20.2 million reduction to the tax provision associated
with an adjustment to deferred income taxes (see
Note 5) and the following pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$68.7 million accrual for litigation contingencies at Power
(see Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$38.1 million impairment of our investment in Longhorn at
Other (see Note 3);
|
|
|
|
$32.1 million charge related to accounting and valuation
corrections for certain inventory items at Gas Pipeline (see
Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$23 million impairment of our investment in Aux Sable at
Power (see Note 3);
|
|
|
|
$5.2 million accrual for contingent refund obligations at
Gas Pipeline (see Note 4).
|
Net income for third quarter 2005 includes the following
pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$21.7 million gain on sale of certain natural gas
properties at Exploration & Production (see
Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$14.2 million of income from the reversal of a liability
due to resolution of litigation at Gas Pipeline;
|
|
|
|
$13.8 million increase in expense related to the settlement
of certain insurance coverage issues associated with ERISA and
securities litigation at Other.
|
Net income for second quarter 2005 includes the following
pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$49.1 million impairment of our investment in Longhorn at
Other (see Note 3);
|
|
|
|
$17.1 million reduction of expense at Gas Pipeline to
correct the overstatement of pension expense in prior periods
(see Note 7);
|
|
|
|
$13.1 million accrual for litigation contingencies at Power
(see Note 4);
|
|
|
|
$8.6 million gain on sale of our remaining interests in
Mid-America
Pipeline and Seminole Pipeline at Midstream.
|
Net income for first quarter 2005 includes the following
pre-tax items:
|
|
|
|
|
$13.1 million of income due to the reversal of certain
prior period accruals at Gas Pipeline;
|
|
|
|
$7.9 million gain on sale of certain natural gas properties
at Exploration & Production (see Note 4).
|
143
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
(Unaudited)
The following information pertains to our oil and gas producing
activities and is presented in accordance with
SFAS No. 69, Disclosures About Oil and Gas
Producing Activities. The information is required to be
disclosed by geographic region. We have significant oil and gas
producing activities primarily in the Rocky Mountain and
Mid-continent areas of the United States. Additionally, we have
international oil and gas producing activities, primarily in
Argentina. However, proved reserves and revenues related to
international activities are approximately 4.2 percent and
4.3 percent, respectively, of our total international and
domestic proved reserves and revenues. The following information
relates only to the oil and gas activities in the United States.
Capitalized
Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Proved properties
|
|
$
|
5,026.6
|
|
|
$
|
3,870.5
|
|
Unproved properties
|
|
|
500.3
|
|
|
|
503.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,526.9
|
|
|
|
4,373.6
|
|
Accumulated depreciation,
depletion and amortization and valuation provisions
|
|
|
(1,259.9
|
)
|
|
|
(937.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net capitalized costs
|
|
$
|
4,267.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,436.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized costs include the cost of equipment and facilities
for oil and gas producing activities. These amounts for 2006 and
2005 do not include approximately $1 billion of goodwill
related to the purchase of Barrett Resources Corporation
(Barrett) in 2001.
|
|
|
|
Proved properties include capitalized costs for oil and gas
leaseholds holding proved reserves; development wells and
related equipment and facilities (including uncompleted
development well costs); and successful exploratory wells and
related equipment and facilities.
|
|
|
|
Unproved properties consist primarily of acreage related to
probable/possible reserves acquired through the Barrett
acquisition in 2001. The balance is unproved exploratory acreage.
|
Costs
Incurred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Acquisition
|
|
$
|
84.0
|
|
|
$
|
45.3
|
|
|
$
|
17.2
|
|
Exploration
|
|
|
20.2
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Development
|
|
|
1,172.5
|
|
|
|
723.1
|
|
|
|
419.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,276.7
|
|
|
$
|
776.7
|
|
|
$
|
440.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs incurred include capitalized and expensed items.
|
|
|
|
Acquisition costs are as follows: The 2006 cost is primarily for
additional land and reserve acquisitions in the Fort Worth
basin. The 2005 costs primarily consist of a land and reserve
acquisition in the Fort Worth basin and an additional land
acquisition in the Arkoma basin. The 2004 costs relate to land
and reserve acquisitions in the San Juan Basin, Arkoma
basin, and the Powder River basin.
|
144
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL
OIL AND GAS DISCLOSURES (Continued)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration costs include the costs of geological and
geophysical activity, drilling and equipping exploratory wells
determined to be dry holes, and the cost of retaining
undeveloped leaseholds including lease amortization and
impairments.
|
|
|
|
Development costs include costs incurred to gain access to and
prepare development well locations for drilling and to drill and
equip development wells.
|
Results
of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and gas revenues
|
|
$
|
1,237.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,072.4
|
|
|
$
|
599.9
|
|
Other revenues
|
|
|
186.1
|
|
|
|
143.3
|
|
|
|
137.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
1,423.9
|
|
|
|
1,215.7
|
|
|
|
737.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production costs
|
|
|
308.5
|
|
|
|
230.3
|
|
|
|
165.4
|
|
General & administrative
|
|
|
111.1
|
|
|
|
79.5
|
|
|
|
58.3
|
|
Exploration expenses
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Depreciation, depletion &
amortization
|
|
|
351.1
|
|
|
|
244.7
|
|
|
|
183.4
|
|
(Gains)/Losses on sales of
interests in oil and gas properties
|
|
|
(.4
|
)
|
|
|
(30.8
|
)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
136.1
|
|
|
|
141.1
|
|
|
|
115.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs
|
|
|
924.8
|
|
|
|
673.1
|
|
|
|
526.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations
|
|
|
499.1
|
|
|
|
542.6
|
|
|
|
210.3
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(174.5
|
)
|
|
|
(216.9
|
)
|
|
|
(81.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration and production net
income
|
|
$
|
324.6
|
|
|
$
|
325.7
|
|
|
$
|
128.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations for producing activities consist of all
related domestic activities within the Exploration &
Production reporting unit. Other expenses in 2005 and 2004
include a $6 million and $16 million gain,
respectively, on sales of securities associated with a coal seam
royalty trust.
