DOCSLIB.ORG

Oversight Failures in the Section 45Q Tax Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oversight Failures in the Section 45Q Tax Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Carbon Capture and Release Oversight Failures in the Section 45Q Tax Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Spring 2018 Acknowledgements This report was researched and written by John Noël, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund. The author would like to thank the following for their time and effort in reviewing this report: Andrew Grinberg, Michael Kelly and Lynn Thorp. For more information please contact: John Noël, [email protected] Clean Water Action — www.CleanWaterAction.org Clean Water Action is a national 501(c)(4) environmental organization with nearly one million members nationwide. Since our founding during the campaign to pass the landmark Clean Water Act in 1972, Clean Water Action has worked to win strong health and environmental protections by bringing issue expertise, solution-oriented thinking and people power to the table. Clean Water Fund — www.CleanWaterFund.org Clean Water Fund is a national 501(c)(3) research and education organization that has been promoting the public interest since 1978. Clean Water Fund supports protection of natural resources, with an emphasis on water quality and quantity issues. Clean Water Fund’s organizing has empowered citizen leaders, organizations and coalitions to improve conditions in hundreds of communities, and to strengthen policies at all levels of government. Clean Water Action requests that you provide appropriate credit on all reprinted materials. Executive Summary After decades of scientific analysis and international ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the carbon negotiations, reducing carbon emissions is now a injected remains safely underground. Research global imperative. U.S. Congress, for its part, recog- into the tax credit reveals an alarming lack of over- nized the potential for carbon capture and storage sight. EPA has no record of the vast majority of CO2 (CCS) technology to reduce emissions and provided claimed under the credit. It appears some compa- a tax incentive for companies that capture carbon nies that benefited from the tax credit ignored moni- dioxide (CO2) from various industrial practices and toring and reporting requirements and continued store it underground. to access the credit to their financial advantage. The new tax policy, codified under Section 45Q This report exposes these oversight failures and of the Internal Revenue Code, offered a tax credit challenges the assertion that federal subsidies for per ton of carbon captured and sold to compa- carbon used in enhanced oil recovery could ever be nies to inject underground for permanent stor- considered an effective climate mitigation policy. age or for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The Among the findings: intent was to jump start a nascent technology that • 59,767,924: metric tons of CO2 claimed to IRS could eventually transform into a globally scalable as captured for tax credit as of May 14, 2018. option to reduce emissions. In January 2018, Con- • 3 million: metric tons of CO2 reported to EPA gress extended the credit, broadened the qualifying for sequestration verification as of August 5, industries and tripled the amount offered for CO2 2017. captured and sold to EOR companies.1 • $597 million up to $1.3 billion: value of Injecting captured carbon underground to produce claimed credits. more oil is promoted as a climate mitigation policy. • 85%–90%: percentage of projects under the Purportedly, over time oil fields could sequester new tax credit that will be used to extract (permanently store CO2 in geologic formations) large oil according to the International Energy amounts of carbon and at the same time help bring Agency (IEA). Only 10%–15% would result in down CCS technology costs. A popular notion is that permanent sequestration of CO . the oil extracted and burned is less of a concern, as 2 long as some carbon is permanently sequestered • 375 million barrels: increase in oil to help offset emissions elsewhere.2 The oil indus- production annually by 2030 as a result of try benefits from the enthusiasm for CCS because carbon capture technology and infrastructure deployment. its growth strategy leans heavily on injecting CO2 to increase production. The industry plans to use CO2- The discrepancy between the IRS and EPA data EOR to unlock billions of barrels of oil trapped in vast suggests that only a small portion of the required residual oil zones. A consistent supply of cheap CO2 reporting to EPA to ensure that the carbon is veri- improves the extraction economics for resources fiably and permanently stored underground is that would otherwise likely remain in the ground. occurring. In order to qualify for the tax credit under Section Verification that CO2 is actually sequestered is criti- 45Q, a company must verify and report to the Envi- cal to demonstrating the effectiveness of CCS as an The oil industry’s growth strategy leans heavily on injecting CO2 to improve production. 3 emissions reduction technology. Ensuring secure resources necessary to hold bad actors account- geological storage is a large part of the biparti- able, and restore public trust in the process of geo- san support for the tax credit. Proponents want logic sequestration. The relatively small universe to incentivize sequestration, not merely injection of companies that capture carbon combined with for oil extraction. The tax policy is designed so that the limited number of companies that injected car- EOR operations have to confirm by monitoring, bon to enhance oil recovery from 2011–2018 should reporting and verifying that these projects provide make it easy for regulators to identify those who are the intended carbon storage benefit. This did not skirting the rules.3 happen. Until the tax credit oversight is reformed, Congress Ignoring compliance provided industry an unearned should: advantage in the marketplace. If