DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. - Quarter Report: 2010 June (Form 10-Q)
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
þ | QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010
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 1-13926
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
76-0321760 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
15415 Katy Freeway
Houston, Texas
77094
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
(281) 492-5300
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Houston, Texas
77094
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
(281) 492-5300
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
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 whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions
of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting
company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer þ | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act).
Yes
o No
þ
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as
of the latest practicable date.
As of July 22, 2010 Common stock, $0.01 par value per share 139,026,178 shares
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR FORM 10-Q
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
PAGE NO. | ||||||||
COVER PAGE |
1 | |||||||
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
2 | |||||||
3 | ||||||||
3 | ||||||||
4 | ||||||||
5 | ||||||||
6 | ||||||||
19 | ||||||||
43 | ||||||||
44 | ||||||||
45 | ||||||||
45 | ||||||||
47 | ||||||||
48 | ||||||||
49 | ||||||||
EX-31.1 | ||||||||
EX-31.2 | ||||||||
EX-32.1 | ||||||||
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT | ||||||||
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT | ||||||||
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT | ||||||||
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT | ||||||||
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT | ||||||||
EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT |
Table of Contents
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. Financial Statements.
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share data)
June 30, | December 31, | |||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
ASSETS |
||||||||
Current assets: |
||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 525,119 | $ | 376,417 | ||||
Marketable securities |
250,691 | 400,853 | ||||||
Accounts receivable, net of provision for bad debts |
636,572 | 791,023 | ||||||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
170,819 | 155,077 | ||||||
Asset held for sale |
152,280 | | ||||||
Total current assets |
1,735,481 | 1,723,370 | ||||||
Drilling and other property and equipment, net of
accumulated depreciation |
4,299,215 | 4,432,052 | ||||||
Long-term receivable |
57,254 | | ||||||
Other assets |
423,015 | 108,839 | ||||||
Total assets |
$ | 6,514,965 | $ | 6,264,261 | ||||
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
||||||||
Current liabilities: |
||||||||
Accounts payable |
$ | 77,881 | $ | 75,015 | ||||
Accrued liabilities |
358,851 | 301,871 | ||||||
Taxes payable |
147,851 | 32,410 | ||||||
Current portion of long-term debt |
| 4,179 | ||||||
Total current liabilities |
584,583 | 413,475 | ||||||
Long-term debt |
1,495,483 | 1,495,375 | ||||||
Deferred tax liability |
555,786 | 546,024 | ||||||
Other liabilities |
222,239 | 178,745 | ||||||
Total liabilities |
2,858,091 | 2,633,619 | ||||||
Commitments and contingencies (Note 10) |
| | ||||||
Stockholders equity: |
||||||||
Common stock (par value $0.01, 500,000,000 shares authorized,
143,942,978 shares issued and 139,026,178 shares outstanding at June 30, 2010
and December 31, 2009) |
1,439 | 1,439 | ||||||
Additional paid-in capital |
1,969,232 | 1,965,513 | ||||||
Retained earnings |
1,803,021 | 1,776,498 | ||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive gain (loss) |
(2,405 | ) | 1,605 | |||||
Treasury stock, at cost (4,916,800 shares at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009) |
(114,413 | ) | (114,413 | ) | ||||
Total stockholders equity |
3,656,874 | 3,630,642 | ||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
$ | 6,514,965 | $ | 6,264,261 | ||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
3
Table of Contents
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share data)
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
Revenues: |
||||||||||||||||
Contract drilling |
$ | 811,739 | $ | 923,458 | $ | 1,656,177 | $ | 1,779,166 | ||||||||
Revenues related to reimbursable expenses |
10,864 | 22,949 | 26,107 | 52,961 | ||||||||||||
Total revenues |
822,603 | 946,407 | 1,682,284 | 1,832,127 | ||||||||||||
Operating expenses: |
||||||||||||||||
Contract drilling, excluding depreciation |
348,971 | 304,853 | 654,098 | 602,600 | ||||||||||||
Reimbursable expenses |
10,379 | 22,431 | 25,084 | 52,146 | ||||||||||||
Depreciation |
100,746 | 85,431 | 198,148 | 170,493 | ||||||||||||
General and administrative |
16,849 | 16,166 | 33,503 | 32,481 | ||||||||||||
Gain on disposition of assets |
(149 | ) | (93 | ) | (1,033 | ) | (148 | ) | ||||||||
Total operating expenses |
476,796 | 428,788 | 909,800 | 857,572 | ||||||||||||
Operating income |
345,807 | 517,619 | 772,484 | 974,555 | ||||||||||||
Other income (expense): |
||||||||||||||||
Interest income |
477 | 1,190 | 1,759 | 1,766 | ||||||||||||
Interest expense |
(21,333 | ) | (11,288 | ) | (43,654 | ) | (12,405 | ) | ||||||||
Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) |
(3,991 | ) | 13,733 | (3,530 | ) | 9,608 | ||||||||||
Other, net |
(34 | ) | (416 | ) | (121 | ) | 651 | |||||||||
Income before income tax expense |
320,926 | 520,838 | 726,938 | 974,175 | ||||||||||||
Income tax expense |
(96,533 | ) | (133,398 | ) | (211,692 | ) | (238,154 | ) | ||||||||
Net income |
$ | 224,393 | $ | 387,440 | $ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | ||||||||
Income per share: |
||||||||||||||||
Basic |
$ | 1.61 | $ | 2.79 | $ | 3.71 | $ | 5.30 | ||||||||
Diluted |
$ | 1.61 | $ | 2.79 | $ | 3.70 | $ | 5.29 | ||||||||
Weighted-average shares outstanding: |
||||||||||||||||
Shares of common stock |
139,026 | 139,002 | 139,026 | 139,001 | ||||||||||||
Dilutive potential shares of common stock |
53 | 79 | 78 | 72 | ||||||||||||
Total weighted-average shares outstanding |
139,079 | 139,081 | 139,104 | 139,073 | ||||||||||||
Cash dividends declared per share of common stock |
$ | 1.50 | $ | 2.00 | $ | 3.50 | $ | 4.00 | ||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
4
Table of Contents
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)
(In thousands)
Six Months Ended | ||||||||
June 30, | ||||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
Operating activities: |
||||||||
Net income |
$ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | ||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided
by operating activities: |
||||||||
Depreciation |
198,148 | 170,493 | ||||||
(Gain) on disposition of assets |
(1,033 | ) | (148 | ) | ||||
(Gain) loss on sale of marketable securities, net |
2 | (599 | ) | |||||
(Gain) on foreign currency forward exchange contracts |
(457 | ) | (8,837 | ) | ||||
Deferred tax provision |
11,921 | 37,910 | ||||||
Accretion of discounts on marketable securities |
(200 | ) | (503 | ) | ||||
Amortization/write-off of debt issuance costs |
449 | 274 | ||||||
Amortization of debt discounts |
167 | 134 | ||||||
Stock-based compensation expense |
3,719 | 3,376 | ||||||
Deferred income, net |
56,593 | 66,716 | ||||||
Deferred expenses, net |
(52,311 | ) | (2,257 | ) | ||||
Proceeds
from settlement of foreign currency forward exchange contracts designated as accounting hedges |
457 | | ||||||
Other assets, noncurrent |
5,788 | (16,713 | ) | |||||
Other liabilities, noncurrent |
7,712 | 6,175 | ||||||
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
||||||||
Accounts receivable |
109,118 | (166,449 | ) | |||||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
(20,045 | ) | (25,108 | ) | ||||
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
8,666 | (49,073 | ) | |||||
Taxes payable |
(149,635 | ) | (46,014 | ) | ||||
Net cash provided by operating activities |
694,305 | 705,398 | ||||||
Investing activities: |
||||||||
Capital expenditures |
(221,890 | ) | (226,284 | ) | ||||
Rig acquisition |
| (460,000 | ) | |||||
Proceeds from disposition of assets, net of disposal costs |
1,258 | 453 | ||||||
Deposits received on sale of rigs |
18,600 | 6,000 | ||||||
Proceeds from sale and maturities of marketable securities |
2,550,088 | 3,198,829 | ||||||
Purchases of marketable securities |
(2,399,760 | ) | (2,998,780 | ) | ||||
Cost to settle foreign currency forward exchange contracts not designated as
accounting hedges |
| (28,862 | ) | |||||
Net cash used in investing activities |
(51,704 | ) | (508,644 | ) | ||||
Financing activities: |
||||||||
Redemption of zero coupon debentures |
(4,238 | ) | | |||||
Issuance of 5.875% senior unsecured notes |
| 499,255 | ||||||
Debt issuance costs and arrangement fees |
(98 | ) | (3,752 | ) | ||||
Payment of dividends |
(489,670 | ) | (558,036 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from stock plan exercises |
107 | 155 | ||||||
Net cash used in financing activities |
(493,899 | ) | (62,378 | ) | ||||
Net change in cash and cash equivalents |
148,702 | 134,376 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
376,417 | 336,052 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
$ | 525,119 | $ | 470,428 | ||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
5
Table of Contents
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. General Information
The unaudited consolidated financial statements of Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. and
subsidiaries, which we refer to as Diamond Offshore, we, us or our, should be read in
conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (File No.
1-13926).
As of July 22, 2010, Loews Corporation, or Loews, owned 50.4% of the outstanding shares of our
common stock.
Interim Financial Information
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S., or GAAP, for interim financial
information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X of the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, pursuant to such rules and regulations, they do
not include all disclosures required by GAAP for complete financial statements. The consolidated
financial information has not been audited but, in the opinion of management, includes all
adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair presentation of the
consolidated balance sheets, statements of operations and statements of cash flows at the dates and
for the periods indicated. Results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily
indicative of results of operations for the respective full years.
Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure
of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported
amount of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from
those estimated.
Reclassifications
Certain amounts applicable to the prior periods have been reclassified to conform to the
classifications currently followed. Such reclassifications do not affect earnings.
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Marketable Securities
We consider short-term, highly liquid investments that have an original maturity of three
months or less and deposits in money market mutual funds that are readily convertible into cash to
be cash equivalents. See Note 5.
We classify our investments in marketable securities as available for sale and they are stated
at fair value in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Accordingly, any unrealized gains and losses,
net of taxes, are reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheets in Accumulated other comprehensive
gain (loss) until realized. The cost of debt securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums
and accretion of discounts to maturity and such adjustments are included in our Consolidated
Statements of Operations in Interest income. The sale and purchase of securities are recorded on
the date of the trade. The cost of debt securities sold is based on the specific identification
method. Realized gains or losses, as well as any declines in value that are judged to be other
than temporary, are reported in our Consolidated Statements of Operations in Other income
(expense).
Derivative Financial Instruments
Our derivative financial instruments include foreign currency forward exchange, or FOREX,
contracts. See Notes 4 and 5.
6
Table of Contents
Supplementary Cash Flow Information
We paid interest on long-term debt totaling $42.0 million and $12.5 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. During the six months ended June 30, 2010, we paid
$0.9 million in interest on assessments from the Internal Revenue Service.
We made estimated U.S. federal income tax payments of $254.5 million and $140.0 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. We paid $76.2 million and $106.1
million in foreign income taxes, net of foreign tax refunds, during the six months ended June 30,
2010 and 2009, respectively. We paid state income taxes, net of refunds, of $0.1 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2010. We paid state income taxes of $0.2 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2009.
Capital expenditures for the six months ended June 30, 2010 included $64.9 million that was
accrued but unpaid at December 31, 2009. Capital expenditures for the six months ended June 30,
2009 included $59.4 million that was accrued but unpaid at December 31, 2008. Capital expenditures
that were accrued but not paid as of June 30, 2010 totaled $60.9 million. We have included this
amount in Accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2010.
We recorded income tax benefits of $0 and $2,000 related to employee stock plan exercises
during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
Asset Held for Sale
At June 30, 2010, we had transferred the $152.3 million net book value of the Ocean Shield to
Asset held for sale in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Pursuant to the purchase and sale
agreement, we received an $18.6 million deposit from the purchaser, which we recorded in Accrued
liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2010.
On July 7, 2010, we completed the sale of this rig for a gross purchase price of $186.0
million. In conjunction with the sale of the rig, we entered into a bareboat charter with the
successor owner of the rig at a charter rate of $20,000 per day until such time that the successor
owner can comply with all obligations under the drilling contract and the drilling contract can be
assigned to the successor owner.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
We evaluate our property and equipment for impairment whenever changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. We utilize a
probability-weighted cash flow analysis in testing an asset for potential impairment. Our
assumptions and estimates underlying this analysis include the following:
| dayrate by rig; | ||
| utilization rate by rig (expressed as the actual percentage of time per year that the rig would be used); | ||
| the per day operating cost for each rig if active, ready-stacked or cold-stacked; and | ||
| salvage value for each rig. |
Based on these assumptions and estimates, we develop a matrix by assigning probabilities to various
combinations of assumed utilization rates and dayrates.
As of June 30, 2010, we evaluated the Ocean Voyager, an intermediate semisubmersible rig in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, or GOM, that was cold stacked late in the second quarter of 2010, for
impairment. We evaluated the rig for impairment using the probability-weighted cash flow analysis
discussed above. Based on this analysis, we determined that the probability-weighted cash flows
exceeded the carrying value of the rig.
At June 30, 2010, we do not believe that current circumstances indicated that there was an
impairment of any of our other drilling rigs in the GOM or elsewhere.
Managements assumptions are an inherent part of our asset impairment evaluation and the use
of different assumptions could produce results that differ from those reported.
7
Table of Contents
Comprehensive Income
A reconciliation of net income to comprehensive income is as follows:
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 224,393 | $ | 387,440 | $ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | ||||||||
Other comprehensive gains (losses), net of tax: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts: |
||||||||||||||||
Unrealized holding (loss) gain |
(3,397 | ) | 3,831 | (3,260 | ) | 3,831 | ||||||||||
Reclassification adjustment for loss (gain)
included in net income |
356 | | (729 | ) | | |||||||||||
Investments in marketable securities: |
||||||||||||||||
Unrealized holding (loss) gain |
(18 | ) | 9 | (22 | ) | 36 | ||||||||||
Reclassification adjustment for loss (gain)
included in net income |
1 | (14 | ) | 1 | (507 | ) | ||||||||||
Comprehensive income |
$ | 221,335 | $ | 391,266 | $ | 511,236 | $ | 739,381 | ||||||||
The tax related to the change in unrealized holding loss on FOREX contracts was
approximately $1.8 million for each of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010.
The tax related to the change in unrealized holding gains on our FOREX contracts was approximately
$2.1 million for each of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009. The tax
related to the reclassification adjustment for FOREX contracts included in net income was
approximately $192,000 and $393,000 for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2010,
respectively.
The tax related to the change in unrealized holding loss on investments was approximately
$10,000 and $12,000 for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2010, respectively. The
tax related to the change in unrealized holding gains on investments was approximately $5,000 and
$19,000 for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. The tax effect on
the reclassification adjustment for net losses included in net income was approximately $1,000 for
each of the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010. The tax effect on the
reclassification adjustment for net gains included in net income was approximately $8,000 and
$273,000 for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively.
Foreign Currency
Our functional currency is the U.S. dollar. Foreign currency transaction gains and losses,
including gains and losses from the settlement of FOREX contracts not designated as accounting
hedges, are reported as Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) in our Consolidated Statements
of Operations. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, we recognized net foreign
currency exchange losses of $4.0 million and $3.5 million, respectively. For the three and six
months ended June 30, 2009, we recognized net foreign currency exchange gains of $13.7 million and
$9.6 million, respectively. See Note 4.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue from our dayrate drilling contracts is recognized as services are performed. In
connection with such drilling contracts, we may receive fees (either lump-sum or dayrate) for the
mobilization of equipment. These fees are earned as services are performed over the initial term
of the related drilling contracts. We defer mobilization fees received, as well as direct and
incremental mobilization costs incurred, and amortize each, on a straight line basis, over the term
of the related drilling contracts (which is the period estimated to be benefited from the
mobilization activity). Straight line amortization of mobilization revenues and related costs over
the initial term of the related drilling contracts (which generally range from two to 60 months) is
consistent with the timing of net cash flows generated from the actual drilling services performed.
Absent a contract, mobilization costs are recognized as incurred.
From time to time, we may receive fees from our customers for capital improvements to our
rigs. We defer such fees received in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities in our
Consolidated Balance Sheets and recognize
8
Table of Contents
these fees into income on a straight-line basis over the period of the related drilling
contract. We capitalize the costs of such capital improvements and depreciate them over the
estimated useful life of the asset.