|
|
|
|
Oil and gas revenues consist primarily of natural gas production
sold to the Power subsidiary and includes the impact of
intercompany hedges.
|
|
|
|
Other revenues and other expenses consist of activities within
the Exploration & Production segment that are not a
direct part of the producing activities. These non-producing
activities include acquisition and disposition of other working
interest and royalty interest gas and the movement of gas from
the wellhead to the tailgate of the respective plants for sale
to the Power subsidiary or third party purchasers. In addition,
other revenues include recognition of income from transactions
which transferred certain non-operating benefits to a third
party.
|
|
|
|
Production costs consist of costs incurred to operate and
maintain wells and related equipment and facilities used in the
production of petroleum liquids and natural gas. These costs
also include production taxes other than income taxes and
administrative expenses in support of production activity.
Excluded are depreciation, depletion and amortization of
capitalized acquisition, exploration and development costs.
|
145
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL
OIL AND GAS DISCLOSURES (Continued)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration costs include the costs of geological and
geophysical activity, drilling and equipping exploratory wells
determined to be dry holes, and the cost of retaining
undeveloped leaseholds including lease amortization and
impairments.
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization includes depreciation
of support equipment.
|
Proved
Reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Bcfe)
|
|
|
Proved reserves at beginning of
period
|
|
|
3,382
|
|
|
|
2,986
|
|
|
|
2,703
|
|
Revisions
|
|
|
(113
|
)
|
|
|
(12
|
)
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
Purchases
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
Extensions and discoveries
|
|
|
669
|
|
|
|
615
|
|
|
|
521
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(277
|
)
|
|
|
(224
|
)
|
|
|
(191
|
)
|
Sale of minerals in place
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved reserves at end of period
|
|
|
3,701
|
|
|
|
3,382
|
|
|
|
2,986
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved developed reserves at end
of period
|
|
|
1,945
|
|
|
|
1,643
|
|
|
|
1,348
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SEC defines proved oil and gas reserves
(Rule 4-10(a)
of
Regulation S-X)
as the estimated quantities of crude oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids which geological and engineering data
demonstrate with reasonable certainty are recoverable in future
years from known reservoirs under existing economic and
operating conditions. Our proved reserves consist of two
categories, proved developed reserves and proved undeveloped
reserves. Proved developed reserves are currently producing
wells and wells awaiting minor sales connection expenditure,
recompletion, additional perforations or borehole stimulation
treatments. Proved undeveloped reserves are those reserves which
are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage
or from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is
required for recompletion. Proved reserves on undrilled acreage
are limited to those drilling units offsetting productive units
that are reasonably certain of production when drilled or where
it can be demonstrated with certainty that there is continuity
of production from the existing productive formation.
|
|
|
|
Natural gas reserves are computed at 14.73 pounds per square
inch absolute and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Crude oil reserves are
insignificant and have been included in the proved reserves on a
basis of billion cubic feet equivalents (Bcfe).
|
Standardized
Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash Flows Relating to Proved
Oil and Gas Reserves
The following is based on the estimated quantities of proved
reserves and the year-end prices and costs. The average year end
natural gas prices used in the following estimates were $4.81,
$6.95, and $5.08 per MMcfe at December 31, 2006, 2005,
and 2004, respectively. Future income tax expenses have been
computed considering available carry forwards and credits and
the appropriate statutory tax rates. The discount rate of
10 percent is as prescribed by SFAS No. 69.
Continuation of year-end economic conditions also is assumed.
The calculation is based on estimates of proved reserves, which
are revised over time as new data becomes available. Probable or
possible reserves, which may become proved in the future, are
not considered. The calculation also requires assumptions as to
the timing of future production of proved reserves, and the
timing and amount of future development and production costs. Of
the $3,070 million of future development costs,
$1,041 million, $942 million and $540 million are
estimated to be spent in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
146
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL
OIL AND GAS DISCLOSURES (Continued)
(Unaudited)
Numerous uncertainties are inherent in estimating volumes and
the value of proved reserves and in projecting future production
rates and timing of development expenditures. Such reserve
estimates are subject to change as additional information
becomes available. The reserves actually recovered and the
timing of production may be substantially different from the
reserve estimates.