it is not remedied • Enact a moratorium on all Section 45Q tax the increase in tax credits will only exacerbate over- credits for CO used in enhanced oil recovery. sight issues and undermine the competiveness of 2 zero carbon alternatives. Instead, a small group of • Ensure projects out of compliance since oil companies are attempting to further weaken 2011 submit a Monitoring Reporting and the tax credit requirements. Legislation supported Verification plan to EPA or halt injection. by Exxon Mobil and Denbury Resources sought to • The Senate Finance and Environment and change what is considered secure geological stor- Public Works Committees should hold age. So far these attempts have not been success- hearings on past and future oversight of 45Q. ful, but there have been ongoing efforts to weaken the 45Q requirements even after the tax credit was • Begin a stakeholder process to create a increased. This undercuts the largely good-faith credible regulatory framework for CO2–EOR efforts to develop sound CCS policy. designed to reflect the unique risks associated with the injection of carbon and to ensure In light of the credit extension, lawmakers should geologic sequestration. grant Section 45Q additional scrutiny, provide Oversight of CO2 Injection When Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act of injection activity. Class II regulates three aspects (SDWA) in 1974, it authorized the U.S. Environmen- of oil and gas activity: injection for enhanced oil tal Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a program recovery, disposal of wastewater from oil and gas to protect underground drinking water resources activities and storage of hydrocarbons. In 2010, EPA from risks of industrial activities in which fluids are added a new category of wells — Class VI — for per- injected into the ground. In order to ensure contin- manent storage. Each well class has a set of permit ued access to safe drinking water from groundwater requirements. sources, SDWA prohibits injection that endangers Most oil and gas producing states receive primary any underground source of drinking water (USDW). management and enforcement authority over their EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program own state UIC programs. This “primacy” allows classifies wells into six categories based on the type states to regulate most oil and gas injection activity Ignoring compliance provided industry an unearned advantage in the marketplace. 4 after demonstrating to EPA that their Class II regu- to help ensure CO2 leaks are detected and fixed and lations protect USDWs. State primacy over Class VI that the carbon remains permanently underground. wells is still in the early stages of adoption.4 The major elements of MRV plans include: The broad list of requirements for Class II EOR wells • Identification of potential surface leakage 5 includes: pathways for CO2. • Site characterization: identifying faults and • Delineation of the maximum monitoring area fractures and a confining zone and active monitoring areas. • Area of review: operator must design a proper • A strategy for detecting and quantifying any area of review and identify any wells and surface leakage of CO2. geologic features that may penetrate the area • A strategy for establishing the expected of injection baselines for monitoring CO2 surface leakage. • Well construction: requirements designed to • A summary of how the facility will calculate prevent fluids or CO2 migration into USDWs site-specific variables for the mass balance The UIC Class II regulations were originally designed equation, such as considerations for to prevent migration of fluids into USDWs. The regu- calculating equipment leakage and vented lations did not address unique airside risks related emissions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment
    Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies Cashing in on Special Treatment July 2014 Table of Contents Page Results in Brief …………………………………………………………………….. 3 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 6 Notes …………………………………………………………………………………… 6 U.S. Federal Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 …………………………… 7 Foreign Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 ………………………………..... 8 Deferred Tax Liabilities from Property, Plant, and Equipment in 2012 and 2013……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Appendix: Company Profiles ExxonMobil Corporation ……………………………………………......... 10 ConocoPhillips …………………………………………………………………. 12 Occidental Petroleum Corporation …………………………………….. 14 Chevron Corporation ………………………………………………………… 15 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ………………………………………. 17 Chesapeake Energy Corporation …………………………………......... 19 EOG Resources, Inc. …………………………………………………........ 20 Devon Energy Corporation …………………………………………......... 22 Apache Corporation ………………………………………………………….. 23 Pioneer Natural Resources Company ………………………………….. 25 Continental Resources, Inc. ……………………………………………… 27 Marathon Oil Corporation …………………………………………………. 28 Hess Corporation ……………………………………………………………… 29 Range Resources Corporation ……………………………………………. 30 Plains Exploration & Production Company …………………………. 31 SandRidge Energy, Inc. ……………………………………………………. 33 Whiting Petroleum Corporation …………………………………………. 34 Denbury Resources, Inc. ………………………………………………….. 35 Noble Energy, Inc. …………………………………………………………… 36 Concho Resources Inc. …………………………………………………….. 37 Company Notes …………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • IPAA 2019 Oil and Gas Investment Symposium