We record reimbursements received for the purchase of supplies, equipment, personnel services
and other services provided at the request of our customers in accordance with a contract or
agreement, for the gross amount billed to the customer, as Revenues related to reimbursable
expenses in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
2. Earnings Per Share
A reconciliation of the numerators and the denominators of our basic and diluted per-share
computations follows:
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands, except per share data) | ||||||||||||||||
Net income basic (numerator): |
$ | 224,393 | $ | 387,440 | $ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | ||||||||
Effect of dilutive potential shares |
||||||||||||||||
Zero Coupon Debentures |
32 | 24 | 56 | 46 | ||||||||||||
Net income including conversions diluted
(numerator) |
$ | 224,425 | $ | 387,464 | $ | 515,302 | $ | 736,067 | ||||||||
Weighted average shares basic (denominator): |
139,026 | 139,002 | 139,026 | 139,001 | ||||||||||||
Effect of dilutive potential shares |
||||||||||||||||
Zero Coupon Debentures |
32 | 52 | 42 | 52 | ||||||||||||
Stock options and SARs |
21 | 27 | 36 | 20 | ||||||||||||
Weighted average shares including conversions
diluted (denominator) |
139,079 | 139,081 | 139,104 | 139,073 | ||||||||||||
Earnings per share: |
||||||||||||||||
Basic |
$ | 1.61 | $ | 2.79 | $ | 3.71 | $ | 5.30 | ||||||||
Diluted |
$ | 1.61 | $ | 2.79 | $ | 3.70 | $ | 5.29 | ||||||||
Our computation of diluted earnings per share, or EPS, for the three months ended June
30, 2010 excludes stock options representing 8,000 shares of common stock and 672,214 stock
appreciation rights, or SARs. Our computation of diluted EPS for the six months ended June 30,
2010 excludes stock options representing 4,022 shares of common stock and 557,264 SARs. The
inclusion of such potentially dilutive shares in the computation of diluted EPS would have been
antidilutive for the periods presented.
Our computation of diluted EPS for the three months ended June 30, 2009 excludes stock options
representing 8,000 shares of common stock and 449,652 SARs. Our computation of diluted EPS for the
six months ended June 30, 2009 excludes stock options representing 15,704 shares of common stock
and 466,029 SARs. The inclusion of such potentially dilutive shares in the computation of diluted
EPS would have been antidilutive for the periods presented.
9
Table of Contents
3. Marketable Securities
We report our investments as current assets in our Consolidated Balance Sheets in Marketable
securities, representing the investment of cash available for current operations. See Note 5.
Our investments in marketable securities are classified as available for sale and are summarized as
follows:
June 30, 2010 | ||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Market | ||||||||||
Cost | Gain (Loss) | Value | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Due within one year |
$ | 249,958 | $ | (20 | ) | $ | 249,938 | |||||
Mortgage-backed securities |
701 | 52 | 753 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 250,659 | $ | 32 | $ | 250,691 | ||||||
December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Market | ||||||||||
Cost | Gain (Loss) | Value | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Due within one year |
$ | 399,997 | $ | (1 | ) | $ | 399,996 | |||||
Mortgage-backed securities |
792 | 65 | 857 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 400,789 | $ | 64 | $ | 400,853 | ||||||
Proceeds from sales and maturities of marketable securities and gross realized gains and
losses are summarized as follows:
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Proceeds from sales |
$ | 35 | $ | 999,886 | $ | 88 | $ | 2,448,829 | ||||||||
Proceeds from maturities |
1,350,000 | 750,000 | 2,550,000 | 750,000 | ||||||||||||
Gross realized gains |
| 36 | | 768 | ||||||||||||
Gross realized losses |
(1 | ) | (34 | ) | (2 | ) | (169 | ) |
4. Derivative Financial Instruments
Foreign Currency Forward Exchange Contracts
Our international operations expose us to foreign exchange risk associated with our costs
payable in foreign currencies for employee compensation, foreign income tax payments and purchases
from foreign suppliers. We may utilize FOREX contracts to reduce our foreign exchange risk. Our
FOREX contracts may obligate us to exchange predetermined amounts of foreign currencies on
specified dates or to net settle the spread between the contracted foreign currency exchange rate
and the spot rate on the contract settlement date, which, for most of our contracts, is the average
spot rate for the contract period.
We enter into FOREX contracts when we believe market conditions are favorable to purchase
contracts for future settlement with the expectation that such contracts, when settled, will reduce
our exposure to foreign currency gains/losses on foreign currency expenditures in the future. The
amount and duration of such contracts is based on our monthly forecast of expenditures in the
significant currencies in which we do business and for which there is a financial market (i.e.,
Australian dollars, Brazilian reais, British pounds sterling, Mexican pesos and Norwegian kroner).
These forward contracts are derivatives as defined by GAAP.
In accordance with GAAP, each derivative contract is stated in the balance sheet at its fair
value with gains and losses reflected in the income statement except that, to the extent the
derivative qualifies for, and is designated, as an accounting hedge, the gains and losses are
reflected in income in the same period as offsetting losses and gains on the qualifying hedged
positions.
Realized gains or losses upon settlement of derivative contracts not designated as cash flow
hedges are reported as Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) in our Consolidated Statements of
Operations.
10
Table of Contents
In May 2009, we began a hedging strategy and designated certain of our qualifying FOREX
contracts as cash flow hedges. These hedges are expected to be highly effective, and therefore,
adjustments to record the carrying value of the effective portion of our derivative financial
instruments to their fair value are recorded as a component of Accumulated other comprehensive
gain (loss), or AOCGL, in our Consolidated Financial Statements. The effective portion of the
cash flow hedge will remain in AOCGL until it is reclassified into earnings in the period or
periods during which the hedged transaction affects earnings or it is determined that the hedged
transaction will not occur. Adjustments to record the carrying value of the ineffective portion of
our derivative financial instruments to fair value are recorded as Foreign currency transaction
gain (loss) in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Realized gains or losses upon settlement of derivative contracts designated as cash flow
hedges are reported as a component of Contract drilling expense in our Consolidated Statements of
Operations to offset the impact of foreign currency fluctuations in our expenditures in local
foreign currencies in the countries in which we operate.
For derivative contracts entered into prior to May 2009, we did not seek hedge accounting
treatment under GAAP. Accordingly, prior to May 2009, all adjustments to record the carrying value
of our derivative financial instruments at fair value were reported as Foreign currency
transaction gain (loss) in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, we settled FOREX contracts with an aggregate
notional value of approximately $147.2 million, of which the entire aggregate amount was designated
as an accounting hedge. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, we settled foreign currency
exchange contracts with an aggregate notional value of approximately $214.6 million, of which none
were designated as accounting hedges.
The following table presents the amounts recognized in our Consolidated Statements of
Operations related to our FOREX contracts designated as accounting hedges for the quarters and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009.
Amount of (Loss) Gain Recognized in Income | ||||||||||||||||
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
Location of (Loss) Gain Recognized in Income | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Contract drilling expense |
$ | (1,643 | ) | $ | | $ | 457 | $ | | |||||||
The following table presents the amounts recognized in our Consolidated Statements of
Operations related to our FOREX contracts not designated as hedging instruments for the quarters
and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
Amount of Gain Recognized in Income | ||||||||||||||||
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
Location of Gain Recognized in Income | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency transaction gain |
$ | | $ | 8,594 | $ | | $ | 8,568 |
The amounts presented in the table above include unrealized gains of $12.6 million and $37.4
million for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively, to record the
carrying value of our derivative financial instruments to their fair value. There were no gains or
losses associated with FOREX contracts not designated as accounting hedges during the three months
and six months ended June 30, 2010.
As of June 30, 2010, we had FOREX contracts outstanding, in the aggregate notional amount of
$118.7 million, consisting of $46.4 million in Australian dollars, $38.1 million in Brazilian
reais, $21.8 million in British pounds sterling, $5.2 million in Mexican pesos and $7.2 million in
Norwegian kroner. These contracts generally settle monthly through November 2010. As of June 30,
2010, all outstanding derivative contracts had been designated as cash flow hedges. See Note 5.
11
Table of Contents
The following table presents the fair values of our derivative financial instruments at
June 30, 2010.
Assets | Liabilities | |||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet | Balance Sheet | |||||||||||||||
Location | Fair Value | Location | Fair Value | |||||||||||||
(In | (In | |||||||||||||||
thousands) | thousands) | |||||||||||||||
Derivatives
designated as
hedging
instruments: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts |
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
$ | 422 | Accrued liabilities | $ | (4,155 | ) |
The following table presents the fair values of our derivative financial instruments at
December 31, 2009.
Assets | Liabilities | |||||||||||||||
Balance Sheet | Balance Sheet | |||||||||||||||
Location | Fair Value | Location | Fair Value | |||||||||||||
(In | (In | |||||||||||||||
thousands) | thousands) | |||||||||||||||
Derivatives
designated as
hedging
instruments: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts |
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
$ | 2,634 | Accrued liabilities | $ | (230 | ) |
The following table presents the amounts recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheets
and Consolidated Statements of Operations related to our FOREX contracts designated as cash flow
hedges for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010.
Location of Gain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount of | Recognized in Income | Amount of Gain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loss | Location of | Amount of | on Derivative | Recognized in Income on | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recognized in | (Loss) Gain | (Loss) Gain | (Ineffective Portion | Derivative (Ineffective | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
AOCGL on | Reclassified from | Reclassified from | and Amount Excluded | Portion and Amount | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Derivative | AOCGL into Income | AOCGL into Income | from Effectiveness | Excluded from | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Effective Portion) | (Effective Portion) | (Effective Portion) | Testing) | Effectiveness Testing) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three | Six | Three | Six | Three | Six | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Months | Months | Months | Months | Months | Months | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | (In thousands) | (In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$(5,226) |
$ | (5,015 | ) | Contract drilling expense |
$ | (548 | ) | $ | 1,122 | Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) |
$ | | $ | |
12
Table of Contents
The following table presents the amounts recognized in our Consolidated Balance Sheets
and Consolidated Statements of Operations related to our FOREX contracts designated as cash flow
hedges for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2009.
Location of Gain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount of | Recognized in Income | Amount of Gain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gain | Location of | Amount of | on Derivative | Recognized in Income on | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recognized in | Gain | Gain | (Ineffective Portion | Derivative (Ineffective | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
AOCGL on | Reclassified from | Reclassified from | and Amount Excluded | Portion and Amount | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Derivative | AOCGL into Income | AOCGL into Income | from Effectiveness | Excluded from | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Effective Portion) | (Effective Portion) | (Effective Portion) | Testing) | Effectiveness Testing) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Three | Three | Six | Three | Six | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Months | Six Months | Months | Months | Months | Months | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2009 | 2009 | 2009 | 2009 | 2009 | 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | (In thousands) | (In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$ 5,894 |
$ | 5,894 | Contract drilling expense |
$ | | $ | | Foreign currency transaction gain (loss) |
$ | 269 | $ | 269 |
As of June 30, 2010, the estimated amount of net unrealized losses associated with our
FOREX contracts that will be reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months was $3.7
million. The net unrealized losses associated with these derivative financial instruments will be
reclassified to contract drilling expense.
5. Financial Instruments and Fair Value Disclosures
Concentrations of Credit and Market Risk
Financial instruments which potentially subject us to significant concentrations of credit or
market risk consist primarily of periodic temporary investments of excess cash, trade accounts
receivable and investments in debt securities, including mortgage-backed securities. We place our
excess cash investments in high quality short-term money market instruments through several
financial institutions. At times, such investments may be in excess of the insurable limit. We
periodically evaluate the relative credit standing of these financial institutions as part of our
investment strategy.
A majority of our investments in debt securities are U.S. government securities with minimal
credit risk. However, we are exposed to market risk due to price volatility associated with
interest rate fluctuations.
Concentrations of credit risk with respect to our trade accounts receivable are limited
primarily due to the entities comprising our customer base. Since the market for our services is
the offshore oil and gas industry, this customer base consists primarily of major and independent
oil and gas companies and government-owned oil companies. In general, before working for a
customer with whom we have not had a prior business relationship and/or whose financial stability
may appear uncertain to us, we perform a credit review on that company. Based on that analysis, we
may require that the customer present a letter of credit, prepay or provide other credit
enhancements.
During 2009, we amended an existing contractual agreement at a customers request to provide
short-term financial relief. The amended contract obligates the customer to pay us, over the term
of the six-well drilling program, $75,000 per day in accordance with our normal credit terms (due
30 days after receipt of invoice) and the remainder of the contractual dayrate, $485,000 per day,
through the conveyance of a 27% net profits interest, or NPI, in certain developmental oil-and-gas
producing properties. We received our first payment from the conveyance of the NPI in July 2010.
Based on current production payout estimates, we expect to collect $37.2 million of the receivable
within the next twelve months. However, payment of such amounts, and the timing of such payments,
are contingent upon such production and upon energy sale prices.
At June 30, 2010, $94.5 million was payable to us from the NPI, of which $37.2 million and
$57.3 million are presented as Accounts receivable and Long-term receivable, respectively, in
our Consolidated Balance Sheets. At June 30, 2010, we believe that collectability of the amount
owed pursuant to the NPI arrangement is reasonably assured.
13
Table of Contents
Fair Values
The amounts reported in our Consolidated Balance Sheets for cash and cash equivalents,
marketable securities, accounts receivable, forward exchange contracts and accounts payable
approximate fair value. Fair values and related carrying values of our debt instruments are shown
below:
June 30, 2010 | December 31, 2009 | |||||||||||||||
Fair Value | Carrying Value | Fair Value | Carrying Value | |||||||||||||
(In millions) | ||||||||||||||||
Zero Coupon Debentures |
$ | | $ | | $ | 5.1 | $ | 4.2 | ||||||||
4.875% Senior Notes |
260.4 | 249.7 | 257.5 | 249.7 | ||||||||||||
5.15% Senior Notes |
262.8 | 249.7 | 263.3 | 249.7 | ||||||||||||
5.70% Senior Notes |
450.0 | 496.8 | 490.4 | 496.7 | ||||||||||||
5.875% Senior Notes |
519.9 | 499.3 | 530.6 | 499.3 |
We have estimated the fair value amounts by using appropriate valuation methodologies and
information available to management as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
Considerable judgment is required in developing these estimates, and accordingly, no assurance can
be given that the estimated values are indicative of the amounts that would be realized in a free
market exchange. The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of
each class of financial instrument for which it was practicable to estimate that value:
| Cash and cash equivalents The carrying amounts approximate fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments. | ||
| Marketable securities The fair values of the debt securities, including residential mortgage-backed securities, available for sale were based on the quoted closing market prices on June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. | ||
| Accounts receivable and accounts payable The carrying amounts approximate fair value based on the nature of the instruments. | ||
| Forward exchange contracts The fair value of our FOREX contracts is based on both quoted market prices and valuations derived from pricing models on June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. | ||
| Long-term receivable The carrying amount approximates fair value based on the nature of the instrument. | ||
| Long-term debt The fair value of our 5.70% Senior Notes due 2039, 5.875% Senior Notes due 2019, 4.875% Senior Notes due July 1, 2015, and 5.15% Senior Notes due September 1, 2014 was based on the quoted market prices from brokers of these instruments. The fair value of our Zero Coupon Convertible Debentures due 2020, or Zero Coupon Debentures, was based on the closing market price of our common stock on December 31, 2009, and the stated conversion rate for these debentures. |
Certain of our assets and liabilities are required to be measured at fair value in accordance
with GAAP. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid
to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset
or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. The
fair value hierarchy prescribed by GAAP requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs
and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. There are three levels of
inputs that may be used to measure fair value:
Level 1 | Quoted prices for identical instruments in active markets. Level 1 assets include short-term investments such as money market funds and U.S. Treasury Bills. Our Level 1 assets at June 30, 2010 consisted of cash held in money market funds of $516.9 million and investments in U.S. Treasury Bills of $249.9 million. Our Level 1 assets at December 31, 2009 consisted of cash held in money market funds of $337.8 million and investments in U.S. Treasury Bills of $400.0 million. | |
Level 2 | Quoted market prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets. Level 2 assets and liabilities include residential mortgage-backed securities and over-the-counter FOREX contracts. Our residential mortgage-backed securities were valued using a model-derived valuation technique based on the quoted closing market prices received from a financial institution. Our FOREX contracts are valued based on quoted market |
14
Table of Contents
prices, which are derived from observable inputs including current spot and forward rates, less the contract rate multiplied by the notional amount. The inputs used in our valuation are obtained from a Bloomberg curve analysis which uses par coupon swap rates to calculate implied forward rates so that projected floating rate cash flows can be calculated. The valuation techniques underlying the models are widely accepted in the financial services industry and do not involve significant judgment. | ||
Level 3 | Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable. Level 3 assets and liabilities generally include financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation or for which there is a lack of transparency as to the inputs used. |
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis are summarized below:
June 30, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
Fair Value Measurements Using | Assets at Fair | |||||||||||||||
Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Value | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Assets: |
||||||||||||||||
Short-term investments |
$ | 766,820 | $ | | $ | | $ | 766,820 | ||||||||
FOREX contracts |
| 422 | | 422 | ||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed securities |
| 753 | | 753 | ||||||||||||
Total assets |
$ | 766,820 | $ | 1,175 | $ | | $ | 767,995 | ||||||||
Liabilities: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts |
$ | | $ | (4,155 | ) | $ | | $ | (4,155 | ) | ||||||
December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
Fair Value Measurements Using | Assets at Fair | |||||||||||||||
Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Value | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Assets: |
||||||||||||||||
Short-term investments |
$ | 737,830 | $ | | $ | | $ | 737,830 | ||||||||
FOREX contracts |
| 2,634 | | 2,634 | ||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed securities |
| 857 | | 857 | ||||||||||||
Total assets |
$ | 737,830 | $ | 3,491 | $ | | $ | 741,321 | ||||||||
Liabilities: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts |
$ | | $ | (230 | ) | $ | | $ | (230 | ) | ||||||
6. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist of the following:
June 30, | December 31, | |||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||
Rig spare parts and supplies |
$ | 51,420 | $ | 49,122 | ||||
Deferred mobilization costs |
73,205 | 45,502 | ||||||
Prepaid insurance |
22,255 | 11,478 | ||||||
Deferred tax assets |
7,235 | 7,235 | ||||||
Deposits |
2,158 | 3,562 | ||||||
Prepaid taxes |
4,617 | 27,679 | ||||||
FOREX contracts |
422 | 2,634 | ||||||
Other |
9,507 | 7,865 | ||||||
Total |
$ | 170,819 | $ | 155,077 | ||||
15
Table of Contents
7. Drilling and Other Property and Equipment
Cost and accumulated depreciation of drilling and other property and equipment are summarized
as follows:
June 30, | December 31, | |||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||
Drilling rigs and equipment |
$ | 6,991,366 | $ | 6,950,303 | ||||
Land and buildings |
51,475 | 44,640 | ||||||
Office equipment and other |
42,080 | 38,203 | ||||||
Cost |
7,084,921 | 7,033,146 | ||||||
Less: accumulated depreciation |
(2,785,706 | ) | (2,601,094 | ) | ||||
Drilling and other property and equipment, net |
$ | 4,299,215 | $ | 4,432,052 | ||||
8. Accrued Liabilities
Accrued liabilities consist of the following:
June 30, | December 31, | |||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||
Accrued project/upgrade expenses |
$ | 100,772 | $ | 115,778 | ||||
Payroll and benefits |
71,895 | 69,065 | ||||||
Deferred revenue |
84,656 | 46,666 | ||||||
Rig operating expenses |
40,599 | 29,141 | ||||||
Interest payable |
21,298 | 22,710 | ||||||
Personal injury and other claims |
11,723 | 10,018 | ||||||
FOREX contracts |
4,155 | 230 | ||||||
Deposit for asset sale |
18,600 | | ||||||
Other |
5,153 | 8,263 | ||||||
Total |
$ | 358,851 | $ | 301,871 | ||||
9. Long-Term Debt
Long-term debt consists of the following:
June 30, | December 31, | |||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||
Zero Coupon Debentures (due 2020) |
$ | | $ | 4,179 | ||||
5.15% Senior Notes (due 2014) |
249,714 | 249,682 | ||||||
4.875% Senior Notes (due 2015) |
249,698 | 249,671 | ||||||
5.875% Senior Notes (due 2019) |
499,321 | 499,292 | ||||||
5.70% Senior Notes (due 2039) |
496,750 | 496,730 | ||||||
1,495,483 | 1,499,554 | |||||||
Less: Current maturities |
| 4,179 | ||||||
Total |
$ | 1,495,483 | $ | 1,495,375 | ||||
The aggregate maturities of long-term debt for each of the five years subsequent to June
30, 2010, are as follows:
(Dollars in thousands) | ||||
2010 |
$ | | ||
2011 |
| |||
2012 |
| |||
2013 |
| |||
2014 |
249,714 | |||
Thereafter |
1,245,769 | |||
Total |
$ | 1,495,483 | ||
16
Table of Contents
Redemption of Zero Coupon Debentures
On May 28, 2010, we repurchased the then outstanding $4.2 million accreted value, or $6.0
million in aggregate principal amount at maturity, of our Zero Coupon Debentures at a purchase
price of $706.28 per $1,000 principal amount at maturity for cash. At June 30, 2010, there were no
Zero Coupon Debentures outstanding.