Standardized
Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Future cash inflows
|
|
$
|
17,821
|
|
|
$
|
23,510
|
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
5,207
|
|
|
|
4,441
|
|
Future development costs
|
|
|
3,070
|
|
|
|
2,258
|
|
Future income tax provisions
|
|
|
3,350
|
|
|
|
6,128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
6,194
|
|
|
|
10,683
|
|
Less 10 percent annual
discount for estimated timing of cash flows
|
|
|
3,338
|
|
|
|
5,402
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows
|
|
$
|
2,856
|
|
|
$
|
5,281
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources
of Change in Standardized Measure of Discounted Future Net Cash
Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows beginning of period
|
|
$
|
5,281
|
|
|
$
|
3,147
|
|
|
$
|
3,349
|
|
Changes during the year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of oil and gas produced, net
of operating costs
|
|
|
(1,179
|
)
|
|
|
(1,222
|
)
|
|
|
(835
|
)
|
Net change in prices and
production costs
|
|
|
(4,052
|
)
|
|
|
2,358
|
|
|
|
(306
|
)
|
Extensions, discoveries and
improved recovery, less estimated future costs
|
|
|
647
|
|
|
|
1,310
|
|
|
|
787
|
|
Development costs incurred during
year
|
|
|
881
|
|
|
|
723
|
|
|
|
419
|
|
Changes in estimated future
development costs
|
|
|
(1,022
|
)
|
|
|
(300
|
)
|
|
|
(696
|
)
|
Purchase of reserves in place,
less estimated future costs
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
29
|
|
Sales of reserves in place, less
estimated future costs
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
(3
|
)
|
Revisions of previous quantity
estimates
|
|
|
(140
|
)
|
|
|
(28
|
)
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
Accretion of discount
|
|
|
790
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
|
|
286
|
|
Net change in income taxes
|
|
|
1,468
|
|
|
|
(1,272
|
)
|
|
|
182
|
|
Other
|
|
|
121
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net changes
|
|
|
(2,425
|
)
|
|
|
2,134
|
|
|
|
(202
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted
future net cash flows end of period
|
|
$
|
2,856
|
|
|
$
|
5,281
|
|
|
$
|
3,147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
147
THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADDITIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charged to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
Cost and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
|
(Millions)
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful
accounts accounts and notes receivable(a)
|
|
$
|
86.6
|
|
|
$
|
3.7
|
|
|
$
|
(65.6
|
)(f)
|
|
$
|
8.8
|
(c)
|
|
$
|
15.9
|
|
Price-risk management credit
reserves(a)
|
|
|
37.0
|
|
|
|
(6.1
|
)(d)
|
|
|
(10.6
|
)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
Processing plant major maintenance
accrual(b)
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.9
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful
accounts accounts and notes receivable(a)
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
(c)
|
|
|
86.6
|
|
Price-risk management credit
reserves(a)
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)(d)
|
|
|
13.2
|
(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.0
|
|
Processing plant major maintenance
accrual(b)
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful
accounts accounts and notes receivable(a)
|
|
|
112.2
|
|
|
|
(.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.6
|
(c)
|
|
|
98.8
|
|
Price-risk management credit
reserves(a)
|
|
|
39.8
|
|
|
|
(12.8
|
)(d)
|
|
|
(.6
|
)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
Processing plant major maintenance
accrual(b)
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.7
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Deducted from related assets. |
|
(b) |
|
Included in accrued liabilities in 2006 and other
liabilities and deferred income in 2005 and 2004. |
|
(c) |
|
Represents balances written off, reclassifications, and
recoveries. |
|
(d) |
|
Included in revenues. |
|
(e) |
|
Included in accumulated other comprehensive loss. |
|
(f) |
|
During 2006, $65.6 million in previously reserved Enron
receivables were sold. |
148
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation
of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
and
15d-15(e) of
the Securities Exchange Act) (Disclosure Controls) was performed
as of the end of the period covered by this report. This
evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the
participation of our management, including our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based upon that evaluation,
our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
concluded that these Disclosure Controls are effective at a
reasonable assurance level.
Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, does not expect that our Disclosure Controls
will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no
matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the
control system are met. Further, the design of a control system
must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and
the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their
costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control
systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute
assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if
any, within the company have been detected. These inherent
limitations include the realities that judgments in
decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur
because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can
be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people, or by management override of
the control. The design of any system of controls also is based
in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Because of the inherent limitations in a
cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or
fraud may occur and not be detected. We monitor our Disclosure
Controls and make modifications as necessary; our intent in this
regard is that the Disclosure Controls will be modified as
systems change and conditions warrant.
Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
See Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting set forth in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.
Fourth
Quarter 2006 Changes in Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
There have been no changes during the fourth quarter that
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
The information regarding our directors and nominees for
director required by Item 401 of
Regulation S-K
will be presented under the headings Board of
Directors Board Committees, Election of
Directors, and Principal Accounting Fees and
Services in our Proxy Statement prepared for the
solicitation of proxies in connection with our Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be held May 17, 2007 (Proxy Statement),
which information is incorporated by reference herein.
149
Information regarding our executive officers required by
Item 401(b) of
Regulation S-K
is presented at the end of Part I herein and captioned
Executive Officers of the Registrant as permitted by
General Instruction G(3) to
Form 10-K
and Instruction 3 to Item 401(b) of
Regulation S-K.
Information required by Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
will be included under the heading Compliance with
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in our Proxy Statement, which information is incorporated by
reference herein.
Information required by paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(4) and
(d)(5) of Item 407 of
Regulation S-K
will be included under the heading Corporate
Governance in our Proxy Statement, which information in
incorporated by reference herein.
We have adopted a Code of Ethics that applies to our Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Controller, or
persons performing similar functions. The Code of Ethics,
together with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the charters
for each of our board committees, and our Code of Business
Conduct applicable to all employees are available on our
Internet website at
http://www.williams.com. We will provide, free
of charge, a copy of our Code of Ethics or any of our other
corporate documents listed above upon written request to our
Secretary at Williams, One Williams Center, Suite 4700,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172. We intend to disclose any amendments to
or waivers of the Code of Ethics on behalf of our Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, and
persons performing similar functions on our Internet website at
http://www.williams.com under the Investor Relations
caption, promptly following the date of any such amendment or
waiver.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information required by Item 402 and
paragraphs (e)(4) and (e)(5) of Item 407 of
Regulation S-K
regarding executive compensation will be presented under the
headings Board of Directors, Executive
Compensation, Compensation committee interlocks and
insider participation, and Compensation committee
report in our Proxy Statement, which information is
incorporated by reference herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the information provided under the heading Compensation
Committee Report in our Proxy Statement is furnished and
shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is not
subject to the liabilities of that section and is not deemed
incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
The information regarding securities authorized for issuance
under equity compensation plans required by Item 201(d) of
Regulation S-K
and the security ownership of certain beneficial owners and
management required by Item 403 of
Regulation S-K
will be presented under the headings Equity Compensation
Stock Plans and Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management in our Proxy Statement,
which information is incorporated by reference herein.