    IPAA 2019 Oil and Gas Investment Symposium April 8, 2019 NYSE:DNR www.denbury.com Cautionary Statements Forward-Looking Statements: The data and/or statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements, as that term is defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements may be or may concern, among other things, financial forecasts, future hydrocarbon prices and their volatility, current or future liquidity sources or their adequacy to support our anticipated future activities, our ability to further reduce our debt levels, possible future write-downs of oil and natural gas reserves, together with assumptions based on current and projected production levels, oil and gas prices and oilfield costs, current or future expectations or estimations of our cash flows or the impact of changes in commodity prices on cash flows, availability of capital, borrowing capacity, price and availability of advantageous commodity derivative contracts or the predicted cash flow benefits therefrom, forecasted capital expenditures, drilling activity or methods, including the timing and location thereof, the nature of any proposed future asset purchase or sales or dispositions or the timing or proceeds thereof, estimated timing of commencement of CO2 flooding of particular fields or areas, including CCA, or the availability of capital for CCA pipeline construction, or its ultimate cost or its date of completion, timing of CO2 injections and initial production responses in tertiary flooding projects, development activities, finding costs, anticipated future cost savings, capital budgets, interpretation or prediction of formation details, production rates and volumes or forecasts thereof, hydrocarbon reserve quantities and values, CO2 reserves and supply and their availability, potential reserves, barrels or percentages of recoverable original oil in place, levels of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies
    Effective Tax Rates of Oil and Gas Companies: Cashing in on Special Treatment July 2014 Table of Contents Page Results in Brief …………………………………………………………………….. 3 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 6 Notes …………………………………………………………………………………… 6 U.S. Federal Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 …………………………… 7 Foreign Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 ………………………………..... 8 Deferred Tax Liabilities from Property, Plant, and Equipment in 2012 and 2013……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Appendix: Company Profiles ExxonMobil Corporation ……………………………………………......... 10 ConocoPhillips …………………………………………………………………. 12 Occidental Petroleum Corporation …………………………………….. 14 Chevron Corporation ………………………………………………………… 15 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ………………………………………. 17 Chesapeake Energy Corporation …………………………………......... 19 EOG Resources, Inc. …………………………………………………........ 20 Devon Energy Corporation …………………………………………......... 22 Apache Corporation ………………………………………………………….. 23 Pioneer Natural Resources Company ………………………………….. 25 Continental Resources, Inc. ……………………………………………… 27 Marathon Oil Corporation …………………………………………………. 28 Hess Corporation ……………………………………………………………… 29 Range Resources Corporation ……………………………………………. 30 Plains Exploration & Production Company …………………………. 31 SandRidge Energy, Inc. ……………………………………………………. 33 Whiting Petroleum Corporation …………………………………………. 34 Denbury Resources, Inc. ………………………………………………….. 35 Noble Energy, Inc. …………………………………………………………… 36 Concho Resources Inc. …………………………………………………….. 37 Company Notes …………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Denbury Resources 2016 Annual Reports
    2016 ANNUAL REPORT The data and/or statements contained in this annual report that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements, as that term is defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements may be or may concern, among other things, financial forecasts, future hydrocarbon prices and timing and degree of any price recovery versus the length or severity of the current commodity price downturn, current or future liquidity sources or their adequacy to support our anticipated future activities, our ability to further reduce our debt levels, possible future write-downs of oil and natural gas reserves, together with assumptions based on current and projected oil and gas prices and oilfield costs, current or future expectations or estimations of our cash flows, availability of capital, borrowing capacity, future interest rates, availability of advantageous commodity derivative contracts or the predicted cash flow benefits therefrom, forecasted capital expenditures, drilling activity or methods, including the timing and location thereof, estimated timing of commencement of carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding of particular fields or areas, dates of completion of to-be-constructed industrial plants and the initial date of capture of CO2 from such plants, timing of CO2 injections and initial production responses in tertiary flooding projects, acquisition plans andnd pproposals and dispositions, development activities, finding costs, anticipated
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Report for Cedar Creek Anticline CO2 Pipeline and EOR Development Project
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management DOI-BLM-MT-C020-2017-0081-EA Denbury Green Pipeline-MT, LLC, Denbury Onshore, LLC Cedar Creek Anticline CO2 Pipeline and EOR Development Project Location: Powder River County, Carter County, Fallon County, Montana (MT) Scoping Report U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Miles City Field Office 111 Garryowen Road Miles City, MT 59301 Phone: 406-233-2800 FAX: 406-233-2921 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF SCOPING PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 1 RESULTS OF THE SCOPING PROCESS .................................................................................................................. 1 Comments from the Public ............................................................................................................................. 2 Local, State and Federal Agency Comments ................................................................................................ 2 Tribal Consultation .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology and Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Presentation September 2019 Cautionary Statements