10. Commitments and Contingencies
Various claims have been filed against us in the ordinary course of business, including claims
by offshore workers alleging personal injuries. We have assessed each claim or exposure to
determine the likelihood that the resolution of the matter might ultimately result in an adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. When we determine that an
unfavorable resolution of a matter is probable and such amount of loss can be determined, we record
a reserve for the estimated loss at the time that both of these criteria are met. Our management
believes that we have established adequate reserves for any liabilities that may reasonably be
expected to result from these claims.
Litigation. We are one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized
aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. We expect to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy
Exploration & Production Company pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with
them. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but
do not believe that ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Various other claims have been filed against us in the ordinary course of business. In the
opinion of our management, no pending or known threatened claims, actions or proceedings against us
are expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
We intend to defend these matters vigorously; however, we cannot predict with certainty the
outcome or effect of any litigation matters specifically described above or any other pending
litigation or claims. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.
Personal Injury Claims. Our deductible for liability coverage for personal injury claims,
which primarily result from Jones Act liability in the Gulf of Mexico, is currently $10.0 million
per the first occurrence, with no aggregate deductible, and varies in amounts ranging between $5.0
million and, if aggregate claims exceed certain thresholds, up to $100.0 million for each
subsequent occurrence, depending on the nature, severity and frequency of claims which might arise
during the policy year. The Jones Act is a federal law that permits seamen to seek compensation
for certain injuries during the course of their employment on a vessel and governs the liability of
vessel operators and marine employers for the work-related injury or death of an employee. We
engage outside consultants to assist us in estimating our aggregate reserve for personal injury
claims based on our historical losses and utilizing various actuarial models. At June 30, 2010,
our estimated liability for personal injury claims was $37.8 million, of which $11.1 million and
$26.7 million were recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other liabilities, respectively, in our
Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2009, our estimated liability for personal injury
claims was $32.1 million, of which $9.2 million and $22.9 million were recorded in Accrued
liabilities and Other liabilities, respectively, in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
eventual settlement or adjudication of these claims could differ materially from our estimated
amounts due to uncertainties such as:
| the severity of personal injuries claimed; | ||
| significant changes in the volume of personal injury claims; | ||
| the unpredictability of legal jurisdictions where the claims will ultimately be litigated; | ||
| inconsistent court decisions; and | ||
| the risks and lack of predictability inherent in personal injury litigation. |
Purchase Obligations. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had no purchase
obligations for major rig upgrades or any other significant obligations, except for those related
to our direct rig operations, which arise during the normal course of business.
17
Table of Contents
Letters of Credit and Other. We were contingently liable as of June 30, 2010 in the amount of
$136.4 million under certain performance, bid, supersedeas, tax appeal and custom bonds and letters
of credit, including $23.9 million in letters of credit issued under our $285 million, syndicated,
senior unsecured revolving credit facility. At June 30, 2010, we had purchased five of our
outstanding bonds, totaling $82.4 million, from a related party in previous years after obtaining
competitive quotes. Agreements relating to approximately $82.4 million of performance bonds can
require collateral at any time. As of June 30, 2010, we had not been required to make any
collateral deposits with respect to these agreements. The remaining agreements cannot require
collateral except in events of default. On our behalf, banks have issued letters of credit
securing certain of these bonds.
11. Segments and Geographic Area Analysis
Although we provide contract drilling services with different types of offshore drilling rigs
and also provide such services in many geographic locations, we have aggregated these operations
into one reportable segment based on the similarity of economic characteristics among all divisions
and locations, including the nature of services provided and the type of customers of such
services, in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification
Topic 280, Segment Reporting.
Revenues from contract drilling services by equipment-type are listed below
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 340,387 | $ | 334,527 | $ | 724,175 | $ | 646,661 | ||||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
389,094 | 465,762 | 769,795 | 882,762 | ||||||||||||
Jack-ups |
82,223 | 123,169 | 162,172 | 249,743 | ||||||||||||
Other |
35 | | 35 | | ||||||||||||
Total contract drilling revenues |
811,739 | 923,458 | 1,656,177 | 1,779,166 | ||||||||||||
Revenues related to reimbursable
expenses |
10,864 | 22,949 | 26,107 | 52,961 | ||||||||||||
Total revenues |
$ | 822,603 | $ | 946,407 | $ | 1,682,284 | $ | 1,832,127 | ||||||||
Geographic Areas
Our drilling rigs are highly mobile and may be moved to other markets throughout the world in
response to market conditions or customer needs. At June 30, 2010, our drilling rigs were located
offshore twelve countries in addition to the United States. Revenues by geographic area are
presented by attributing revenues to the individual country or areas where the services were
performed.
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
United States |
$ | 189,019 | $ | 333,865 | $ | 427,566 | $ | 690,180 | ||||||||
International: |
||||||||||||||||
South America |
312,207 | 172,708 | 595,323 | 297,409 | ||||||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
142,463 | 199,232 | 301,392 | 373,457 | ||||||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
140,078 | 160,970 | 276,683 | 310,802 | ||||||||||||
Mexico |
38,836 | 79,632 | 81,320 | 160,279 | ||||||||||||
Total revenues |
$ | 822,603 | $ | 946,407 | $ | 1,682,284 | $ | 1,832,127 | ||||||||
18
Table of Contents
ITEM 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our unaudited consolidated
financial statements (including the notes thereto) included elsewhere in this report and our
audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, Item 7, Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 1A, Risk Factors included
in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and Item 1A of Part II,
Risk Factors, included in this report.
References to Diamond Offshore, we, us or our mean Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries.
We provide contract drilling services to the energy industry around the globe and are a leader
in offshore drilling with a fleet of 46 offshore rigs currently consisting of 32 semisubmersibles,
13 jack-ups and one drillship. On July 7, 2010, we completed the sale of one of our
high-performance, premium jack-up drilling rigs, the Ocean Shield.
Overview
Industry Conditions
On April 20, 2010, the Macondo well being drilled by BP plc in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, or
GOM, experienced a blowout and immediately began flowing oil into the GOM. Efforts to permanently
plug and abandon the well and contain the spill are ongoing at the time of this report.
In
the aftermath of this event, on May 30, 2010, the U.S.
government imposed a moratorium
on certain drilling activities in water deeper than 500 feet in the GOM and subsequently
implemented enhanced safety requirements applicable to all drilling activity in the GOM, including
drilling activities in water shallower than 500 feet. On June 22, 2010, the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a temporary injunction which immediately prohibited
enforcement of the moratorium. The U.S. government appealed the ruling and the District Courts
decision and requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court stay the
injunction pending appeal. The Fifth Circuit denied the governments stay motion. While the
appeal is pending, the government has rescinded the moratorium and ordered a new suspension through
November 30, 2010, subject to modifications by the government under certain circumstances, of
drilling activities using subsea blowout preventers, or BOPs, or surface BOPs on floating facilities.
Further proceedings with respect to the moratorium and the new suspension are pending. We
currently have six rigs (three floaters and three jack-ups) under contract in the GOM.
The practical effects in the GOM of the uncertainty caused by the drilling moratorium and the
suspension have been a freeze on nearly all floater activity and, given a dramatically slower
permitting process, a reduction of jack-up activity. It has been reported that the industry
currently has 32 floating rigs in the GOM that have been impacted by the suspension, of which we
have three semisubmersible units under contract. All three of these rigs have subsea BOPs. Two
other of our semisubmersible units, the Ocean Confidence and the Ocean Endeavor, formerly working
in the GOM, are mobilizing to international locations. We are working towards compliance with the
various new regulations put in place since May 30, 2010. However, the overall regulatory
environment in the GOM remains very fluid, with frequent changes. We are not able to predict the
outcome of the various legal proceedings, whether enforcement of the moratorium will be permanently
enjoined, whether the suspension will remain in place, or whether the government will seek to
implement additional restrictions on or prohibitions of drilling
activities in the GOM; and we are not able to predict the impact of these events on our operations.
Given the continuing uncertainty with respect to drilling activity in the GOM, our customers
may seek to move rigs to locations outside of the GOM, perform activities which are allowed under
the enhanced safety requirements and not prohibited by the moratorium or the suspension, or attempt
to terminate our contracts pursuant to their respective force majeure provisions. These agreements
generally provide for a force majeure dayrate that extends for a specified period of time and
varies from contract to contract. Several customers have either asserted force majeure, including
with respect to the Ocean Monarch, or indicated that they may assert force majeure under their
relevant contracts. We are assessing each situation on an individual basis as it arises.
In an effort to preserve our contract revenue backlog, we have reached agreements with two of
our customers to mobilize two of our high-specification floaters to international locations. The
Ocean Endeavor is mobilizing to Egypt under a term contract ending June 30, 2011, plus an option
period. This new contract for the Ocean Endeavor will help us preserve backlog, and will allow the
previous operator of the rig to satisfy certain contractual obligations. The new contract, combined
with a $31 million early termination fee paid by the previous operator of the rig, is expected to
generate combined maximum total revenue of approximately $100 million.
19
Table of Contents
The Ocean Confidence is mobilizing to the Republic of Congo under a restructured term
agreement with the current operator. Under the agreement, the original contract in the GOM has
been suspended and restructured into a one-year commitment in the GOM that is expected to
recommence when our customer is satisfied that it can obtain the necessary permits and can meet any
new regulatory requirements. The new international contract is a three-well commitment, plus an
option for additional work, and includes an obligation for the customer to mobilize the rig to and
from the Republic of Congo. The remaining one-year GOM commitment and new international commitment
are expected to generate combined maximum total revenue of approximately $234 million.
We are continuing to actively seek international opportunities to keep our rigs employed.
However, we can provide no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts to employ our
remaining impacted rigs in the GOM in the near term or that the force
majeure assertions will
ultimately be resolved in our favor.
In addition, given the uncertainty with respect to drilling activity in the GOM, we elected to
cold stack our intermediate rig Ocean Voyager when it rolled off contract in June 2010.
Maximum contract revenue as stated above assumes 100% rig utilization. Generally, rig
utilization rates approach 95-98% during contracted periods; however, utilization rates can be
adversely impacted by additional downtime due to unscheduled repairs, maintenance and weather.
Outside the GOM, the global economy remained relatively flat in the second quarter of 2010,
with oil prices averaging in the mid $70s. Dayrates we receive for new contracts are no longer at
the peak levels achieved at the height of the most recent up-cycle. Given the unpredictable
economic environment, the demand for our services and the dayrates we are able to command could
soften further. This volatility and uncertainty is being further exacerbated by the uncertainty in
the GOM. If we, or others, move rigs out of the GOM to international locations, the increased
supply of available rigs entering the international market, coupled with un-contracted new-build
rigs scheduled for delivery this year and next, could create downward pressure on dayrates unless
demand improves sufficiently to absorb the new supply.
In addition to the contracts for the Ocean Endeavor and Ocean Confidence discussed above, we
signed six new contracts during the second quarter of 2010 totaling approximately $137 million in
backlog and ranging in length from one well to one year. At the end of the second quarter of 2010,
our contract backlog was approximately $8.2 billion, of which our contracts in the GOM represented
approximately $795.0 million, or 10% of our total contract backlog.
Floaters
Our intermediate and high-specification floater rigs, both domestic and international,
accounted for approximately 88% of our revenue during the first six months of 2010. Approximately
87% of the time on our intermediate and high-specification floater rigs is committed for the
remainder of 2010. Additionally, 66% of the time on our floating rigs is committed in 2011.
International Jack-ups
During
the second quarter of 2010, demand for our international jack-ups remained weak but stable. Dayrates softened
internationally as existing rigs rolled off contract and met competition from un-contracted
new-build jack-ups that came to market. The high-specification new-build equipment coming to
market is enjoying a significantly higher utilization rate than older existing equipment, and the
oversupply of jack-up rigs could have an increasingly negative impact on the international sector
throughout 2010 and beyond.
U.S. Gulf of Mexico Jack-ups
In addition to the delay in issuance of jack-up permits in the GOM, lower natural gas prices
have negatively impacted both demand and dayrates. During the second quarter of 2009, we
cold-stacked three of our lower-end jack-up units to reduce costs, and they are not being actively
marketed. Our four remaining higher-specification jack-ups in the GOM are largely working under
short-term contracts. One of these rigs, the Ocean Scepter, has received a contract for a one-year
term in Brazil, and is expected to mobilize in early August 2010. Absent an increase in permitting
activity and a sustained improvement in energy prices, weakness in the GOM jack-up market is likely
to continue in 2010, with the possibility of additional rigs being cold-stacked by us and others in
the industry.
20
Table of Contents
Contract Drilling Backlog
The following table reflects our contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010, February 1,
2010 (the date reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009) and
July 20, 2009 (the date reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2009). Contract drilling backlog is calculated by multiplying the contracted operating
dayrate by the firm contract period and adding one-half of any potential rig performance bonuses.
Our calculation also assumes full utilization of our drilling equipment for the contract period
(excluding scheduled shipyard and survey days); however, the amount of actual revenue earned and
the actual periods during which revenues are earned will be different than the amounts and periods
shown in the tables below due to various factors. Utilization rates, which generally approach
95-98% during contracted periods, can be adversely impacted by downtime due to various operating
factors including, but not limited to, weather conditions and unscheduled repairs and maintenance.
Contract drilling backlog excludes revenues for mobilization, demobilization, contract preparation
and customer reimbursables. No revenue is generally earned during periods of downtime for
regulatory surveys. Changes in our contract drilling backlog between periods are a function of the
performance of work on term contracts, as well as the extension or modification of existing term
contracts and the execution of additional contracts.