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
The information regarding certain relationships and related
transactions required by Item 404 and Item 407(a) of
Regulation S-K
will be presented under the heading Certain Relationships
and Related Transactions and Corporate
Governance in our Proxy Statement, which information is
incorporated by reference herein.
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
The information regarding our principal accountant fees and
services required by Item 9(e) of Schedule 14A will be
presented under the heading Principal Accountant Fees and
Services in our Proxy Statement, which information is
incorporated by reference herein.
150
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) 1 and 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Covered by report of independent
auditors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
Not covered by report of
independent auditors:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
Schedule for each of the three
years ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
All other schedules have been omitted since the required
information is not present or is not present in amounts
sufficient to require submission of the schedule, or because the
information required is included in the financial statements and
notes thereto.
(a) 3 and (b). The exhibits listed below are filed as part
of this annual report.
INDEX TO
EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as supplemented (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
3
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Restated By-laws (filed as
Exhibit 3.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed January 31, 2007).
|
|
4
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
Form of Senior Debt Indenture
between Williams and Bank One Trust company, N.A. (formerly The
First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Form of Floating Rate Senior Note
(filed as Exhibit 4.3 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.3*
|
|
|
|
Form of Fixed Rate Senior Note
(filed as Exhibit 4.4 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.4*
|
|
|
|
Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee,
dated as of January 17, 2001 (filed as Exhibit 4(j) to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000).
|
|
4
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
Fifth Supplemental Indenture
between Williams and Bank One Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee,
dated as of January 17, 2001 (filed as Exhibit 4(k) to
our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000).
|
|
4
|
.6*
|
|
|
|
Sixth Supplemental Indenture dated
January 14, 2002, between Williams and Bank One Trust
Company, National Association, as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed January 23, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.7*
|
|
|
|
Seventh Supplemental Indenture
dated March 19, 2002, between The Williams Companies, Inc.
as Issuer and Bank One Trust Company, National Association, as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 9, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.8*
|
|
|
|
Form of Senior Debt Indenture
between Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.,
as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Holdings of
Delaware, Inc.s our
Form 10-Q
filed October 18, 1995).
|
151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
4
|
.9*
|
|
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated
as of July 31, 1999, among Williams Holdings of Delaware,
Inc., Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(o) to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999).
|
|
4
|
.10*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated
February 25, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.4.1 to MAPCO Inc.s
Amendment No. 1 to
Form S-3
dated February 25, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 1
dated March 5, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(o) to MAPCO Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.12*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 2
dated March 5, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(p) to MAPCO Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 3
dated March 31, 1998, among MAPCO Inc., Williams Holdings
of Delaware, Inc. and Bank One Trust Company, N.A. (formerly The
First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4(j) to Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998).
|
|
4
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 4
dated as of July 31, 1999, among Williams Holdings of
Delaware, Inc., Williams and Bank One Trust Company, N.A.
(formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed
as Exhibit 4(q) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999).
|
|
4
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
Revised Form of Indenture between
Barrett Resources Corporation, as Issuer, and Bankers Trust
Company, as Trustee, with respect to Senior Notes including
specimen of 7.55% Senior Notes (filed as Exhibit 4.1
to Barrett Resources Corporations Amendment No. 2 to
our Registration Statement on
Form S-3
filed February 10, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated
2001, between Barrett Resources Corporation, as Issuer, and
Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.3 to
our
Form 10-Q
filed November 13, 2001).
|
|
4
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
Second Supplemental Indenture
dated as of August 2, 2001, among Barrett Resources
Corporation, as Issuer, Resources Acquisition Corp., The
Williams Companies, Inc. and Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee
(filed as Exhibit 4.4 to our
Form 10-Q
filed November 13, 2001).
|
|
4
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Third Supplemental Indenture dated
as of May 20, 2004 with respect to the Indenture dated as
of February 1, 1997 between Barrett Resources Corporation
(predecessor-in-interest
to Williams Production RMT Company) and Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company), as
trustee (filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed May 20, 2004).
|
|
4
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of May 28,
2003, by and between The Williams Companies, Inc. and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Trustee for the issuance of the 5.50% Junior
Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2033 (filed as
Exhibit 4.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
4
|
.20*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Rights
Agreement dated September 21, 2004 by and between The
Williams Companies, Inc. and EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as
Rights Agent (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed September 21, 2004.
|
|
4
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
August 1, 1992, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and
Continental Bank, N.A., Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 9% Debentures, due 2022 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed July 2, 1992).
|
|
4
|
.22*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
November 30, 1995, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation
and Chemical Bank, Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 7.125% Debentures, due 2025 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed September 14, 1995)
|
|
4
|
.23*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
December 8, 1997, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation
and The Chase Manhattan Bank, Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 6.625% Debentures, due 2007 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997)
|
|
4
|
.24*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated March 4,
2003, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and JP Morgan Chase
Bank, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 13, 2003.
|
152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
4
|
.25*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
June 22, 2006, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.a., as Trustee, with regard to Northwest
Pipelines $175 million aggregate principal amount of
7.00% Senior Notes due 2016 (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to
Northwest Pipelines
Form 8-K
dated June 23, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.26*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated as of
July 15, 1996 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-3
dated April 2, 1996)
|
|
4
|
.27*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated as of
January 16, 1998 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-3
dated September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.28*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
August 27, 2001 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-4
dated November 8, 2001).
|
|
4
|
.29*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of July 3,
2002 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation and
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to The
Williams Companies Inc.s
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.30*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated December 17,
2004 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1
to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporations
Form 8-K
filed December 21, 2004).
|
|
4
|
.31*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
April 11, 2006, between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee with
regard to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Lines
$200 million aggregate principal amount of 6.4$ Senior Note
due 2016 (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporations
Form 8-K
dated April 11, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.32*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated June 20,
2006, by and among Williams Partners L.P., Williams Partners
Finance Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Partners L.P.