    Corporate Presentation September 2019 Cautionary Statements Forward-Looking Statements: The data and/or statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements, as that term is defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements may be or may concern, among other things, financial forecasts, future hydrocarbon prices and their volatility, current or future liquidity sources or their adequacy to support our anticipated future activities, our ability to further reduce our debt levels or extend debt maturities, together with assumptions based on current and projected production levels, oil and gas prices and oilfield costs, current or future expectations or estimations of our cash flows or the impact of changes in commodity prices on cash flows, availability of capital, borrowing capacity, price and availability of advantageous commodity derivative contracts or the predicted cash flow benefits therefrom, forecasted capital expenditures, drilling activity or methods, including the timing and location thereof, the nature of any future asset purchases or sales or the timing or proceeds thereof, estimated timing of commencement of CO2 flooding of particular fields or areas, including Cedar Creek Anticline (“CCA”), or the availability of capital for CCA pipeline construction, or its ultimate cost or date of completion, timing of CO2 injections and initial production responses in tertiary flooding
    [Show full text]
  • Denbury Resources Inc
    DENBURY RESOURCES INC FORM 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 02/28/13 for the Period Ending 12/31/12 Address 5320 LEGACY DRIVE PLANO, TX 75024 Telephone 9726732000 CIK 0000945764 Symbol DNR SIC Code 1311 - Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Oil & Gas Operations Sector Energy Fiscal Year 12/31 http://www.edgar-online.com © Copyright 2013, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 2012 FORM 10-K (Mark One) Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 OR 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 -12935 DENBURY RESOURCES INC. (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 20-0467835 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 5320 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (972) 673-2000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class: Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered: Common Stock $.001 Par Value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Denbury Presentation Template
    Corporate Presentation June 2015 ClickAbout to Forwardto edit edit Master- Lookingtitle title style styleStatements The data contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such statements may relate to, among other things: long-term strategy; anticipated levels of future dividends and their rate of growth and sustainability; the length or severity of the oil price downturn in late 2014 and early 2015; forecasts of capital expenditures, drilling activity and developmental activities; timing of carbon dioxide (CO2) injections and production response to such tertiary flooding projects; estimated timing of pipeline construction or completion or the cost thereof; anticipated dates of completion of industrial plants to be constructed or under construction and the initial date of capture and amount of anthropogenic CO2; estimates of liquidity, costs, forecasted production rate or peak production rates and the growth thereof; estimates of hydrocarbon reserve quantities and values, including potential and recoverable reserves, CO2 reserves, and helium reserves; projected future hydrocarbon prices or costs; estimated future cash flows, including from our hedging positions, or uses of cash; availability of capital or borrowing capacity; estimated rates of return and overall economics; and anticipated availability and cost of equipment and services. These forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as “believe”, “estimated”, “preliminary”, “projected”, “potential”, “anticipated”, “forecasted”, “expected”, “assume” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. These statements are based on management’s current plans and assumptions and are subject to a number of risk and uncertainties as further outlined in our most recent Form 10-K filed with the SEC.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 Term
    2018-2019 Term NPC Membership by Category Categories are listed by principal function Category Number of Members Integrated, Refining and Oil & Gas Production Companies Integrated Companies and Independent Refiners 16 Larger Independent Producers 29 Smaller Independent Producers 25 Midstream and Retail Oil & Gas Companies 32 Support Service Companies Construction, Drilling, and Oilfield Services 24 Financial and Consultant Services 30 Electric Companies and Other Large Consumers 13 Non-Industry and Not-For-Profit Members 34 Total 203 by Organization | by Name INTEGRATED, REFINING AND OIL & GAS PRODUCTION COMPANIES Integrated Companies and Independent Refiners BP America Inc. John C. Mingé Houston, Texas Former Chairman and President Chevron Corporation Michael K. Wirth San Ramon, California Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer CVR Energy, Inc. David L. Lamp Sugar Land, Texas Chief Executive Officer and President Eni S.p.A. Claudio Descalzi Rome, Italy Chief Executive Of ficer and General Manager Equinor ASA Torgrim Reitan Houston, Texas Executive Vice President Development & Production International Exxon Mobil Corporation Darren W. Woods Irving, Texas Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Flint Hills Resources, LLC Jeffrey P. Ramsey Wichita, Kansas President and Chief Executive Officer Hunt Consolidated Energy, LLC Hunter L. Hunt Dallas, Texas President and Chief Executive Officer Hunt Consolidated, Inc. Ray L. Hunt Dallas, Texas Executive Chairman Murphy Oil Corporation Roger W. Jenkins El Dorado, Arkansas President and Chief Executive Officer Phillips 66 Company Greg C. Garland Houston, Texas Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Repsol J. Jon Imaz Madrid, Spain Chief Executive Officer Shell Oil Company Bruce Culpepper Houston, Texas Former President Sinclair Oil Corporation Ross B.