July 22, | February 1, | July 20, | ||||||||||
2010 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Contract Drilling Backlog |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters (1) |
$ | 4,705,000 | $ | 4,177,000 | $ | 4,016,000 | ||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles (2) |
3,322,000 | 4,030,000 | 4,391,000 | |||||||||
Jack-ups (3) |
139,000 | 249,000 | 311,000 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 8,166,000 | $ | 8,456,000 | $ | 8,718,000 | ||||||
(1) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our high-specification floaters includes (i) $3.1 billion attributable to our contracted operations offshore Brazil for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011 to 2016 and (ii) $724.0 million attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011 to 2013. | |
(2) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our intermediate semisubmersibles includes (i) $2.6 billion attributable to our contracted operations offshore Brazil for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011 to 2015 and (ii) $64.0 million attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM for the remainder of 2010 and for the year 2011. | |
(3) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our jack-ups includes (i) $49.0 million attributable to our contracted operations offshore Brazil for the remainder of 2010 and for the year 2011 and (ii) $7.0 million attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM for the remainder of 2010. |
The following table reflects the amount of our contract drilling backlog by year as of July
22, 2010.
For the Years Ending December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total | 2010(1) | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 - 2016 | ||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Contract Drilling Backlog |
||||||||||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters (2) |
$ | 4,705,000 | $ | 855,000 | $ | 1,619,000 | $ | 914,000 | $ | 1,317,000 | ||||||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles (3) |
3,322,000 | 723,000 | 996,000 | 860,000 | 743,000 | |||||||||||||||
Jack-ups (4) |
139,000 | 70,000 | 69,000 | | | |||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | 8,166,000 | $ | 1,648,000 | $ | 2,684,000 | $ | 1,774,000 | $ | 2,060,000 | ||||||||||
(1) | Represents a six-month period beginning July 1, 2010. | |
(2) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our high-specification floaters includes (i) $392.0 million, $803.0 million and $667.0 million for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011 and 2012, respectively, and $1.3 billion in the aggregate for the years 2013 to 2016, attributable to our contracted operations offshore Brazil and (ii) $123.0 million, $386.0 million, $183.0 million and $32.0 million for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively, attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM. | |
(3) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our intermediate semisubmersibles includes (i) $371.0 million, $764.0 million and $732.0 million for the remainder of 2010 and for the years 2011 and 2012, respectively, and $687.0 million in the aggregate for the years 2013 to 2016, attributable to our contracted operations offshore Brazil and (ii) $28.0 million and $36.0 million for the remainder of 2010 and for the year 2011, respectively, attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM. | |
(4) | Contract drilling backlog as of July 22, 2010 for our jack-ups includes (i) $4.0 million and $45.0 million for the remainder of 2010 and for the year 2011, respectively, attributable to our contracted operations |
21
Table of Contents
offshore Brazil and (ii) $7.0 million for the remainder of 2010 attributable to our contracted operations in the GOM. |
The following table reflects the percentage of rig days committed by year as of July 22, 2010.
The percentage of rig days committed is calculated as the ratio of total days committed under
contracts, as well as scheduled shipyard, survey and mobilization days for all rigs in our fleet,
to total available days (number of rigs multiplied by the number of days in a particular year).
For the Years Ending December 31, | ||||||||||||||||
2010(1) | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 - 2016 | |||||||||||||
Rig Days Committed (2) |
||||||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
96 | % | 80 | % | 47 | % | 18 | % | ||||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
80 | % | 55 | % | 44 | % | 10 | % | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
33 | % | 11 | % | | |
(1) | Represents a six-month period beginning July 1, 2010. | |
(2) | Includes approximately 647 and 410 scheduled shipyard, survey and mobilization days for 2010 and 2011, respectively. |
General
The two most significant variables affecting our revenues are dayrates for rigs and rig
utilization rates, each of which is a function of rig supply and demand in the marketplace. Demand
for drilling services is dependent upon the level of expenditures set by oil and gas companies for
offshore exploration and development, as well as a variety of political and economic factors. The
availability of rigs in a particular geographical region also affects both dayrates and utilization
rates. These factors are not within our control and are difficult to predict.
Demand affects the number of days our fleet is utilized and the dayrates earned. As
utilization rates increase, dayrates tend to increase as well, reflecting the lower supply of
available rigs. Conversely, as utilization rates decrease, dayrates tend to decrease as well,
reflecting the excess supply of rigs. When a rig is idle, no dayrate is earned and revenues will
decrease as a result. Revenues can also be affected as a result of the acquisition or disposal of
rigs, required surveys and shipyard upgrades. In order to improve utilization or realize higher
dayrates, we may mobilize our rigs from one market to another. However, during periods of
mobilization, revenues may be adversely affected. As a response to changes in demand, we may
withdraw a rig from the market by stacking it or may reactivate a rig stacked previously, which may
decrease or increase revenues, respectively.
We recognize revenue from dayrate drilling contracts as services are performed. In connection
with such drilling contracts, we may receive fees (either lump-sum or dayrate) for the mobilization
of equipment. We earn these fees as services are performed over the initial term of the related
drilling contracts. We defer mobilization fees received, as well as direct and incremental
mobilization costs incurred, and amortize each, on a straight-line basis, over the term of the
related drilling contracts (which is the period we estimate to be benefited from the mobilization
activity). Straight-line amortization of mobilization revenues and related costs over the term of
the related drilling contracts (which generally range from two to 60 months) is consistent with the
timing of net cash flows generated from the actual drilling services performed. Absent a contract,
mobilization costs are recognized currently.
From time to time, we may receive fees from our customers for capital improvements to our rigs
(either lump-sum or dayrate). We defer such fees and recognize them into income on a straight-line
basis over the period of the related drilling contract as a component of contract drilling revenue.
We capitalize the costs of such capital improvements and depreciate them over the estimated useful
life of the improvement.
We receive reimbursements for the purchase of supplies, equipment, personnel services and
other services provided at the request of our customers in accordance with a contract or agreement.
We record these reimbursements at the gross amount billed to the customer, as Revenues related to
reimbursable expenses, in our Consolidated Statements of Operations included in Item 1 of Part I
of this report.
Operating Income. Our operating income is primarily affected by revenue factors, but is also
a function of varying levels of operating expenses. Our operating expenses represent all direct
and indirect costs associated with the operation and maintenance of our drilling equipment. The
principal components of our operating costs are, among other things, direct and indirect costs of
labor and benefits, repairs and maintenance, freight, regulatory inspections, boat and helicopter
rentals and insurance. Labor and repair and maintenance costs represent the most significant
components of our operating expenses. In general, our labor costs increase primarily due to higher
salary levels, rig staffing requirements and costs associated with labor regulations in the
geographic regions in which our
22
Table of Contents
rigs operate. Costs to repair and maintain our equipment fluctuate depending upon the type of
activity the drilling unit is performing, as well as the age and condition of the equipment and the
regions in which our rigs are working.
Our operating costs are also impacted by the regulatory environments in which we operate. The
adoption of new regulations could result in additional inspection and certification costs, as well
as require additional capital investment to comply with regulatory requirements. Accordingly, we
cannot predict the financial impact of new regulations for rigs operating in the GOM that may be
adopted relating to the investigation into the Macondo well blowout. We are in the process of
complying with the new regulations and requirements which have been
promulgated subsequent to May 30,
2010 for our six impacted rigs; however, new regulations and restrictions are expected to be issued
as the investigation into the well blowout continues. New laws or regulations may require an
increase in our capital spending for additional equipment to comply with such requirements. Our
business could be negatively impacted by additional downtime which may be required to obtain
necessary equipment and to install such equipment once the drilling
moratorium and suspension are
lifted.
Operating expenses generally are not affected by changes in dayrates, and short-term
reductions in utilization do not necessarily result in lower operating expenses. For instance, if
a rig is to be idle for a short period of time, few decreases in operating expenses may actually
occur since the rig is typically maintained in a prepared or ready-stacked state with a full
crew. In addition, when a rig is idle, we are responsible for certain operating expenses such as
rig fuel and supply boat costs, which are typically costs of the operator when a rig is under
contract. However, if the rig is to be idle for an extended period of time, we may reduce the size
of a rigs crew and take steps to cold stack the rig, which lowers expenses and partially offsets
the impact on operating income. We recognize, as incurred, operating expenses related to
activities such as inspections, painting projects and routine overhauls that meet certain criteria
and which maintain rather than upgrade our rigs. These expenses vary from period to period. Costs
of rig enhancements are capitalized and depreciated over the expected useful lives of the
enhancements. Higher depreciation expense decreases operating income in periods following capital
upgrades.
Our operating income is negatively impacted when we perform certain regulatory inspections,
which we refer to as a 5-year survey, or special survey, that are due every five years for each of
our rigs. Operating revenue decreases because these special surveys are performed during scheduled
downtime in a shipyard. Operating expenses increase as a result of these special surveys due to
the cost to mobilize the rigs to a shipyard, inspection costs incurred and repair and maintenance
costs. Repair and maintenance costs may be required resulting from the special survey or may have
been previously planned to take place during this mandatory downtime. The number of rigs
undergoing a 5-year survey will vary from year to year, as well as from quarter to quarter.
In addition, operating income may be negatively impacted by intermediate surveys, which are
performed at interim periods between 5-year surveys. Intermediate surveys are generally less
extensive in duration and scope than a 5-year survey. Although an intermediate survey may require
some downtime for the drilling rig, it normally does not require dry-docking or shipyard time,
except for rigs located in the United Kingdom, or U.K., and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea.
During the remainder of 2010, six of our rigs will either require or complete 5-year surveys,
and we expect that they will be out of service for approximately 253 days in the aggregate during
the second half of 2010. We also expect to spend an additional approximately 280 days during the
remainder of 2010 for intermediate surveys, the mobilization of rigs, commissioning and contract
acceptance testing and extended maintenance projects. We can provide no assurance as to the exact
timing and/or duration of downtime associated with regulatory inspections, planned rig
mobilizations and other shipyard projects. See Overview Contract Drilling Backlog.
We are self-insured for physical damage to rigs and equipment caused by named windstorms in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. If a named windstorm in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico causes significant damage
to our rigs or equipment, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. However, under our current insurance policy that expires on
May 1, 2011, we continue to carry physical damage insurance for certain losses other than those
caused by named windstorms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, with coverage and policy limits similar to
our previous policy, for which our deductible for physical damage is $25.0 million per occurrence.
We do not typically retain loss-of-hire insurance policies to cover our rigs.
In addition, under our current insurance policy that expires on May 1, 2011, we carry marine
liability insurance covering certain legal liabilities, including coverage for certain personal
injury claims, with no exclusions for pollution and/or environmental risk. We believe that the
policy limit for our marine liability insurance, which remains similar to the limit under our
previous policy, is within the range that is customary for companies of our size in the offshore
drilling industry and is appropriate for our business. Our deductibles for marine liability
coverage, including for personal injury claims, are $10.0 million for the first occurrence and vary
in amounts ranging between $5.0 million and,
23
Table of Contents
if aggregate claims exceed certain thresholds, up to $100.0 million for each subsequent
occurrence, depending on the nature, severity and frequency of claims which might arise during the
policy year, which under the current policy commences on May 1 of each year.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Our significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 1 of our notes to consolidated
financial statements included in Item 1 of Part I of this report and in Note 1 of our notes to
audited consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009. There were no material changes to these policies during the six months
ended June 30, 2010.
24
Table of Contents
Results of Operations
Although we perform contract drilling services with different types of drilling rigs and in
many geographic locations, there is a similarity of economic characteristics among all our
divisions and locations, including the nature of services provided and the type of customers for
our services. We believe that the combination of our drilling rigs into one reportable segment is
the appropriate aggregation in accordance with applicable accounting standards on segment
reporting. However, for purposes of this discussion and analysis of our results of operations, we
provide greater detail with respect to the types of rigs in our fleet and the geographic regions in
which they operate to enhance the readers understanding of our financial condition, changes in
financial condition and results of operations.
Three Months Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
Comparative data relating to our revenue and operating expenses by equipment type are listed
below.
Three Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 340,387 | $ | 334,527 | $ | 5,860 | ||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
389,094 | 465,762 | (76,668 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
82,223 | 123,169 | (40,946 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
35 | | 35 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 811,739 | $ | 923,458 | $ | (111,719 | ) | |||||
Revenues Related to Reimbursable Expenses |
$ | 10,864 | $ | 22,949 | $ | (12,085 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 134,500 | $ | 98,991 | $ | (35,509 | ) | |||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
157,446 | 132,696 | (24,750 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
48,919 | 66,233 | 17,314 | |||||||||
Other |
8,106 | 6,933 | (1,173 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 348,971 | $ | 304,853 | $ | (44,118 | ) | |||||
Reimbursable Expenses |
$ | 10,379 | $ | 22,431 | $ | 12,052 | ||||||
OPERATING INCOME |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 205,887 | $ | 235,536 | $ | (29,649 | ) | |||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
231,648 | 333,066 | (101,418 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
33,304 | 56,936 | (23,632 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
(8,071 | ) | (6,933 | ) | (1,138 | ) | ||||||
Reimbursable expenses, net |
485 | 518 | (33 | ) | ||||||||
Depreciation |
(100,746 | ) | (85,431 | ) | (15,315 | ) | ||||||
General and administrative expense |
(16,849 | ) | (16,166 | ) | (683 | ) | ||||||
Gain on disposition of assets |
149 | 93 | 56 | |||||||||
Total Operating Income |
$ | 345,807 | $ | 517,619 | $ | (171,812 | ) | |||||
Other income (expense): |
||||||||||||
Interest income |
477 | 1,190 | (713 | ) | ||||||||
Interest expense |
(21,333 | ) | (11,288 | ) | (10,045 | ) | ||||||
Foreign currency transaction gain |
(3,991 | ) | 13,733 | (17,724 | ) | |||||||
Other, net |
(34 | ) | (416 | ) | 382 | |||||||
Income before income tax expense |
320,926 | 520,838 | (199,912 | ) | ||||||||
Income tax expense |
(96,533 | ) | (133,398 | ) | 36,865 | |||||||
NET INCOME |
$ | 224,393 | $ | 387,440 | $ | (163,047 | ) | |||||
During the second quarter of 2010, the relatively flat global economy continued to impact
our industry despite an improvement in oil prices from the same time a year ago. Although our
contracted revenue backlog enabled us to partially mitigate the impact of these market conditions,
our operating income decreased 33%, or $171.8 million compared to the second quarter of 2009.
Contract drilling revenues for the second quarter of 2010 decreased $111.7 million, or 12%,
compared to the second quarter of 2009, and average utilization for our overall fleet decreased
from
25
Table of Contents
80% during the second quarter of 2009 to 76% during the second quarter of 2010. Revenues generated
by our intermediate semisubmersible and jack-up rigs decreased $117.6 million, primarily due to a
reduction in utilization for our intermediate semisubmersible rigs, as well as a decrease in
average operating dayrates for both our intermediate semisubmersible and jack-up fleets compared to
the second quarter of 2009.
We currently have three mat-supported jack-up rigs in the GOM and two intermediate
semisubmersible rigs (one in the GOM and the other in Malaysia) that are cold-stacked and no longer
being actively marketed.
Total contract drilling expense increased $44.1 million, or 14%, during the second quarter of
2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to higher amortized mobilization expenses
and higher operating costs due to more of our rigs exiting the GOM to operate internationally,
where the operating cost structure is generally higher than that of the GOM, and also due to the
inclusion of normal operating costs for the Ocean Courage which began operating early in the first
quarter of 2010.
Depreciation expense increased $15.3 million to $100.7 million during the second quarter of
2010, or 18% compared to the second quarter of 2009, due to a higher depreciable asset base,
primarily due to the 2009 acquisitions of the Ocean Courage and Ocean Valor.
High-Specification Floaters.
Three Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | ||||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||||||||
HIGH-SPECIFICATION FLOATERS: |
|||||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
|||||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 124,677 | $ | 247,657 | $ | (122,980 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
46,179 | 38,988 | 7,191 | ||||||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
56,386 | | 56,386 | ||||||||||||
South America |
113,145 | 47,882 | 65,263 | ||||||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 340,387 | $ | 334,527 | $ | 5,860 | |||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
|||||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 39,203 | $ | 68,857 | $ | 29,654 | |||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
12,372 | 8,342 | (4,030 | ) | |||||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
11,232 | | (11,232 | ) | |||||||||||
South America |
71,693 | 21,792 | (49,901 | ) | |||||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 134,500 | $ | 98,991 | $ | (35,509 | ) | ||||||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 205,887 | $ | 235,536 | $ | (29,649 | ) | ||||||||
GOM. Revenues generated by our high-specification floaters operating in the GOM
decreased $123.0 million during the second quarter of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009.
Since the second quarter of 2009, we have relocated four of our high-specification semisubmersible
rigs from the GOM to international locations. During the first quarter of 2010, we relocated the
Ocean Star to Brazil and the Ocean America to Australia, and the Ocean Baroness was en route to
Brazil at the end of the second quarter of 2010. The Ocean Valiant was relocated to Angola early
in the third quarter of 2009. The effect of these rig departures from the GOM was a net $108.2
million reduction in revenues in the second quarter of 2010 compared to same period in 2009.