Form 8-K
filed June 20, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.33*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated December 13,
2006, by and among Williams Partners L.P., Williams Partners
Finance Corporation and The Bank of New York (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Partners L.P. filed
December 19, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of January 1,
1988 (filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(c) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987).
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of
April 1, 1988 (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of
January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003 (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-K
filed March, 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.4*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. Stock
Plan for Non-Officer Employees (filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(g)
to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995).
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 1996
Stock Plan (filed as Exhibit A to our Proxy Statement dated
March 27, 1996).
|
|
10
|
.6*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 1996
Stock Plan for Non-employee Directors (filed as Exhibit B
to our Proxy Statement dated March 27, 1996).
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2001
Stock Plan.
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2002
Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Director Stock Option Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.9*
|
|
|
|
Indemnification Agreement
effective as of August 1, 1986, among Williams, members of
the Board of Directors and certain officers of Williams (filed
as Exhibit 10(iii)(e) to our
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1986).
|
|
10
|
.10*
|
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Secured
Promissory Note and Pledge Agreement among Williams and certain
employees, officers and non-employee directors (filed as
Exhibit 10(iii)(m) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998).
|
153
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2004 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 10.12 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.12*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2004 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and executive officers
filed as Exhibit 10.13 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement
among Williams and certain employees and officers (filed as
Exhibit 99.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2005 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2005 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and executive
officers.(filed as Exhibit 99.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Stock Option
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and certain employees
and officers (filed as Exhibit 99.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2001
Stock Plan (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form S-8
filed August 1, 2001).
|
|
10
|
.20*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2002
Incentive Plan as amended and restated effective as of
January 23, 2004 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed on August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Form of Change in Control
Severance Agreement between the Company and certain executive
officers (filed as Exhibit 10.12 to our
Form 10-Q
filed November 14, 2002).
|
|
10
|
.22*
|
|
|
|
Settlement Agreement, by and among
the Governor of the State of California and the several other
parties named therein and The Williams Companies, Inc. and
Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company dated
November 11, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 10.79 to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002).
|
|
10
|
.23*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Severance Pay Plan as Amended and Restated Effective
October 28, 2003.
|
|
10
|
.24*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated October 28, 2003.
|
|
10
|
.25*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated June 1, 2004.
|
|
10
|
.26*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated January 1, 2005.
|
|
10
|
.27*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $500,000,000 Term Loan
Agreement among Williams Production Holdings LLC, Williams
Production RMT Company, as Borrower, the Several Lenders from
time to time parties thereto, Lehman Brothers Inc. and Banc of
America Securities LLC as Joint Lead Arrangers, Citigroup USA,
Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Co-Syndication Agents, Bank of
America, N.A., as Documentation Agent, and Lehman Commercial
Paper Inc., as Administrative Agent dated as of May 30,
2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.28*
|
|
|
|
The First Amendment to the Term
Loan Agreement dated February 25, 2004, between Williams
Production Holdings, LLC, Williams Production RMT Company, as
Borrower, the several financial institutions as lenders and
Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as Administrative Agent dated as
of May 30, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 6, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.29*
|
|
|
|
Guarantee and Collateral Agreement
made by Williams Production Holdings LLC, Williams Production
RMT Company and certain of its Subsidiaries in favor of Lehman
Commercial Paper Inc. as Administrative Agent dated as of
May 30, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.30*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $1,275,000,000 Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement Dated as of May 20, 2005
among The Williams Companies, Inc., Northwest Pipeline
Corporation, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation,
Williams Partners L.P., as Borrowers, Citicorp USA, Inc., As
Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent, Citibank, N.A. Bank
of America, N.A. as Issuing Banks and The Banks Named Herein as
Banks (filed as Exhibit 1.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed May 26, 2005).
|
154
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.31*
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of
May 1, 2006, among The Williams Companies, Inc., Northwest
Pipeline Corporation, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation, and Williams Partners L.P., as Borrowers and
Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.1 to our
form 8-K
filed May 1, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.32*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $400,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated January 20, 2005 among The Williams
Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named herein,
as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named herein, as
Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on January 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.33*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $100,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated January 20, 2005 among The Williams
Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named herein,
as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named herein, as
Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.4 to our
Form 8-K
filed on January 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.34*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $500,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated September 20, 2005 among The
Williams Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named
herein, as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named
herein, as Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent
(filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on September 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.35*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $200,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated September 20, 2005 among The
Williams Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named
herein, as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named
herein, as Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent
(filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on September 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.36*
|
|
|
|
Assumption Agreement dated
June 17, 2003 by and between The Williams Companies, Inc.
and WEG Acquisitions, L.P. (filed as Exhibit 10.10 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.37*
|
|
|
|
Agreement for the Release of
Certain Indemnification Obligations dated as of May 26,
2004 by and among Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P., Magellan
G.P. LLC and Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., on the one hand,
and The Williams Companies, Inc., Williams Energy Services, LLC,
Williams Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. and Williams GP LLC, on the
other hand (filed as Exhibit 10.6 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.38*
|
|
|
|
Master Professional Services
Agreement dated as of June 1, 2004, by and between The
Williams Companies, Inc. and International Business Machines
Corporation (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.39*
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Master
Professional Services Agreement dated June 1, 2004, by and
between The Williams Companies, Inc. and International Business
Machines Corporation made as of June 1, 2004 (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.40*
|
|
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated
November 16, 2006, by and among Williams Energy Services,
LLC, Williams field Services Group, LLC, Williams Field Services
Company, LLC Williams Partners GP LLC, Williams Partners L.P.