    [Show full text]
  • US Oil and Gas Reserves and Production Study 2019 Table of Contents
    US oil and gas reserves and production study 2019 Table of contents Study overview 1 Study highlights 2 Capital expenditures 4 Revenues and results of operations 5 Oil reserves 7 Gas reserves 9 Performance measures Proved reserve acquisition costs, finding and development 10 costs and reserve replacement costs Production replacement rates 11 Production costs 13 Company statistics 14 Peer groups 26 Appendix 27 Contacts 29 Study overview The US oil and gas reserves and production study is a compilation and analysis of oil and gas reserve disclosure information as reported by publicly traded companies in their annual reports filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This report presents the US exploration and production (E&P) results for the five-year period from 2014 through 2018 for the 50 largest companies based on 2018 end-of-year US oil and gas reserve estimates. The study companies cover approximately 42% of the US combined oil and gas production for 2018 (44% for 2017). Activities related to acquisitions have also been reflected as described in the appendix. Study companies Due to the significance of the oil and gas reserves attributable to the study companies, the results of these companies are generally representative of the US E&P industry as a whole. Total US production is fast approaching a leading global position, giving this study’s findings an impact beyond the US borders, but it should be noted that results for these companies and for the E&P industry as a whole may be significantly different in other regions of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 | Annual Report Operating Areas
    2019 | ANNUAL REPORT OPERATING AREAS ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION GULF COAST REGION Denbury Operated CO2 Pipelines Denbury Owned Fields – Current CO2 Floods Denbury Planned CO Pipelines Denbury Owned Fields – Potential CO Floods 2 2 CO2 Pipelines Owned by Others Naturally-Occurring CO2 Source Fields Owned by Others – CO2 EOR Candidates Industrial CO2 Sources Owned or Contracted 81,7('67$7(66(&85,7,(6$1'(;&+$1*(&200,66,21 :DVKLQJWRQ'& )250. 0DUN2QH ;$QQXDOUHSRUWSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRU G RIWKH6HFXULWLHV([FKDQJH$FWRI For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 OR 7UDQVLWLRQUHSRUWSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRU G RIWKH6HFXULWLHV([FKDQJH$FWRI )RUWKHWUDQVLWLRQSHULRGIURP WR &RPPLVVLRQILOHQXPEHU '(1%85<5(6285&(6,1& (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) 'HODZDUH (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) /HJDF\'ULYH 3ODQR7; (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) 5HJLVWUDQW¶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
    [Show full text]
  • Hartzog Draw Hartzog Draw
    Analyst Day VALUE Presentation DRIVEN November 2013 NYSE: DNR Denbury.com ClickAbout to Forward edit Master-Looking title style Statements The data contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Such statements may relate to, among other things: long-term strategy; anticipated levels of future dividends and rate of dividend growth; forecasts of capital expenditures, drilling activity and development activities; timing of carbon dioxide (CO2) injections and initial production response to such tertiary flooding projects; estimated timing of pipeline construction or completion or the cost thereof; dates of completion of to-be-constructed industrial plants and their first date of capture of anthropogenic CO2; estimates of costs, forecasted production rates or peak production rates and the growth thereof; estimates of hydrocarbon reserve quantities and values, CO2 reserves, helium reserves, future hydrocarbon prices or assumptions; future cash flows or uses of cash, availability of capital or borrowing capacity; rates of return and overall economics; estimates of potential or recoverable reserves and anticipated production growth rates in our CO2 models; estimated production and capital expenditures for full-year 2013 and 2014 and periods beyond; and availability and cost of equipment and services. These forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as “estimated”, “preliminary”, “projected”, “potential”, “anticipated”, “forecasted”, “expected”, “assume” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. These statements are based on management’s current plans and assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties as further outlined in our most recent Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filed with the SEC.
    [Show full text]