For our remaining fleet in the GOM, average operating revenue per day decreased from $422,300
during the second quarter of 2009 to $365,600 during the current year period, reducing revenues by
$17.8 million. Average utilization of these rigs during the second quarter of 2010 increased
slightly to 94% and contributed additional revenues of $3.1 million, which partially offset the
revenue decline associated with lower average dayrates.
Contract drilling expense for our high-specification floaters in the GOM decreased $29.7
million compared to the second quarter of 2009, primarily due to a reduction in normal operating
costs for our four rigs that relocated from the GOM after the second quarter of 2009, as well as a
reduction in costs associated with a 2009 special survey for the Ocean America. The overall
decrease in operating costs, comparing the quarters, was partially offset by incremental costs
associated with a 2010 regulatory survey for the Ocean Confidence and higher maintenance project
costs for the Ocean Endeavor.
26
Table of Contents
Australia/Asia/Middle East. During the second quarter of 2010, our revenues and contract
drilling expenses in this region increased $7.2 million and $4.0 million, respectively, compared to
the second quarter of 2009, primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean America to offshore
Australia during the first quarter of 2010.
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. The Ocean Valiant began operating offshore Angola in
mid-September 2009 and, during the second quarter of 2010, generated revenues of $56.4 million and
incurred operating costs of $11.2 million.
South America. Revenues earned by our high-specification floaters operating offshore Brazil
in the second quarter of 2010 increased $65.3 million compared to the second quarter of 2009,
primarily due to the operation of the Ocean Star ($33.0 million) and the Ocean Courage ($33.6
million), both of which began operating offshore Brazil in the first quarter of 2010.
Contract drilling expense for our operations in Brazil increased $49.9 million during the
second quarter of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to the inclusion of
normal operating costs for the Ocean Star and the Ocean Courage, including amortized mobilization
costs associated with the mobilization of these rigs to Brazil. Operating costs during the second
quarter of 2010 also included incremental costs associated with an intermediate survey and shipyard
project for the Ocean Alliance and higher maintenance and labor costs for the fleet.
Intermediate Semisubmersibles.
Three Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
INTERMEDIATE SEMISUBMERSIBLES: |
||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 32,464 | $ | 46,260 | $ | (13,796 | ) | |||||
Mexico |
14,379 | 55,951 | (41,572 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
77,064 | 121,226 | (44,162 | ) | ||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
66,548 | 138,581 | (72,033 | ) | ||||||||
South America |
198,639 | 103,744 | 94,895 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 389,094 | $ | 465,762 | $ | (76,668 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 15,403 | $ | 9,243 | $ | (6,160 | ) | |||||
Mexico |
5,714 | 12,286 | 6,572 | |||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
24,752 | 31,188 | 6,436 | |||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
28,789 | 33,174 | 4,385 | |||||||||
South America |
82,788 | 46,805 | (35,983 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 157,446 | $ | 132,696 | $ | (24,750 | ) | |||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 231,648 | $ | 333,066 | $ | (101,418 | ) | |||||
GOM. Revenues generated by our intermediate semisubmersible rigs working in the GOM
during the second quarter of 2010 decreased $13.8 million compared to the second quarter of 2009,
primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Ambassador to Brazil early in the third quarter of
2009 ($22.3 million) and a decrease in the average operating dayrate earned by the Ocean Saratoga
($5.7 million). The Ocean Voyager, which returned to the GOM from Mexico in the first quarter of
2010, generated revenues of $13.7 million during the second quarter of 2010.
Contract drilling expense in the GOM increased $6.2 million during the second quarter of 2010
compared to the second quarter of 2009, primarily due to the inclusion of normal operating expenses
and amortized mobilization costs for the Ocean Voyager ($10.7 million). The increase in contract
drilling expense in the second quarter of 2010 was partially offset by the absence of operating
costs for the Ocean Ambassador ($4.6 million).
Mexico. Operating revenue and expenses for our Mexico operations decreased $41.6 million and
$6.6 million, respectively, in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of 2009
primarily due to the completion of the Ocean Voyagers contract in the first quarter of 2010 and
its subsequent relocation to the GOM. In addition, operating revenues for our remaining rig
offshore Mexico, the Ocean New Era, decreased $10.9 million due to a
27
Table of Contents
reduction in dayrate earned by the rig after the rig completed its initial contract in the
first quarter of 2010 and its contract was extended at a lower operating dayrate.
Australia/Asia/Middle East. Operating revenue for our intermediate semisubmersibles working
in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region decreased $44.2 million in the second quarter of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to the stacking of the Ocean Bounty after
completing its contract at the beginning of the third quarter of 2009 ($34.3 million). Revenues
for our rigs operating offshore Australia for the second quarter of 2010 were further reduced by
the effect of 28 days of unpaid incremental downtime, compared to the same quarter in 2009 ($10.1
million).
Contract drilling expense for our rigs operating in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region
decreased $6.4 million primarily due to a reduction in operating costs as a result of the stacking
of the Ocean Bounty.
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. Operating revenue for our intermediate semisubmersibles working
in the Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region decreased $72.0 million in the second quarter of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009. Subsequent to the second quarter of 2009, we relocated the
Ocean Lexington to Brazil (in the third quarter of 2009) and the Ocean Guardian to the Falkland
Islands (in the first quarter of 2010), which reduced second quarter 2010 revenues by $40.6 million
compared to the same quarter of 2009.
Average operating revenue per day and average utilization for our three rigs currently located
in the North Sea (both U.K. and Norwegian sectors) decreased to $305,800 and 80%, respectively, for
the second quarter of 2010 from $359,200 and 100%, respectively, for the second quarter of 2009,
reducing revenues by a combined $31.5 million. The reduction in utilization during the second
quarter of 2010 is primarily due to 48 days of unpaid downtime
associated with the Ocean Vanguards
special survey.
Contract drilling expense for our intermediate semisubmersible rigs operating in the
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean markets decreased $4.4 million in the second quarter of 2010 compared
to the second quarter of 2009, primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Lexington and Ocean
Guardian from the region partially offset by an increase in costs associated with the 2010 survey
of the Ocean Vanguard.
South America. Revenues generated by our intermediate semisubmersibles working in the South
American region increased $94.9 million in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the same period
in 2009. We currently have nine intermediate semisubmersible rigs operating in this region,
including the Ocean Guardian in the Falkland Islands, compared to six such rigs operating in this
region during the second quarter of 2009. The three additional rigs transferred to the region
subsequent to the second quarter of 2009 generated revenues of $80.5 million in the second quarter
of 2010.
Our six intermediate semisubmersible rigs that operated offshore Brazil during both the 2009
and 2010 periods earned average operating revenue per day of $265,800 during the second quarter of
2010, compared to $213,800 during the second quarter of 2009, and generated $17.7 million in
additional revenues. Revenues were partially offset by a decrease in utilization for these rigs
from 89% during the second quarter of 2009 to 81% during the second quarter of 2010, which reduced
revenues by $3.3 million.
Contract drilling expense in the South American region increased $36.0 million in the second
quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of 2009 primarily due to incremental costs for the
Ocean Ambassador, Ocean Lexington and Ocean Guardian operating in the region in the second quarter
of 2010. Operating costs during the second quarter of 2010 were also negatively impacted by
incremental costs associated with a special survey of the Ocean Winner and higher maintenance and
labor costs for the fleet.
28
Table of Contents
Jack-Ups.
Three Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
JACK-UPS: |
||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 20,980 | $ | 16,998 | $ | 3,982 | ||||||
Mexico |
24,456 | 23,679 | 777 | |||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
19,220 | 39,021 | (19,801 | ) | ||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
17,143 | 22,389 | (5,246 | ) | ||||||||
South America |
424 | 21,082 | (20,658 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 82,223 | $ | 123,169 | $ | (40,946 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 21,062 | $ | 25,368 | $ | 4,306 | ||||||
Mexico |
9,003 | 7,747 | (1,256 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
11,974 | 12,248 | 274 | |||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
6,624 | 9,377 | 2,753 | |||||||||
South America |
256 | 11,493 | 11,237 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 48,919 | $ | 66,233 | $ | 17,314 | ||||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 33,304 | $ | 56,936 | $ | (23,632 | ) | |||||
GOM. Revenues generated by our jack-up rigs operating in the GOM increased $4.0 million
during the second quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of 2009. The relocation of two
rigs to the GOM subsequent to the second quarter of 2009 (the Ocean Columbia from Mexico and the
Ocean Scepter from Argentina) contributed $11.3 million to current period revenues. The Ocean
Scepter completed its contract in the GOM in July 2010 and will be returning to the South America
region.
Contract drilling revenues in the GOM for the second quarter of 2010, compared to the same
period in 2009, were partially reduced due to a decrease in the average operating revenue per day
for the Ocean Titan from $130,000 during the second quarter of 2009 to $66,600 during the second
quarter of 2010 ($5.4 million) and the 2009 cold-stacking of our three mat-supported jack-up rigs
($3.7 million).
Contract drilling expense for our jack-ups operating in the GOM decreased $4.3 million during
the second quarter of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to a reduction in
operating costs for our three cold stacked rigs and the absence of contract preparation costs for
the Ocean Summit, which we relocated to Mexico following the second quarter of 2009. This overall
decrease in costs was partially offset by normal operating and amortized mobilization costs for the
Ocean Columbia and Ocean Scepter.
Australia/Asia/Middle East. Revenues generated by our jack-up rigs operating in the
Australia/Asia/Middle East region decreased $19.8 million in the second quarter of 2010 compared to
the same period in 2009 primarily due to a decrease in the average operating revenue per day from
$202,500 during the second quarter of 2009 to $105,600 during the second quarter of 2010.
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. Revenue generated by our jack-up rigs operating in the
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region decreased $5.2 million during the second quarter of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to a decrease in
the average operating revenue per day from $107,900 during the second quarter of 2009 to $62,800
during the second quarter of 2010, which reduced revenues by $9.0 million. This decrease was
partially offset by an improvement in utilization for the Ocean Heritage which operated the entire
second quarter of 2010 compared to only 23 days during the second quarter of 2009.
Contract drilling expense for our rigs operating in the Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region
decreased $2.8 million in the second quarter of 2010 compared to the second quarter of 2009
primarily due to the collection of a customer receivable that had previously been reserved.
South America. Contract drilling revenues and expenses decreased during the second quarter of
2010 compared to the same period in 2009. Our only jack-up rig in this region, the Ocean Scepter,
completed its contract offshore Argentina in the third quarter of 2009 and was subsequently
relocated to the GOM at the end of 2009.
29
Table of Contents
Depreciation.
Depreciation expense increased $15.3 million to $100.7 million during the second quarter of
2010 compared to $85.4 million during the same period in 2009, primarily due to depreciation
associated with capital additions in 2009 and 2010, including depreciation of our two
high-specification floaters acquired in 2009, the Ocean Courage and Ocean Valor, which were placed
in service in September 2009 and March 2010, respectively.
Interest Expense.
Interest expense for the quarters ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 relates primarily to interest
accrued on our outstanding indebtedness and our liabilities for uncertain tax positions. During
the second quarter of 2010, interest expense included $7.3 million related to our 5.875% Senior
Notes due 2019, or 5.875% Senior Notes, issued in May 2009, compared to only $4.7 in the same
period in 2009. During the second quarter of 2010, interest expense also included $7.1 million
related to our 5.70% Senior Notes due 2039, or 5.70% Senior Notes, issued in October 2009.
Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss).
Foreign currency transaction gains (losses) fluctuate based on the level of transactions in
foreign currencies, as well as fluctuations in such currencies, and also include gains and losses
from the settlement of foreign currency forward exchange, or FOREX, contracts not designated as
accounting hedges. During the second quarter of 2010, we recognized net foreign currency exchange
losses of $4.0 million. During the second quarter of 2009, we recognized net foreign currency
exchange gains of $13.7 million, including $8.9 million in net gains on FOREX contracts not
designated as accounting hedges.
Income Tax Expense.
Our estimated annual effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2010 was 29.2%,
compared to the 25.5% for the same period in 2009. The higher effective tax rate in the current
quarter is a result of differences in the mix of our domestic and international pre-tax earnings
and losses, respectively, as well as the mix of international tax jurisdictions in which we
operate. Also contributing to the higher effective tax rate in the current period was the
expiration on December 31, 2009 of a tax law provision which allowed us to defer recognition of
certain foreign earnings for U.S. income tax purposes. The United States Congress currently has a
bill pending to extend this tax law provision for an additional year which, if passed, is expected
to be retroactive to January 1, 2010 and would allow us to defer recognition of certain foreign
earnings for U.S. income tax purposes. However, our estimated annual effective tax rate for the
three months ended June 30, 2010 reflects applicable tax law as of June 30, 2010 as the pending
legislation has not been enacted.
30
Table of Contents
Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
Comparative data relating to our revenue and operating expenses by equipment type are listed
below.
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 724,175 | $ | 646,661 | $ | 77,514 | ||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
769,795 | 882,762 | (112,967 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
162,172 | 249,743 | (87,571 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
35 | | 35 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 1,656,177 | $ | 1,779,166 | $ | (122,989 | ) | |||||
Revenues Related to Reimbursable Expenses |
$ | 26,107 | $ | 52,961 | $ | (26,854 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 243,655 | $ | 192,619 | $ | (51,036 | ) | |||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
296,045 | 263,411 | (32,634 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
101,447 | 135,151 | 33,704 | |||||||||
Other |
12,951 | 11,419 | (1,532 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 654,098 | $ | 602,600 | $ | (51,498 | ) | |||||
Reimbursable Expenses |
$ | 25,084 | $ | 52,146 | $ | 27,062 | ||||||
OPERATING INCOME |
||||||||||||
High-Specification Floaters |
$ | 480,520 | $ | 454,042 | $ | 26,478 | ||||||
Intermediate Semisubmersibles |
473,750 | 619,351 | (145,601 | ) | ||||||||
Jack-ups |
60,725 | 114,592 | (53,867 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
(12,916 | ) | (11,419 | ) | (1,497 | ) | ||||||
Reimbursable expenses, net |
1,023 | 815 | 208 | |||||||||
Depreciation |
(198,148 | ) | (170,493 | ) | (27,655 | ) | ||||||
General and administrative expense |
(33,503 | ) | (32,481 | ) | (1,022 | ) | ||||||
Gain on disposition of assets |
1,033 | 148 | 885 | |||||||||
Total Operating Income |
$ | 772,484 | $ | 974,555 | $ | (202,071 | ) | |||||
Other income (expense): |
||||||||||||
Interest income |
1,759 | 1,766 | (7 | ) | ||||||||
Interest expense |
(43,654 | ) | (12,405 | ) | (31,249 | ) | ||||||
Foreign currency transaction gain |
(3,530 | ) | 9,608 | (13,138 | ) | |||||||
Other, net |
(121 | ) | 651 | (772 | ) | |||||||
Income before income tax expense |
726,938 | 974,175 | (247,237 | ) | ||||||||
Income tax expense |
(211,692 | ) | (238,154 | ) | 26,462 | |||||||
NET INCOME |
$ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | $ | (220,775 | ) | |||||
Throughout the first half of 2010, the weak global economy continued to impact our
industry despite an improvement in oil prices from the first half of the prior year. While our
contracted revenue backlog enabled us to partially mitigate the impact of the weak market
conditions, our operating income decreased 21%, or $202.1 million, compared to the first half of
2009. Contract drilling revenues for the first half of 2010 decreased
$123.0 million, or 7%,
compared to the first half of 2009, and average utilization for our overall fleet decreased
from 81% during the first half of 2009 to 79% during the first half of 2010. Revenues generated by
our intermediate semisubmersible and jack-up rigs decreased $200.5 million, primarily due to a
reduction in utilization for our intermediate semisubmersible rigs and a decrease in operating
dayrates for our jack-up rigs compared to the same period in 2009. The decrease in overall
revenues was partially offset by $48.9 million in revenues earned by the Ocean Courage, which we
purchased in June 2009.
Total contract drilling expense increased $51.5 million, or 9%, during the first half of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to higher amortized mobilization expenses and
higher overall operating expenses due to more of our rigs operating internationally, where the
operating cost structure is generally higher than that of the GOM, and also due to the inclusion of
normal operating costs for the Ocean Courage which began operating early in the first quarter of
2010.
31
Table of Contents
Depreciation expense increased $27.7 million to $198.1 million during the first half of 2010,
or 16% compared to the first half of 2009, due to a higher depreciable asset base, primarily due to
the 2009 acquisitions of the Ocean Courage and Ocean Valor.
High-Specification Floaters.
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
HIGH-SPECIFICATION FLOATERS: |
||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 314,797 | $ | 492,531 | $ | (177,734 | ) | |||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
86,259 | 73,648 | 12,611 | |||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
112,707 | | 112,707 | |||||||||
South America |
210,412 | 80,482 | 129,930 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 724,175 | $ | 646,661 | $ | 77,514 | ||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 81,144 | $ | 134,031 | $ | 52,887 | ||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
21,610 | 15,751 | (5,859 | ) | ||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
22,233 | | (22,233 | ) | ||||||||
South America |
118,668 | 42,837 | (75,831 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 243,655 | $ | 192,619 | $ | (51,036 | ) | |||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 480,520 | $ | 454,042 | $ | 26,478 | ||||||
GOM. Revenues generated by our high-specification floaters operating in the GOM
decreased $177.7 million during the first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009,
primarily due to the relocation of five of our high-specification rigs to international markets.