and Williams Partners Operating LLC (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.1 to Williams Partners L.P.s current
report on
Form 8-K
(File No. 1-32599) filed on November 21, 2006) filed
as Exhibit 2.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed November 22, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated
February 23, 2007 among Williams Production RMT Company,
Williams Production Company, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup
Energy Inc., Calyon New York Branch, and the banks named
therein, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Calyon New York
Branch as joint lead arrangers and co-book runners.
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend
Requirements.
|
|
14*
|
|
|
|
|
Code of Ethics (filed as
Exhibit 14 to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003).
|
|
20*
|
|
|
|
|
Definitive Proxy Statement of
Williams for 2007 (to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or before April , 2007).
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the registrant.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm, Ernst & Young LLP.
|
|
23
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Petroleum
Engineers and Geologists, Netherland, Sewell &
Associates, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Petroleum
Engineers and Geologists, Miller and Lents, LTD.
|
155
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
Power of Attorney together with
certified resolution.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Executive Officer pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a)
and
15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Item 601(b)(31) of
Regulation S-K,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Financial Officer pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a)
and
15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Item 601(b)(31) of
Regulation S-K,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Each such exhibit has heretofore been filed with the SEC as part
of the filing indicated and is incorporated herein by reference. |
156
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
The Williams Companies,
Inc.
(Registrant)
Brian K. Shore
Attorney-in-fact
Date: February 28, 2007
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ Steven
J. Malcolm*
Steven
J. Malcolm*
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Donald
R. Chappel*
Donald
R. Chappel*
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ted
T.
Timmermans*
Ted
T. Timmermans*
|
|
Controller (Principal Accounting
Officer)
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kathleen
B. Cooper*
Kathleen
B. Cooper*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Irl
F.
Engelhardt*
Irl
F. Engelhardt*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William
R.
Granberry*
William
R. Granberry*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ William
E. Green*
William
E. Green*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Juanita
H. Hinshaw*
Juanita
H. Hinshaw*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ W.R.
Howell*
W.R.
Howell*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Charles
M. Lillis*
Charles
M. Lillis*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ George
A. Lorch*
George
A. Lorch*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
157
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ William
G. Lowrie*
William
G. Lowrie*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Frank
T.
Macinnis*
Frank
T. Macinnis*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Janice
D. Stoney*
Janice
D. Stoney*
|
|
Director
|
|
February 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*By:
|
|
/s/ Brian
K. Shore
Brian
K. Shore
Attorney-in-Fact
|
|
|
|
|
158
INDEX TO
EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as supplemented (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
3
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Restated By-laws (filed as
Exhibit 3.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed January 31, 2007).
|
|
4
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
Form of Senior Debt Indenture
between Williams and Bank One Trust company, N.A. (formerly The
First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
Form of Floating Rate Senior Note
(filed as Exhibit 4.3 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.3*
|
|
|
|
Form of Fixed Rate Senior Note
(filed as Exhibit 4.4 to our
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.4*
|
|
|
|
Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee,
dated as of January 17, 2001 (filed as Exhibit 4(j) to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000).
|
|
4
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
Fifth Supplemental Indenture
between Williams and Bank One Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee,
dated as of January 17, 2001 (filed as Exhibit 4(k) to
our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000).
|
|
4
|
.6*
|
|
|
|
Sixth Supplemental Indenture dated
January 14, 2002, between Williams and Bank One Trust
Company, National Association, as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed January 23, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.7*
|
|
|
|
Seventh Supplemental Indenture
dated March 19, 2002, between The Williams Companies, Inc.
as Issuer and Bank One Trust Company, National Association, as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 9, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.8*
|
|
|
|
Form of Senior Debt Indenture
between Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc. and Citibank, N.A.,
as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Holdings of
Delaware, Inc.s our
Form 10-Q
filed October 18, 1995).
|
|
4
|
.9*
|
|
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated
as of July 31, 1999, among Williams Holdings of Delaware,
Inc., Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(o) to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999).
|
|
4
|
.10*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated
February 25, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.4.1 to MAPCO Inc.s
Amendment No. 1 to
Form S-3
dated February 25, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 1
dated March 5, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(o) to MAPCO Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.12*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 2
dated March 5, 1997, between MAPCO Inc. and Bank One Trust
Company, N.A. (formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as
Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4(p) to MAPCO Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 3
dated March 31, 1998, among MAPCO Inc., Williams Holdings
of Delaware, Inc. and Bank One Trust Company, N.A. (formerly The
First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4(j) to Williams Holdings of Delaware, Inc.s
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998).
|
|
4
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture No. 4
dated as of July 31, 1999, among Williams Holdings of
Delaware, Inc., Williams and Bank One Trust Company, N.A.