Since early 2009, we have relocated the Ocean Quest (late in the first quarter of 2009), the Ocean
Star (early in the first quarter of 2010) and the Ocean Baroness (in May 2010) to Brazil, the Ocean
Valiant to offshore Angola (early in the third quarter of 2009) and the Ocean America to offshore
Australia (late in the first quarter of 2010). The effect of these rigs exiting the GOM was a net
$196.1 million reduction in revenues for the first six months of 2010 compared to the first six
months of 2009.
Our remaining high-specification floater fleet in the GOM operated an additional 89 days in
the first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to the return to service
of the upgraded Ocean Monarch in the second quarter of 2009, and resulted in the generation of
$38.3 million in additional revenues in 2010. Average operating revenue per day for these rigs
decreased from $413,400 during the first six months of 2009 to $386,200 for the comparable period
in 2010 and resulted in a $20.0 million reduction in revenues in the first half of 2010.
Total contract drilling expense during the first half of 2010 for our high-specification
floaters in the GOM decreased $52.9 million compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to a
reduction in normal operating costs for the five rigs transferred out of the GOM ($62.0 million).
The net decrease in operating costs comparing the periods was partially offset by an increase in
operating costs for the Ocean Monarch due to its full utilization during the first six months of
2010 and survey and repair costs for the Ocean Confidence.
Australia/Asia/Middle East. During the first half of 2010, our revenues from our
high-specification rigs operating in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region increased $12.6 million
compared to the first half of 2009. Our rig operating offshore Malaysia, the Ocean Rover,
generated $7.1 million in additional revenues primarily due to an increase in the average operating
revenue per day from $416,100 during the first six months of 2009 to $451,100 during the first six
months of 2010. In addition, the Ocean America generated $5.5 million in additional revenues
offshore Australia following its relocation from the GOM during the first quarter of 2010.
Contract drilling expense for our operations in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region
increased $5.9 million in the first half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009 primarily due
to the inclusion of normal operating and contract preparation costs for the Ocean America and
higher labor, inspection and shore base support costs for the Ocean Rover.
32
Table of Contents
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. The Ocean Valiant began operating offshore Angola in
mid-September 2009 and generated revenues of $112.7 million and incurred normal operating costs of
$22.1 million during the first half of 2010.
South America. Revenues earned by our high-specification floaters operating offshore Brazil
in the first half of 2010 increased $129.9 million compared to the first half of 2009. The
increase in revenue was primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Quest ($44.6 million) and the
Ocean Star ($50.9 million) from the GOM and the Ocean Courage which began operations late in the
first quarter of 2010 ($48.9 million). During the first half of 2010 the Ocean Alliance spent 121
days in a shipyard for an intermediate survey and shipyard projects which resulted in a $19.0
million reduction in current year revenues.
Contract drilling expense for our operations in Brazil increased $75.8 million during the
first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to the additional rigs
operating in the region in the first half of 2010 and additional survey and shipyard costs for the
Ocean Alliance.
Intermediate Semisubmersibles.
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
INTERMEDIATE SEMISUBMERSIBLES: |
||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 52,016 | $ | 97,560 | $ | (45,544 | ) | |||||
Mexico |
38,131 | 109,881 | (71,750 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
162,092 | 237,578 | (75,486 | ) | ||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
133,085 | 262,747 | (129,662 | ) | ||||||||
South America |
384,471 | 174,996 | 209,475 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 769,795 | $ | 882,762 | $ | (112,967 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 21,831 | $ | 21,453 | $ | (378 | ) | |||||
Mexico |
16,566 | 23,250 | 6,684 | |||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
49,576 | 57,391 | 7,815 | |||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
51,210 | 65,692 | 14,482 | |||||||||
South America |
156,862 | 95,625 | (61,237 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 296,045 | $ | 263,411 | $ | (32,634 | ) | |||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 473,750 | $ | 619,351 | $ | (145,601 | ) | |||||
GOM. Revenues generated from our rigs operating in the GOM during the first half of 2010
decreased $45.5 million primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Ambassador to Brazil early in
the second half of 2009 ($47.9 million) and a decrease in the average operating dayrate earned by
the Ocean Saratoga from $276,200 during the first six months of 2009 to $206,600 during the first
six months of 2010 ($12.8 million). The Ocean Voyager returned to the GOM from Mexico early in the
first half of 2010 and generated revenues of $14.6 million.
Mexico. Contract drilling revenue from our Mexico operations decreased $71.8 million in the
first six months of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to the completion of
the Ocean Voyagers contract early in the first half of 2010 ($56.5 million). In addition, the
Ocean New Era earned an average operating dayrate of $265,000 in the first half of 2009 compared to
$200,800 in the first half of 2010, further reducing revenues by $10.3 million. The Ocean New Era
is currently our only semisubmersible rig operating offshore Mexico.
Contract drilling expense in Mexico decreased by $6.7 million in the first half of 2010
compared to the first half of 2009 primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Voyager to the GOM.
Australia/Asia/Middle East. Operating revenue for our intermediate semisubmersibles working
in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region decreased $75.5 million in the first half of 2010 compared
to the same period in 2009 primarily due to the stacking the Ocean Bounty after completion of its
contract at the beginning of the second half of 2009 ($64.8 million). Additionally, revenues were
reduced by $9.6 million as a result of approximately 29
33
Table of Contents
days of unpaid incremental downtime for our rigs operating in this region during the first half of
2010 compared to the same period a year earlier.
Contract drilling expense for our rigs operating in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region
decreased $7.8 million in the first half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009 primarily due
to the stacking of the Ocean Bounty, partially offset by higher labor, maintenance, inspection and
shore-base support costs for the Ocean Epoch and Ocean General in the current year.
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. Operating revenue for our intermediate semisubmersibles working
in the Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region decreased $129.7 million in the first half of 2010
compared to the same period in 2009. Subsequent to June 30, 2009, we relocated the Ocean Lexington
to Brazil and the Ocean Guardian to the Falkland Islands, which reduced revenues earned in the
region during the first six months of 2010 by $72.3 million. Revenues for our three rigs currently
operating in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea declined $57.4 million in the first
half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009, primarily due to a decline in average operating
revenue per day from $341,300 in the first half of 2009 to $334,700 for the same period in 2010
combined with a reduction in average utilization from 98% in the first half of 2009 to 73% in the
first half of 2010. The lower utilization in the first six months of 2010 reflects 48 days of
downtime for a special survey on the Ocean Vanguard as well as unplanned downtime for the Ocean
Nomad due to the early termination of a contract.
Contract drilling expense for our intermediate semisubmersible rigs operating in the
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean markets decreased $14.5 million in the first half of 2010 compared to
the first half of 2009, primarily due to the relocation of the Ocean Lexington and Ocean Guardian
to the South America region, partially offset by incremental costs associated with the survey of
the Ocean Vanguard.
South America. Revenues generated by our intermediate semisubmersibles working in the South
America region increased $209.5 million in the first half of 2010 compared to the first half of
2009. We currently have nine rigs operating in this region, including the Ocean Guardian in the
Falkland Islands, compared to six rigs operating in this region during the first half of 2009.
The three additional rigs transferred into the region subsequent to June 30, 2009 generated $136.8
million during the first half of 2010.
Average operating revenue per day for our other intermediate semisubmersible rigs that
operated offshore Brazil during both the 2009 and 2010 periods increased from $197,000 during the
first half of 2009 to $247,900 during the first half of 2010 and generated $39.2 million in
additional revenues. Utilization for these rigs also increased from 80% during the first half of
2009 to 89% during the first half of 2010 and generated $33.1 million in additional revenues during
the current year period.
Contract drilling expense in the South America region increased $61.2 million in the first
half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009, primarily due to the inclusion of normal operating
costs for the three additional rigs in the region. Costs associated with a special survey of the
Ocean Winner and higher operating costs for our other rigs offshore Brazil also contributed to the
increase in contract drilling expenses during the current year.
34
Table of Contents
Jack-Ups.
Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||
June 30, | Favorable/ | |||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | (Unfavorable) | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
JACK-UPS: |
||||||||||||
CONTRACT DRILLING REVENUE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 34,612 | $ | 47,127 | $ | (12,515 | ) | |||||
Mexico |
43,188 | 50,397 | (7,209 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
53,041 | 62,232 | (9,191 | ) | ||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
30,891 | 48,055 | (17,164 | ) | ||||||||
South America |
440 | 41,932 | (41,492 | ) | ||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Revenue |
$ | 162,172 | $ | 249,743 | $ | (87,571 | ) | |||||
CONTRACT DRILLING EXPENSE |
||||||||||||
GOM |
$ | 41,179 | $ | 50,325 | $ | 9,146 | ||||||
Mexico |
20,046 | 15,806 | (4,240 | ) | ||||||||
Australia/Asia/Middle East |
23,736 | 26,280 | 2,544 | |||||||||
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean |
15,026 | 20,051 | 5,025 | |||||||||
South America |
1,460 | 22,689 | 21,229 | |||||||||
Total Contract Drilling Expense |
$ | 101,447 | $ | 135,151 | $ | 33,704 | ||||||
OPERATING INCOME |
$ | 60,725 | $ | 114,592 | $ | (53,867 | ) | |||||
GOM. During the first half of 2009, we had six jack-up rigs operating in the GOM. In
June 2009, we cold stacked our three mat-supported jack-up rigs and the Ocean Summit was in a GOM
shipyard preparing for its relocation to the Mexican Gulf of Mexico, or Mexican GOM; these rigs
generated revenues of $22.3 million during the first half of 2009. In early 2010, the Ocean
Scepter relocated from Argentina and the Ocean Columbia relocated from Mexico, joined our GOM
jack-up fleet and generated $16.5 million in revenues during the first half of 2010. Revenues
for our remaining GOM jack-up fleet decreased an aggregate $6.8 million in the first half of 2010
compared to the first half of 2009 as a result of lower dayrates earned and 92 days of combined,
incremental downtime in the 2010 period.
Contract drilling expense for our jack-ups operating in the GOM decreased $9.1 million during
the first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to a reduction in
operating costs for our three cold stacked rigs and the absence of contract preparation costs for
the Ocean Summit prior to its departure to the Mexican GOM in the second half of 2009. This
overall decrease in costs was partially offset by normal operating and amortized mobilization costs
for the Ocean Columbia and Ocean Scepter, as well as incremental survey and repair costs for the
Ocean Titan during the first six months of 2010.
Mexico. Revenues generated by our jack-up rigs operating offshore Mexico during the first half
of 2010 decreased $7.2 million compared to the same period in 2009, primarily due to a decrease in
average operating revenue per day from $142,400 during the first half of 2009 to $138,200 during
the first half of 2010 ($2.7 million). In addition, average utilization decreased during the first
half of 2010, primarily due to unpaid downtime for an intermediate survey of the Ocean Nugget, and
resulted in a $4.2 million reduction in revenues for the 2010 period.
Contract drilling expense for our jack-up rigs operating offshore Mexico increased $4.2
million during the first half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009 primarily due to the
inclusion of amortized mobilization expenses for, and other costs associated with customer
acceptance of, the Ocean Summit in the 2010 period.
Australia/Asia/Middle East. Revenues generated by our jack-up rigs operating in the
Australia/Asia/Middle East region decreased $9.2 million in the first half of 2010 compared to the
same period in 2009, primarily due to a decrease in the average operating revenue per day from
$226,300 during the first half of 2009 to $146,500 during the first half of 2010 ($21.1 million).
Revenues for the first six months of 2010 were also negatively impacted by a reduction in amortized
mobilization revenue of $3.7 million compared to the same period in 2009. Utilization for the
first half of 2010 improved to 100% compared to 76% during the first half of 2009 and generated
$15.6 million in additional revenues during 2010.
35
Table of Contents
Contract drilling expense for our rigs operating in the Australia/Asia/Middle East region
decreased $2.5 million during the first six months of 2010 compared to the first six months of 2009
primarily due to the absence of costs associated with the 2009 survey of the Ocean Sovereign.
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean. Revenue generated by our jack-up rigs operating in the
Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region decreased $17.2 million during the first half of 2010 compared
to the same period in 2009. The decrease in revenue was primarily due to a reduction in average
operating revenue per day from $114,900 during the first half of 2009 to $61,700 during the first
half of 2010 ($23.1 million), partially offset by improved utilization for the Ocean Heritage
during the first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009 ($6.5 million).
Contract drilling expense for our rigs operating in the Europe/Africa/Mediterranean region
decreased $5.0 million in the first half of 2010 compared to the first half of 2009 primarily due
to the collection of a customer receivable that had previously been written off.
South America. Contract drilling revenues and expenses decreased during the first half of
2010 compared to the same period in 2009. Our only jack-up rig in this region, the Ocean Scepter,
completed its contract offshore Argentina in the second half of 2009 and was subsequently relocated
to the GOM at the end of 2009.
Depreciation.
Depreciation expense increased $27.7 million to $198.1 million during the first six months of
2010 compared to $170.5 million for the same period in 2009, primarily due to depreciation
associated with capital additions in 2009 and 2010, including depreciation of our two
high-specification floaters acquired in 2009, the Ocean Courage and Ocean Valor, which were placed
in service in September 2009 and March 2010, respectively.
Interest Expense.
Interest expense for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 relates primarily to interest
accrued on our outstanding indebtedness and our liabilities for uncertain tax positions. During
the first six months of 2010, interest expense included $14.7 million related to our 5.875% Senior
Notes compared to only $4.7 million for the same period in 2009. During the first half of 2010,
interest expense also included $14.2 million related to our 5.70% Senior Notes issued in October
2009. During the first half of 2009, we reversed $5.5 million of previously accrued interest
expense related to an uncertain tax position for which the statute of limitations had expired.
Foreign Currency Transaction Gain (Loss).
Foreign currency transaction gains (losses) fluctuate based on the level of transactions in
foreign currencies, as well as fluctuations in such currencies, and also include gains and losses
from the settlement of FOREX contracts not designated as accounting hedges. During the first half
of 2010, we recognized net foreign currency exchange losses of $3.5 million. During the first half
of 2009, we recognized net foreign currency exchange gains of $9.6 million, including $8.8 million
in net gains on FOREX contracts.
Income Tax Expense.
Our estimated annual effective tax rate for the six months ended June 30, 2010 was 29.2%,
compared to 25.5% for the same period in 2009. The higher effective tax rate in the current period
is a result of differences in the mix of our domestic and international pre-tax earnings and
losses, respectively, as well as the mix of international tax jurisdictions in which we operate.
Also contributing to the higher effective tax rate in the current period was the expiration on
December 31, 2009 of a tax law provision which allowed us to defer recognition of certain foreign
earnings for U.S. income tax purposes. The United States Congress currently has a bill pending to
extend this tax law provision for an additional year which, if passed, is expected to be
retroactive to January 1, 2010 and would allow us to defer recognition of certain foreign earnings
for U.S. income tax purposes. However, our estimated annual effective tax rate for the six months
ended June 30, 2010 reflects applicable tax law as of June 30, 2010 as the pending legislation has
not been enacted.
On March 31, 2009, the statute of limitations relative to a 2003 uncertain tax position in
Mexico expired. As a consequence, in March 2009, we reversed $5.5 million of previously accrued
interest expense and $5.9 million of previously accrued tax expense. There was no comparable
accrual reversal in the six months ended June 30, 2010.
36
Table of Contents
Sources of Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our principal sources of liquidity and capital resources are cash flows from our operations
and our cash reserves. We may also make use of our $285 million credit facility for cash
liquidity. See $285 Million Revolving Credit Facility.
At June 30, 2010, we had $525.1 million in Cash and cash equivalents and $250.7 million in
Investments and marketable securities, representing our investment of cash available for current
operations.
Cash Flows from Operations. Our cash flows from operations are impacted by the ability of our
customers to weather instability in the U.S. and global economies and restrictions in the credit
market, as well as the volatility in energy prices. In general, before working for a customer with
whom we have not had a prior business relationship and/or whose financial stability may appear
uncertain to us, we perform a credit review on that company. Based on that analysis, we may
require that the customer present a letter of credit, prepay or provide other credit enhancements.
If a potential customer is unable to obtain an adequate level of credit, it may preclude us from
doing business with that potential customer.
During 2009, we amended an existing contractual agreement at a customers request to provide
short-term financial relief. The amended contract obligates the customer to pay us, over the term
of the six-well drilling program, $75,000 per day in accordance with our normal credit terms (due
30 days after receipt of invoice) and the remainder of the contractual dayrate, $485,000 per day,
through the conveyance of a 27% net profits interest, or NPI, in certain developmental oil-and-gas
producing properties. As of June 30, 2010 we had drilled four wells for this customer and were
owed $94.5 million payable through the NPI. We received our first payment from the conveyance of
the NPI in July 2010. Further payment of amounts owed to us through the NPI, and the timing of
such payments, is contingent upon production from the properties subject to the NPI and upon energy
sale prices.
Based on current production payout estimates, we expect to collect $37.2 million of the
receivable within the next twelve months. We currently anticipate that the remaining $57.3 million
of the receivable will be repaid following the next twelve months.
These
external factors which affect our cash flows from operations, many of which are not
within our control, are difficult to predict. For a description of other factors that could affect
our cash flows from operations, including the impact of the offshore
drilling moratorium, see
Overview Industry Conditions, Overview General, Forward-Looking
Statements, and Risk
Factors in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and Item
1A of Part II, Risk Factors, in this report.
$285 Million Revolving Credit Facility. We maintain a $285 million syndicated, senior
unsecured revolving credit facility, or Credit Facility, for general corporate purposes, including
loans and performance or standby letters of credit, that will mature on November 2, 2011.
Loans under the Credit Facility bear interest at a rate per annum equal to, at our election,
either (i) the higher of the prime rate or the federal funds rate plus 0.5% or (ii) the London
Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, plus an applicable margin, varying from 0.20% to 0.525%, based on
our current credit ratings. Under our Credit Facility, we also pay, based on our current credit
ratings, and as applicable, other customary fees, including, but not limited to, a facility fee on
the total commitment under the Credit Facility regardless of usage and a utilization fee that
applies if the aggregate of all loans outstanding under the Credit Facility equals or exceeds 50%
of the total commitment under the facility. Changes in credit ratings could lower or raise the
fees that we pay under the Credit Facility.
The Credit Facility contains customary covenants, including, but not limited to, the
maintenance of a ratio of consolidated indebtedness to total capitalization, as defined in the
Credit Facility, of not more than 60% at the end of each fiscal quarter and limitations on liens,
mergers, consolidations, liquidation and dissolution, changes in lines of business, swap
agreements, transactions with affiliates and subsidiary indebtedness.
Based on our current credit ratings at June 30, 2010, the applicable margin on LIBOR loans
would have been .24%. As of June 30, 2010, there were no loans outstanding under the Credit
Facility; however, $23.9 million in letters of credit were issued and outstanding under the Credit
Facility.
37
Table of Contents
Liquidity and Capital Requirements
Our liquidity and capital requirements are primarily a function of our working capital needs,
capital expenditures, and debt service requirements. We determine the amount of cash required to
meet our capital commitments by evaluating the need to upgrade rigs to meet specific customer
requirements and by evaluating our ongoing rig equipment replacement and enhancement programs,
including water depth and drilling capability upgrades. We believe that our operating cash flows
and cash reserves will be sufficient to meet both our working capital requirements and our capital
commitments over the next twelve months; however, we will continue to make periodic assessments
based on industry conditions and will adjust capital spending programs if required.
In addition, we may, from time to time, issue debt or equity securities, or a combination
thereof, to finance capital expenditures, the acquisition of assets and businesses or for general
corporate purposes. Our ability to access the capital markets by issuing debt or equity securities
will be dependent on our results of operations, our current financial condition, current market
conditions and other factors beyond our control. We may also make use of our Credit Facility to
finance capital expenditures or for other general corporate purposes.
Contractual Cash Obligations.
At June 30, 2010, we had FOREX contracts outstanding in the aggregate notional amount of
$118.7 million. See further information regarding these contracts in Item 3, Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Foreign Exchange Risk and Note 4 Derivative Financial
Instruments to our Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 1 of Part I of this report.
As of June 30, 2010, the total unrecognized tax benefit related to uncertain tax positions was
$34.8 million. Due to the high degree of uncertainty regarding the timing of future cash outflows
associated with the liabilities recognized in this balance, we are unable to make reasonably
reliable estimates of the period of cash settlement with the respective taxing authorities.
We had no purchase obligations for major rig upgrades or any other significant obligations at
June 30, 2010, except for those related to our direct rig operations, which arise during the normal
course of business.
Other Commercial Commitments Letters of Credit.
We were contingently liable as of June 30, 2010 in the amount of $136.4 million under certain
performance, bid, supersedeas, tax appeal and custom bonds and letters of credit, including $23.9
million in letters of credit issued under our Credit Facility. We purchased five of these bonds
totaling $82.4 million from a related party after obtaining competitive quotes. Agreements
relating to approximately $82.4 million of performance bonds can require collateral at any time.
As of June 30, 2010, we had not been required to make any collateral deposits with respect to these
agreements. The remaining agreements cannot require collateral except in events of default. Banks
have issued letters of credit on our behalf securing certain of these bonds. The table below
provides a list of these obligations in U.S. dollar equivalents and their time to expiration.
For the years ending December 31, | ||||||||||||||||
Total | 2010 | 2011 | Thereafter | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Other Commercial Commitments |
||||||||||||||||
Customs bonds |
$ | 5,058 | $ | 5,050 | $ | 8 | $ | | ||||||||
Performance bonds |
100,604 | 49,002 | 35,310 | 16,292 | ||||||||||||
Other |
30,772 | 30,022 | 750 | | ||||||||||||
Total obligations |
$ | 136,434 | $ | 84,074 | $ | 36,068 | $ | 16,292 | ||||||||
Credit Ratings.
Our current credit rating is Baa1 for Moodys Investors Services and A- for Standard & Poors.
Although our long-term ratings continue at investment grade levels, lower ratings would result in
higher rates for borrowings under our Credit Facility and could also result in higher interest
rates on future debt issuances.
Capital Expenditures.
We have budgeted approximately $485 million on capital expenditures for 2010 associated with
our ongoing rig equipment replacement and enhancement programs, equipment required for our
long-term international contracts
38
Table of Contents
and other corporate requirements. In addition, we expect to spend approximately $70 million
in 2010 towards the commissioning and outfitting for service of the recently acquired Ocean Courage
and Ocean Valor. During the first six months of 2010, we spent approximately $221.9 million
towards these programs. We expect to finance our 2010 capital expenditures through the use of our
existing cash balances or internally generated funds. From time to time, however, we may also make
use of our Credit Facility to finance capital expenditures.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements.
At June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, we had no off-balance sheet debt or other
arrangements.
Historical Cash Flows
The following is a discussion of our historical cash flows from operating, investing and
financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010 compared to the six months ended June
30, 2009.
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities.
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | Change | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 515,246 | $ | 736,021 | $ | (220,775 | ) | |||||
Net changes in operating assets and liabilities |
(51,896 | ) | (286,644 | ) | 234,748 | |||||||
Proceeds from settlement of FOREX contracts
designated as accounting hedges |
457 | | 457 | |||||||||
(Gain) on sale and disposition of assets |
(1,033 | ) | (148 | ) | (885 | ) | ||||||
(Gain) loss on sale of marketable securities |
2 | (599 | ) | 601 | ||||||||
(Gain) on FOREX contracts |
(457 | ) | (8,837 | ) | 8,380 | |||||||
Deferred tax provision |
11,921 | 37,910 | (25,989 | ) | ||||||||
Depreciation and other non-cash items, net |
220,065 | 227,695 | (7,630 | ) | ||||||||
$ | 694,305 | $ | 705,398 | $ | (11,093 | ) | ||||||
Our cash flows from operations during the first six months of 2010 decreased $11.1 million
compared to the same period in 2009. This decrease is primarily due to lower earnings resulting
from an aggregate reduction in average utilization of and dayrates earned by our fleet and
increased mobilization costs, offset by a decrease in net cash required to satisfy working capital
requirements in 2010 compared to 2009.
We used $234.7 million less to satisfy our working capital needs during the first half of 2010
compared to the first half of 2009. Trade and other receivables generated cash of $109.1 million
during the first six months of 2010 compared to using cash of $166.5 million during the comparable
period of 2009. During the first six months of 2010, we made estimated U.S. federal income tax
payments and paid foreign income taxes, net of refunds, of $254.5 million and $76.2 million,
respectively. During the first six months of 2009, we made estimated U.S. federal income tax
payments and paid foreign income taxes, net of refunds, of $140.0 million and $106.1 million,
respectively.
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities.
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | Change | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Purchase of marketable securities |
$ | (2,399,760 | ) | $ | (2,998,780 | ) | $ | 599,020 | ||||
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities |
2,550,088 | 3,198,829 | (648,741 | ) | ||||||||
Capital expenditures (including rig acquisition) |
(221,890 | ) | (686,284 | ) | 464,394 | |||||||
Proceeds from disposition of assets |
1,258 | 453 | 805 | |||||||||
Deposits received on sale of rig |
18,600 | 6,000 | 12,600 | |||||||||
Cost to
settle FOREX
contracts not designated as accounting hedges |
| (28,862 | ) | 28,862 | ||||||||
$ | (51,704 | ) | $ | (508,644 | ) | $ | 456,940 | |||||
Our investing activities used $51.7 million during the first six months of 2010 compared to
$508.6 million during the comparable period of 2009. During the first half of 2010, we sold
marketable securities, net of purchases, of $150.3 million compared to net sales of $200.0 million
during the first half of 2009. Our level of investment
39
Table of Contents
activity is dependent on our working capital and other capital requirements during the year, as
well as a response to actual or anticipated events or conditions in the securities markets.
We spent approximately $221.9 million related to ongoing capital maintenance programs,
including rig modifications to meet contractual requirements, during the first six months of 2010
compared to $226.3 million during the same period in 2009. Additionally, in June 2009, we
purchased the Ocean Courage, a newbuild, dynamically positioned, semisubmersible drilling rig, for
$460.0 million.
During the first six months of 2010, we received an $18.6 million deposit in connection with
the sale of the Ocean Shield, which was completed in July 2010 for a total selling price of $186.0
million. During the first six months of 2009, we received $6.0 million in deposits in connection
with the sale of the Ocean Tower, which was completed in the third quarter of 2009.
Prior to May 2009, we entered into FOREX contracts as economic hedges of our foreign currency
requirements; however, we did not designate these contracts as accounting hedges. During the
latter part of 2008 and during the first half of 2009, the strengthening U.S. dollar (or,
conversely, the weakening foreign currency) negatively impacted these expiring FOREX contracts and
resulted in aggregate, net realized losses of $28.9 million for the first half of 2009. We have
presented the settlement of these contracts within Net Cash Used in Investing Activities.
Net Cash Used in Financing Activities.
Six Months Ended June 30, | ||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | Change | ||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||
Redemption of zero coupon debentures |
$ | (4,238 | ) | $ | | $ | (4,238 | ) | ||||
Issuance of 5.875% Senior Notes, net of issuance costs |
| 495,503 | (495,503 | ) | ||||||||
Payment of dividends |
(489,670 | ) | (558,036 | ) | 68,366 | |||||||
Proceeds from stock options exercised |
107 | 155 | (48 | ) | ||||||||
Other |
(98 | ) | | (98 | ) | |||||||
$ | (493,899 | ) | $ | (62,378 | ) | $ | (431,521 | ) | ||||
During the first six months of 2010, we paid cash dividends totaling $489.7 million,
consisting of aggregate regular cash dividends totaling $34.8 million, or $0.125 per share of our
common stock per quarter, and aggregate special cash dividends totaling $454.9 million, or $1.875
and $1.375 per share of our common stock in the first quarter and the second quarter of 2010,
respectively. During the first six months of 2009, we paid cash dividends totaling $558.0 million,
consisting of aggregate regular cash dividends totaling $34.7 million, or $0.125 per share of our
common stock per quarter, and aggregate special cash dividends totaling $523.3 million, or $1.875
per share of our common stock per quarter.
On July 21, 2010, we declared a regular cash dividend and a special cash dividend of 0.125 and
$0.75, respectively, per share of our common stock. Both the quarterly and special cash dividends
are payable on September 1, 2010 to stockholders of record on August 2, 2010.
Our Board of Directors has adopted a policy to consider paying special cash dividends, in
amounts to be determined, on a quarterly basis. Our Board of Directors may, in subsequent
quarters, consider paying additional special cash dividends, in amounts to be determined, if it
believes that our financial position, earnings, earnings outlook, capital spending plans and other
relevant factors warrant such action at that time.
Depending on market conditions, we may, from time to time, purchase shares of our common stock
in the open market or otherwise. We did not repurchase any shares of our outstanding common stock
during the six months ended June 30, 2010 or 2009.
40
Table of Contents
Forward-Looking Statements
We or our representatives may, from time to time, either in this report, in periodic press
releases or otherwise, make or incorporate by reference certain written or oral statements that are
forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Exchange Act. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed
to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, any
statement that may project, indicate or imply future results, events, performance or achievements,
and may contain or be identified by the words expect, intend, plan, predict, anticipate,
estimate, believe, should, could, may, might, will, will be, will continue, will
likely result, project, forecast, budget and similar expressions. In addition, any
statement concerning future financial performance (including future revenues, earnings or growth
rates), ongoing business strategies or prospects, and possible actions taken by or against us,
which may be provided by management, are also forward-looking statements as so defined. Statements
made by us in this report that contain forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to,
information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations and statements about
the following subjects:
| future market conditions and the effect of such conditions on our future results of operations; | ||
| future uses of and requirements for financial resources; | ||
| interest rate and foreign exchange risk; | ||
| future contractual obligations; | ||
| future operations outside the United States including, without limitation, our operations in Mexico and Brazil; | ||
| effects of the Macondo well blowout, including, without limitation, the moratorium and suspension of drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and related regulations and market developments; | ||
| business strategy; | ||
| growth opportunities; | ||
| competitive position; | ||
| expected financial position; | ||
| future cash flows and contract backlog; | ||
| future regular or special dividends; | ||
| financing plans; | ||
| market outlook; | ||
| tax planning; | ||
| debt levels, including impacts of the financial crisis and restrictions in the credit market; | ||
| budgets for capital and other expenditures; | ||
| timing and duration of required regulatory inspections for our drilling rigs; | ||
| timing and cost of completion of rig upgrades and other capital projects; | ||
| delivery dates and drilling contracts related to rig conversion or upgrade projects or rig acquisitions; | ||
| plans and objectives of management; | ||
| idling drilling rigs or reactivating stacked rigs; | ||
| performance of contracts; | ||
| outcomes of legal proceedings; | ||
| compliance with applicable laws; and | ||
| adequacy of insurance or indemnification. |
These types of statements are based on current expectations about future events and inherently
are subject to a variety of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our
control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected, projected or
expressed in forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among others, the
following:
| those described under Risk Factors in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and in Item 1A of Part II of this report; | ||
| general economic and business conditions, including the extent and duration of the continuing financial crisis and restrictions in the credit market, the worldwide economic downturn and recession; | ||
| worldwide demand for oil and natural gas; | ||
| changes in foreign and domestic oil and gas exploration, development and production activity; | ||
| oil and natural gas price fluctuations and related market expectations; |
41
Table of Contents
| the ability of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly called OPEC, to set and maintain production levels and pricing, and the level of production in non-OPEC countries; | ||
| policies of various governments regarding exploration and development of oil and gas reserves; | ||
| our inability to obtain contracts for our rigs that do not have contracts; | ||
| the cancellation of contracts included in our reported contract backlog; | ||
| advances in exploration and development technology; | ||
| the worldwide political and military environment, including in oil-producing regions; | ||
| casualty losses; | ||
| operating hazards inherent in drilling for oil and gas offshore; | ||
| the risk of physical damage to rigs and equipment caused by named windstorms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico; | ||
| industry fleet capacity; | ||
| market conditions in the offshore contract drilling industry, including dayrates and utilization levels; | ||
| competition; | ||
| changes in foreign, political, social and economic conditions; | ||
| risks of international operations, compliance with foreign laws and taxation policies and expropriation or nationalization of equipment and assets; | ||
| risks of potential contractual liabilities pursuant to our various drilling contracts in effect from time to time; | ||
| the ability of customers and suppliers to meet their obligations to us and our subsidiaries; | ||
| the risk that a letter of intent may not result in a definitive agreement; | ||
| foreign exchange and currency fluctuations and regulations, and the inability to repatriate income or capital; | ||
| risks of war, military operations, other armed hostilities, terrorist acts and embargoes; | ||
| changes in offshore drilling technology, which could require significant capital expenditures in order to maintain competitiveness; | ||
| regulatory initiatives and compliance with governmental regulations including, without limitation, regulations pertaining to climate change, carbon emissions or energy use; | ||
| compliance with environmental laws and regulations; | ||
| potential changes in accounting policies by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or regulatory agencies for our industry which may cause us to revise our financial accounting and/or disclosures in the future, and which may change the way analysts measure our business or financial performance; | ||
| development and exploitation of alternative fuels; | ||
| customer preferences; | ||
| effects of litigation, tax audits and contingencies and the impact of compliance with judicial rulings and jury verdicts; | ||
| cost, availability and adequacy of insurance; | ||
| the results of financing efforts; | ||
| the risk that future regular or special dividends may not be declared; | ||
| adequacy of our sources of liquidity; | ||
| risks resulting from our indebtedness; | ||
| the availability of qualified personnel to operate and service our drilling rigs; and | ||
| various other matters, many of which are beyond our control. |
The risks and uncertainties included here are not exhaustive. Other sections of this report
and our other filings with the SEC include additional factors that could adversely affect our
business, results of operations and financial performance. Given these risks and uncertainties,
investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking
statements included in this report speak only as of the date of this report. We expressly disclaim
any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking
statement to reflect any change in our expectations or beliefs with regard to the statement or any
change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any forward-looking statement is based.
42
Table of Contents
ITEM 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
The information included in this Item 3 is considered to constitute forward-looking
statements for purposes of the statutory safe harbor provided in Section 27A of the Securities Act
and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. See Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Forward-Looking Statements in Item 2 of Part I of this
report.