(formerly The First National Bank of Chicago), as Trustee (filed
as Exhibit 4(q) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999).
|
|
4
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
Revised Form of Indenture between
Barrett Resources Corporation, as Issuer, and Bankers Trust
Company, as Trustee, with respect to Senior Notes including
specimen of 7.55% Senior Notes (filed as Exhibit 4.1
to Barrett Resources Corporations Amendment No. 2 to
our Registration Statement on
Form S-3
filed February 10, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture dated
2001, between Barrett Resources Corporation, as Issuer, and
Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.3 to
our
Form 10-Q
filed November 13, 2001).
|
|
4
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
Second Supplemental Indenture
dated as of August 2, 2001, among Barrett Resources
Corporation, as Issuer, Resources Acquisition Corp., The
Williams Companies, Inc. and Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee
(filed as Exhibit 4.4 to our
Form 10-Q
filed November 13, 2001).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
4
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Third Supplemental Indenture dated
as of May 20, 2004 with respect to the Indenture dated as
of February 1, 1997 between Barrett Resources Corporation
(predecessor-in-interest
to Williams Production RMT Company) and Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company), as
trustee (filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed May 20, 2004).
|
|
4
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of May 28,
2003, by and between The Williams Companies, Inc. and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Trustee for the issuance of the 5.50% Junior
Subordinated Convertible Debentures due 2033 (filed as
Exhibit 4.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
4
|
.20*
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Rights
Agreement dated September 21, 2004 by and between The
Williams Companies, Inc. and EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as
Rights Agent (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed September 21, 2004.
|
|
4
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
August 1, 1992, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and
Continental Bank, N.A., Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 9% Debentures, due 2022 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed July 2, 1992).
|
|
4
|
.22*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
November 30, 1995, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation
and Chemical Bank, Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 7.125% Debentures, due 2025 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed September 14, 1995).
|
|
4
|
.23*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture, dated as of
December 8, 1997, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation
and The Chase Manhattan Bank, Trustee with regard to Northwest
Pipelines 6.625% Debentures, due 2007 (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Northwest Pipelines
Form S-3
filed September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.24*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated March 4,
2003, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and JP Morgan Chase
Bank, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 13, 2003.
|
|
4
|
.25*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
June 22, 2006, between Northwest Pipeline Corporation and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.a., as Trustee, with regard to Northwest
Pipelines $175 million aggregate principal amount of
7.00% Senior Notes due 2016 (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to
Northwest Pipelines
Form 8-K
dated June 23, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.26*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated as of
July 15, 1996 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-3
dated April 2, 1996).
|
|
4
|
.27*
|
|
|
|
Senior Indenture dated as of
January 16, 1998 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-3
dated September 8, 1997).
|
|
4
|
.28*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
August 27, 2001 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporations
Form S-4
dated November 8, 2001).
|
|
4
|
.29*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of July 3,
2002 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation and
Citibank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to The
Williams Companies Inc.s
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002).
|
|
4
|
.30*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated December 17,
2004 between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1
to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporations
Form 8-K
filed December 21, 2004).
|
|
4
|
.31*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated as of
April 11, 2006, between Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee with
regard to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Lines
$200 million aggregate principal amount of 6.4$ Senior Note
due 2016 (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporations
Form 8-K
dated April 11, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.32*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated June 20,
2006, by and among Williams Partners L.P., Williams Partners
Finance Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Partners L.P.
Form 8-K
filed June 20, 2006).
|
|
4
|
.33*
|
|
|
|
Indenture dated December 13,
2006, by and among Williams Partners L.P., Williams Partners
Finance Corporation and The Bank of New York (filed as
Exhibit 4.1 to Williams Partners L.P. filed
December 19, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.1*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of January 1,
1988 (filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(c) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1987).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.2*
|
|
|
|
First Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of
April 1, 1988 (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.3*
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Plan effective as of
January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003 (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-K
filed March, 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.4*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. Stock
Plan for Non-Officer Employees (filed as Exhibit 10(iii)(g)
to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995).
|
|
10
|
.5*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 1996
Stock Plan (filed as Exhibit A to our Proxy Statement dated
March 27, 1996).
|
|
10
|
.6*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 1996
Stock Plan for Non-employee Directors (filed as Exhibit B
to our Proxy Statement dated March 27, 1996).
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2001
Stock Plan.
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2002
Incentive Plan for Non-Employee Director Stock Option Agreement.
|
|
10
|
.9*
|
|
|
|
Indemnification Agreement
effective as of August 1, 1986, among Williams, members of
the Board of Directors and certain officers of Williams (filed
as Exhibit 10(iii)(e) to our
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1986).
|
|
10
|
.10*
|
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Secured
Promissory Note and Pledge Agreement among Williams and certain
employees, officers and non-employee directors (filed as
Exhibit 10(iii)(m) to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998).
|
|
10
|
.11*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2004 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 10.12 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.12*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2004 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and executive officers
filed as Exhibit 10.13 to our
Form 10-K
filed March 11, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.13*
|
|
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement
among Williams and certain employees and officers (filed as
Exhibit 99.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.14*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2005 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.15*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2005 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and executive
officers.(filed as Exhibit 99.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 2, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.16*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Deferred Stock
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.17*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Stock Option
Agreement among Williams and certain employees and officers
(filed as Exhibit 99.2 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.18*
|
|
|
|
Form of 2006 Performance-Based
Deferred Stock Agreement among Williams and certain employees
and officers (filed as Exhibit 99.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed March 7, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.19*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2001
Stock Plan (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to our
Form S-8
filed August 1, 2001).
|
|
10
|
.20*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc. 2002
Incentive Plan as amended and restated effective as of
January 23, 2004 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed on August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.21*
|
|
|
|
Form of Change in Control
Severance Agreement between the Company and certain executive
officers (filed as Exhibit 10.12 to our
Form 10-Q
filed November 14, 2002).
|
|
10
|
.22*
|
|
|
|
Settlement Agreement, by and among
the Governor of the State of California and the several other
parties named therein and The Williams Companies, Inc. and
Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company dated
November 11, 2002 (filed as Exhibit 10.79 to our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002).
|
|
10
|
.23*
|
|
|
|
The Williams Companies, Inc.