Our measure of market risk exposure represents an estimate of the change in fair value of our
financial instruments. Market risk exposure is presented for each class of financial instrument
held by us at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, assuming immediate adverse market movements of
the magnitude described below. We believe that the various rates of adverse market movements
represent a measure of exposure to loss under hypothetically assumed adverse conditions. The
estimated market risk exposure represents the hypothetical loss to future earnings and does not
represent the maximum possible loss or any expected actual loss, even under adverse conditions,
because actual adverse fluctuations would likely differ. In addition, since our investment
portfolio is subject to change based on our portfolio management strategy as well as in response to
changes in the market, these estimates are not necessarily indicative of the actual results that
may occur.
Exposure to market risk is managed and monitored by our senior management. Senior management
approves the overall investment strategy that we employ and has responsibility to ensure that the
investment positions are consistent with that strategy and the level of risk acceptable to us. We
may manage risk by buying or selling instruments or entering into offsetting positions.
Interest Rate Risk
We have exposure to interest rate risk arising from changes in the level or volatility of
interest rates. Our investments in marketable securities are primarily in fixed maturity
securities. We monitor our sensitivity to interest rate risk by evaluating the change in the value
of our financial assets and liabilities due to fluctuations in interest rates. The evaluation is
performed by applying an instantaneous change in interest rates by varying magnitudes on a static
balance sheet to determine the effect such a change in rates would have on the recorded market
value of our investments and the resulting effect on stockholders equity. The analysis presents
the sensitivity of the market value of our financial instruments to selected changes in market
rates and prices which we believe are reasonably possible over a one-year period.
The sensitivity analysis estimates the change in the market value of our interest sensitive
assets and liabilities that were held on June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, due to instantaneous
parallel shifts in the yield curve of 100 basis points, with all other variables held constant.
The interest rates on certain types of assets and liabilities may fluctuate in advance of
changes in market interest rates, while interest rates on other types may lag behind changes in
market rates. Accordingly, the analysis may not be indicative of, is not intended to provide, and
does not provide a precise forecast of the effect of changes in market interest rates on our
earnings or stockholders equity. Further, the computations do not contemplate any actions we could
undertake in response to changes in interest rates.
Loans under our $285 million syndicated, senior unsecured revolving Credit Facility bear
interest at our option at a rate per annum equal to (i) the higher of the prime rate or the federal
funds rate plus 0.5% or (ii) LIBOR plus an applicable margin, varying from 0.20% to 0.525%, based
on our current credit ratings. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, there were no loans
outstanding under the Credit Facility (however, $23.9 million and $63.3 million in letters of
credit were issued and outstanding under the Credit Facility at June 30, 2010 and December 31,
2009, respectively).
Our long-term debt, as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, is denominated in U.S. dollars.
Our debt has been primarily issued at fixed rates, and as such, interest expense would not be
impacted by interest rate shifts. The impact of a 100-basis point increase in interest rates on
fixed rate debt would result in a decrease in market value of $109.6 million and $121.3 million as
of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. A 100-basis point decrease would result in
an increase in market value of $126.3 million and $136.2 million as of June 30, 2010 and December
31, 2009, respectively.
Foreign Exchange Risk
Foreign exchange rate risk arises from the possibility that changes in foreign currency
exchange rates will impact the value of financial instruments. It is customary for us to enter
into FOREX contracts in the normal course
43
Table of Contents
of business. These contracts generally require us to net settle the spread between the contracted
foreign currency exchange rate and the spot rate on the contract settlement date, which for certain
contracts is the average spot rate for the contract period. As of June 30, 2010 we had FOREX
contracts outstanding in the aggregate notional amount of $118.7 million, consisting of $46.4
million in Australian dollars, $38.1 million in Brazilian reais, $21.8 million in British pounds
sterling, $5.2 million in Mexican pesos and $7.2 million in Norwegian kroner. These contracts
settle at various times through November 2010.
At June 30, 2010, we have presented the fair value of our outstanding FOREX contracts as a
current asset of $0.4 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets and a current
liability of $4.2 million in Accrued liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The following table presents our exposure to market risk by category (interest rates and
foreign currency exchange rates):
Fair Value Asset (Liability) | Market Risk | |||||||||||||||
June 30, | December 31, | June 30, | December 31, | |||||||||||||
2010 | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | |||||||||||||
(In thousands) | ||||||||||||||||
Interest rate: |
||||||||||||||||
Marketable securities |
$ | 250,700 | (a) | $ | 400,900 | (a) | $ | (200 | ) (c) | $ | (300 | ) (c) | ||||
Long-term debt |
(1,493,000 | ) (b) | (1,546,900 | ) (b) | | | ||||||||||
Foreign Exchange: |
||||||||||||||||
FOREX contracts
asset positions |
400 | (d) | 2,600 | (d) | (5,400 | ) (e) | (17,600 | ) (e) | ||||||||
FOREX contracts
liability positions |
(4,200 | ) (d) | (200 | ) (d) | (15,900 | ) (e) | (3,700 | ) (e) |
(a) | The fair market value of our investment in marketable securities is based on the quoted closing market prices on June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. | |
(b) | The fair values of our 4.875% Senior Notes due July 1, 2015, 5.15% Senior Notes due September 1, 2014, 5.875% Senior Notes due May 1, 2019 and 5.70% Senior Notes due October 15, 2039 are based on quoted market prices. | |
(c) | The calculation of estimated market risk exposure is based on assumed adverse changes in the underlying reference price or index of an increase in interest rates of 100 basis points at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. | |
(d) | The fair value of our FOREX contracts is based on both quoted market prices and valuations derived from pricing models on June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. | |
(e) | The calculation of estimated foreign exchange risk assumes an instantaneous 20% decrease in the foreign currency exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar from their values at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, with all other variables held constant. |
ITEM 4. Controls and Procedures.
We maintain a system of disclosure controls and procedures which are designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the federal
securities laws, including this report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely
basis. These disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure
that information required to be disclosed by us under the federal securities laws is accumulated
and communicated to our management on a timely basis to allow decisions regarding required
disclosure.
Our Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, and Chief Financial Officer, or CFO, participated in an
evaluation by our management of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) as of June 30, 2010. Based on their
participation in that evaluation, our CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and
procedures were effective as of June 30, 2010.
44
Table of Contents
There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting identified in
connection with the foregoing evaluation that occurred during our second fiscal quarter of 2010
that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors.
Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 includes a detailed
discussion of certain material risk factors facing our company. The information presented below
describes updates and additions to such risk factors and should be read in conjunction with the
risk factors and information disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
The risk factor in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
captioned Our business involves numerous operating hazards, and we are not fully insured against
all of them. is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
Our business involves numerous operating hazards which could expose us to significant losses
and significant damage claims. We are not fully insured against all of these risks and our
contractual indemnity provisions may not fully protect us.
Our operations are subject to the significant hazards inherent in drilling for oil and gas
offshore, such as blowouts, reservoir damage, loss of production, loss of well control, unstable or
faulty sea floor conditions, fires and natural disasters such as hurricanes. The occurrence of any
of these types of events could result in the suspension of drilling operations, damage to or
destruction of the equipment involved and injury or death to rig personnel, damage to producing or
potentially productive oil and gas formations, and oil spillage, oil leaks, well blowouts and
extensive uncontrolled fires, any of which could cause significant environmental damage. In
addition, offshore drilling operations are subject to perils peculiar to marine operations,
including capsizing, grounding, collision and loss or damage from severe weather. Any of the
foregoing events could result in significant damage or loss to our properties and assets,
significant loss of revenues, and significant damage claims against us, which could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We maintain liability insurance, which includes coverage for environmental damage; however,
because of contractual provisions and policy limits, our insurance coverage may not adequately
cover our losses and claim costs. In addition, pollution and environmental risks are generally not
fully insurable when they are determined to be the result of criminal acts. Also, we do not
typically purchase loss-of-hire insurance to cover lost revenues when a rig is unable to work.
Accordingly, it is possible that our losses from the hazards we face could have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Operations also may be suspended because of machinery breakdowns, abnormal drilling
conditions, failure of subcontractors to perform or supply goods or services or personnel
shortages.
Generally our contracts with our customers contain contractual rights to indemnity from our
customer for, among other things, pollution originating from the well, while we retain
responsibility for pollution originating from the rig. However, our contractual rights to
indemnification may be unenforceable or limited due to negligent or willful acts of commission or
omission by us, our subcontractors and/or suppliers and our customers may dispute, or be unable to
meet, their contractual indemnification obligations to us.
We believe that the policy limit under our marine liability insurance is within the range that
is customary for companies of our size in the offshore drilling industry and is appropriate for our
business. However, if an accident or other event occurs that exceeds our coverage limits or is not
an insurable event under our insurance policies, or is not fully covered by contractual indemnity,
it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position and cash flows. There can
be no assurance that we will continue to carry the insurance we currently maintain, that our
insurance will cover all types of losses or that those parties with contractual obligations to
indemnify us will necessarily be financially able to indemnify us against all of these risks. In
addition, no assurance can be made that we will be able to maintain adequate insurance in the
future at rates we consider to be reasonable or that we will be able to obtain insurance against
some risks.
Accordingly, the occurrence of any of the hazards we face could have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
45
Table of Contents
The risk factor in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
captioned Governmental laws and regulations may add to our costs or limit our drilling activity.
is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
Governmental laws and regulations, both domestic and international, may add to our costs or limit
our drilling activity.
Our operations are affected from time to time in varying degrees by governmental laws and
regulations. The drilling industry is dependent on demand for services from the oil and gas
exploration industry and, accordingly, is affected by changing tax and other laws relating to the
energy business generally. We may be required to make significant capital expenditures to comply
with governmental laws and regulations. It is also possible that these laws and regulations may in
the future add significantly to our operating costs or may significantly limit drilling activity.
Governments in some countries are increasingly active in regulating and controlling the
ownership of concessions, the exploration for oil and gas and other aspects of the oil and gas
industries. The modification of existing laws or regulations or the adoption of new laws or
regulations curtailing exploratory or developmental drilling for oil and gas for economic,
environmental or other reasons could materially and adversely affect our operations by limiting
drilling opportunities.
As awareness of climate change issues increases, governments around the world are beginning to
address the matter. This may result in new environmental regulations that may unfavorably impact
us, our suppliers and our customers. We may be exposed to risks related to new laws or regulations
pertaining to climate change, carbon emissions or energy use that could decrease the use of oil or
natural gas, thus reducing demand for hydrocarbon-based fuel and our drilling services.
Governments may also pass laws or regulations encouraging or mandating the use of alternative
energy sources, such as wind power and solar energy, which may reduce demand for oil and natural
gas and our drilling services. In addition, new laws or regulations may require an increase in our
capital spending for additional equipment to comply with such requirements and could also result in
a reduction in revenues associated with downtime required to install such equipment.
The risk factor in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
captioned We are controlled by a single stockholder, which could result in potential conflicts of
interest. is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
We are controlled by a single stockholder, which could result in potential conflicts of interest.
Loews Corporation, which we refer to as Loews, beneficially owned approximately 50.4% of our
outstanding shares of common stock as of July 22, 2010 and is in a position to control actions that
require the consent of stockholders, including the election of directors, amendment of our Restated
Certificate of Incorporation and any merger or sale of substantially all of our assets. In
addition, three officers of Loews serve on our Board of Directors. One of those, James S. Tisch,
the Chairman of the Board of our company, is also the Chief Executive Officer and a director of
Loews. We have also entered into a services agreement and a registration rights agreement with
Loews and we may in the future enter into other agreements with Loews.
Loews is a holding company. In addition to us, its principal subsidiaries are CNA Financial
Corporation, a 90% owned subsidiary engaged in commercial property and casualty insurance;
HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary engaged in exploration,
production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids; Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a
66% owned subsidiary engaged in the operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline
systems; and Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary engaged in the operation
of hotels. Loews and its subsidiaries and we are generally engaged in businesses sufficiently
different from each other as to make conflicts as to possible corporate opportunities unlikely.
However, it is possible that Loews may in some circumstances be in direct or indirect competition
with us, including competition with respect to certain business strategies and transactions that we
may propose to undertake. In addition, potential conflicts of interest exist or could arise in the
future for our directors who are also officers of Loews with respect to a number of areas relating
to the past and ongoing relationships of Loews and us, including tax and insurance matters,
financial commitments and sales of common stock pursuant to registration rights or otherwise.
Although the affected directors may abstain from voting on matters in which our interests and those
of Loews are in conflict so as to avoid potential violations of their fiduciary duties to
stockholders, the presence of potential or actual conflicts could affect the process or outcome of
Board deliberations. We cannot assure you that these conflicts of interest will not materially
adversely affect us.
46
Table of Contents
The following new risk factors are added:
The moratorium on offshore drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and new regulations adopted as a
result of the investigation into the Macondo well blowout could negatively impact us.
On May 30, 2010, following the April 20, 2010 blowout of the Macondo well being drilling by BP
plc in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, or GOM, the U.S. government imposed a six-month moratorium on
certain drilling activities in water deeper than 500 feet in the GOM and implemented enhanced
safety requirements applicable to all drilling activity in the GOM, including drilling activities
in water shallower than 500 feet. On June 22, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted a temporary injunction which immediately prohibited enforcement of
the moratorium, which was subsequently upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, or DOI, issued a second drilling moratorium on July 12, 2010
suspending drilling operations on the basis of drilling configurations and technologies regardless
of water depth.
In conjunction with the drilling moratorium imposed on May 30, 2010, the DOI issued a new set
of recommendations in a 30-Day Safety Alert for offshore energy companies, which provided for,
among other things, the recertification of all blowout preventers, enhanced well control practices,
blowout prevention and intervention procedures, more rigorous inspections for deepwater drilling
operations and expanded safety and training programs for rig workers. These recommendations are
being implemented in the form of new regulations by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement (formerly known as the Minerals Management Service) under direction of
the DOI and are being communicated by means of Notices to Lessees, or NTLs. At the date of this
report, we have received two NTLs and a safety alert from the U.S. Coast Guard. We have complied
with the terms of the safety alert and, at the date of this report, are in the process complying
with one of the two NTLs issued thus far. We believe that the second NTL applies to the lease
operator and not the drilling contractor.
The drilling moratorium could result in a number of rigs being, or becoming available to be,
moved to locations outside of the GOM, which could potentially put downward pressure on global
dayrates and adversely affect our ability to contract our floating rigs that are currently
uncontracted or coming off contract. Additional governmental regulations concerning licensing,
taxation, equipment specifications, training requirements or other matters could increase the costs
of our operations, and escalating costs borne by our customers, along with permitting delays, could
reduce exploration and development activity in the GOM and therefore demand for our services. In
addition, insurance costs across the industry are expected to increase as a result of the Macondo
well blowout, and in the future certain insurance coverage is likely to become more costly, and may
become less available or not available at all.
We cannot predict the ultimate duration of the latest drilling moratorium or the potential
impact of new regulations that may be adopted relating to the investigation into the Macondo well
blowout. The inability to redeploy our rigs impacted by the drilling moratorium, or to obtain
dayrates sufficient to cover our additional operating expenses and mobilization costs if such
impacted rigs are redeployed in international waters, could adversely affect our financial
position, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, implementation of additional
regulations may subject us to increased costs of operating and/or a reduction in the area of
operation in the GOM.
We may be adversely affected by negative publicity.
Press coverage and other public statements that assert some form of wrongful act or omission
by us, regardless of the factual basis for the assertions being made, may result in negative
publicity or investigation by regulators. Responding to such negative publicity or such an
investigation, regardless of the ultimate outcome, is time consuming and costly and can divert the
time and attention of our senior management from our business. Adverse publicity can also have a
negative impact on our reputation and on the morale and performance of our employees, all of which
could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
ITEM 6. Exhibits.
See the Exhibit Index for a list of those exhibits filed or furnished herewith.
47
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements 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.
DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING, INC. (Registrant) |
||||
Date July 29, 2010 | By: | \s\ Gary T. Krenek | ||
Gary T. Krenek | ||||
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | ||||
Date July 29, 2010 | \s\ Beth G. Gordon | |||
Beth G. Gordon | ||||
Controller (Chief Accounting Officer) |
48
Table of Contents
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit No. | Description | |||
3.1 | Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2003) (SEC File No. 1-13926). |
|||
3.2 | Amended and Restated By-Laws (as amended through October 22, 2007) of Diamond Offshore
Drilling, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our Current Report on Form 8-K
filed October 26, 2007). |
|||
31.1* | Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive Officer. |
|||
31.2* | Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Financial Officer. |
|||
32.1* | Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. |
|||
101.INS** | XBRL Instance Document. |
|||
101.SCH** | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document. |
|||
101.CAL** | XBRL Taxonomy Calculation Linkbase Document |
|||
101.LAB** | XBRL Label Linkbase Document. |
|||
101.PRE** | XBRL Presentation Linkbase Document. |
|||
101.DEF** | XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition. |
* | Filed or furnished herewith. | |
** | The documents formatted in XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language) and attached as Exhibit 101 to this report are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act, are deemed not filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act, and otherwise, not subject to liability under these sections. |
49