Severance Pay Plan as Amended and Restated Effective
October 28, 2003.
|
|
10
|
.24*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated October 28, 2003.
|
|
10
|
.25*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated June 1, 2004.
|
|
10
|
.26*
|
|
|
|
Amendment to The Williams
Companies, Inc. Severance Pay Plan dated January 1, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.27*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $500,000,000 Term Loan
Agreement among Williams Production Holdings LLC, Williams
Production RMT Company, as Borrower, the Several Lenders from
time to time parties thereto, Lehman Brothers Inc. and Banc of
America Securities LLC as Joint Lead Arrangers, Citigroup USA,
Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Co-Syndication Agents, Bank of
America, N.A., as Documentation Agent, and Lehman Commercial
Paper Inc., as Administrative Agent dated as of May 30,
2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.28*
|
|
|
|
The First Amendment to the Term
Loan Agreement dated February 25, 2004, between Williams
Production Holdings, LLC, Williams Production RMT Company, as
Borrower, the several financial institutions as lenders and
Lehman Commercial Paper Inc., as Administrative Agent dated as
of May 30, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-Q
filed May 6, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.29*
|
|
|
|
Guarantee and Collateral Agreement
made by Williams Production Holdings LLC, Williams Production
RMT Company and certain of its Subsidiaries in favor of Lehman
Commercial Paper Inc. as Administrative Agent dated as of
May 30, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.30*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $1,275,000,000 Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement Dated as of May 20, 2005
among The Williams Companies, Inc., Northwest Pipeline
Corporation, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation,
Williams Partners L.P., as Borrowers, Citicorp USA, Inc., As
Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent, Citibank, N.A. Bank
of America, N.A. as Issuing Banks and The Banks Named Herein as
Banks (filed as Exhibit 1.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed May 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.31*
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated as of
May 1, 2006, among The Williams Companies, Inc., Northwest
Pipeline Corporation, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation, and Williams Partners L.P., as Borrowers and
Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.1 to our
form 8-K
filed May 1, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.32*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $400,000,000 Five Year Credit
Agreement dated January 20, 2005 among The Williams
Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named herein,
as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named herein, as
Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on January 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.33*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $100,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated January 20, 2005 among The Williams
Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named herein,
as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named herein, as
Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent (filed as
Exhibit 10.4 to our
Form 8-K
filed on January 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.34*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $500,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated September 20, 2005 among The
Williams Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named
herein, as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named
herein, as Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent
(filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on September 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.35*
|
|
|
|
U.S. $200,000,000 Five Year
Credit Agreement dated September 20, 2005 among The
Williams Companies, Inc., as Borrower, the Initial Lenders named
herein, as Initial Lenders, the Initial Issuing Banks named
herein, as Initial Issuing Banks and Citibank, N.A, as Agent
(filed as Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 8-K
filed on September 26, 2005).
|
|
10
|
.36*
|
|
|
|
Assumption Agreement dated
June 17, 2003 by and between The Williams Companies, Inc.
and WEG Acquisitions, L.P. (filed as Exhibit 10.10 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 12, 2003).
|
|
10
|
.37*
|
|
|
|
Agreement for the Release of
Certain Indemnification Obligations dated as of May 26,
2004 by and among Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P., Magellan
G.P. LLC and Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., on the one hand,
and The Williams Companies, Inc., Williams Energy Services, LLC,
Williams Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. and Williams GP LLC, on the
other hand (filed as Exhibit 10.6 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.38*
|
|
|
|
Master Professional Services
Agreement dated as of June 1, 2004, by and between The
Williams Companies, Inc. and International Business Machines
Corporation (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
10
|
.39*
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Master
Professional Services Agreement dated June 1, 2004, by and
between The Williams Companies, Inc. and International Business
Machines Corporation made as of June 1, 2004 (filed as
Exhibit 10.3 to our
Form 10-Q
filed August 5, 2004).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
No.
|
|
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.40*
|
|
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated
November 16, 2006, by and among Williams Energy Services,
LLC, Williams field Services Group, LLC, Williams Field Services
Company, LLC Williams Partners GP LLC, Williams Partners L.P.
and Williams Partners Operating LLC (incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 2.1 to Williams Partners L.P.s current
report on
Form 8-K
(File No. 1-32599) filed on November 21, 2006) filed
as Exhibit 2.1 to our
Form 8-K
filed November 22, 2006).
|
|
10
|
.41
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement dated
February 23, 2007 among Williams Production RMT Company,
Williams Production Company, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup
Energy Inc., Calyon New York Branch, and the banks named
therein, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Calyon New York
Branch as joint lead arrangers and co-book runners.
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividend
Requirements.
|
|
14*
|
|
|
|
|
Code of Ethics (filed as
Exhibit 14 to
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003).
|
|
20*
|
|
|
|
|
Definitive Proxy Statement of
Williams for 2007 (to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or before April , 2007).
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the registrant.
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm, Ernst & Young LLP.
|
|
23
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Petroleum
Engineers and Geologists, Netherland, Sewell &
Associates, Inc.
|
|
23
|
.3
|
|
|
|
Consent of Independent Petroleum
Engineers and Geologists, Miller and Lents, LTD.
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
|
Power of Attorney together with
certified resolution.
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Executive Officer pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a)
and
15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Item 601(b)(31) of
Regulation S-K,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Financial Officer pursuant to
Rules 13a-14(a)
and
15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Item 601(b)(31) of
Regulation S-K,
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
Certification of the Chief
Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Each such exhibit has heretofore been filed with the SEC as part
of the filing indicated and is incorporated herein by reference. |