Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas
shutterstock_2364977019.jpg

June 19, 2017

Risk and Return: Working Interests and Royalty Interests

The U.S. Mineral Exchange defines a mineral interest as “the ownership of all rights to gas, oil, and other minerals at or below the surface of a tract of land.” Last week we reviewed the three types of mineral interests – royalty interests, working interests, and overriding royalty interests. This week we analyze the risks associated with working interests versus royalty interests.  An overview of royalty interests and working interests is included below:

  • Royalty Interest – an ownership in production that bears no cost in production. Royalty interest owners receive their share of production revenue before the working interest owners.
  • Working Interest – an ownership in a well that bears 100% of the cost of production. Working interest owners receive their share of the profit after (i) royalty owners have received their share and (ii) after all operating expenses have been paid.
Central to corporate finance is the principle that returns follow risk. As the risk of an investment increases, so do potential returns and potential losses; lower risk means less expectation for reward.  The Oil and Gas Financial Journal illustrates oil and gas investment risk in the following graphic: risk-reward-ogj When valuing mineral interests, it is important to consider the nuances of the each type of mineral interest. Given that risk and asset values are indirectly related, it is important to keep in mind the various risk factors which pertain to the mineral interest.  We’ll begin by examining the various risks surrounding both types of interests.

Risk

Both working interests and royalty interests are exposed to fluctuations in oil and gas prices. When crude oil prices fell in mid-2014, so did the value of working interests, whose worth is based on the present value of the cash flows generated from production, and the value of royalty interests, whose value is based on future payments of revenue. Further, both working interests and royalty interests face the risk of depletion as oil and gas wells are depleting assets.  Even if the price of oil and gas is stable from one year to the next, a well may have 30% less production in its second year.  This can dramatically decrease the yield of particular royalty and working interests.

Holders of working interests can mitigate the risk of depletion by drilling new wells or improving production of existing wells.  While this gives a working interest holder more flexibility, it also requires a substantial investment in CAPEX. Working interest holders accept all fiscal burdens associated with the drilling process.

Royalty interest holders, on the other hand, bear no cost of production but are at the mercy of their operators. Only the working interest owner can decide to halt production when prices drop and to increase production when the drilling environment is favorable.  The Oil and Gas Financial Journal compares buying a royalty interest to “buying an income strip in producing wells, and the risks are primarily price volatility and depletion.”

Each type of interest has unique attributes, but the fact that working interest owners are responsible for operating expenses makes working interests inherently riskier than royalty interests which are characterized by monthly “mailbox money” precipitated by zero costs. We see this when examining the volatility of select E&P companies who spun off their royalty interests into royalty trusts structured as MLPs.

volatility-analysis-royalty-trusts The royalty trusts above generally demonstrate less volatility, which is often used as a proxy for financial risk, than their parent E&P companies.  The principles of risk and return, however, tell us that because there are fewer risks associated with royalty interests they will yield lower returns than their riskier counterparts. Royalty interests range in percentage ownership of revenues from 0.025%-25%, meaning that, at the highest royalty interest, at least 75% of revenue is still funneled to the working interest owners. Due to differences in risk, royalty interests are unlikely to generate the magnitude of returns that working interests can experience. At the same time, they are less likely to experience the same degree of loss.

Return

The standardized measure of investment performance for a given unit of time is return.  Investment returns have two components.  The first, yield, measures the current income (distributions) generated by an investment.  Capital appreciation, the second component, measures the increase in value during the period.  As shown below, total return is the sum of yield and capital appreciation.

investment-returns Royalty trusts commonly make substantial distributions because they generate revenue as long as their operators are drilling and they have minimal operating expenses. Thus it is important to examine total return when comparing interests in E&P companies, who own working interests, and royalty trusts who own royalty interests. In the chart below we examine the total returns of the companies introduced above and their associated royalty trusts. returns-royalty-trusts_YE2016 As expected, the E&P companies which hold working interests show higher returns and steeper losses than their associated royalty trusts. We have assisted many clients with various valuation and cash flow issues regarding royalty interests.  Contact Mercer Capital to discuss your needs in confidence and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

Continue Reading

Defying the Cycle: Haynesville Production Strength in a Shifting Gas Market
Defying the Cycle: Haynesville Production Strength in a Shifting Gas Market
Haynesville shale production defied broader market softness in 2025, leading major U.S. basins with double-digit year-over-year growth despite heightened volatility and sub-cycle drilling activity. Efficiency gains, DUC drawdowns, and Gulf Coast demand dynamics allowed operators to sustain output even as natural gas prices fluctuated sharply.
Haynesville Shale M&A Update: 2025 in Review
Haynesville Shale M&A Update: 2025 in Review
Key TakeawaysHaynesville remains a strategic LNG-linked basin. 2025 transactions emphasized long-duration natural gas exposure and proximity to Gulf Coast export infrastructure, reinforcing the basin’s importance in meeting global LNG demand.International utilities drove much of the activity. Japanese power and gas companies pursued direct upstream ownership, signaling a shift from traditional offtake agreements toward greater control over U.S. gas supply.M&A was selective but meaningful in scale and intent. While overall deal volume was limited, announced transactions and reported negotiations reflected deliberate, long-term positioning rather than opportunistic shale consolidation.OverviewM&A activity in the Haynesville Shale during 2025 was marked by strategic, LNG-linked transactions and renewed international investor interest in U.S. natural gas assets. While investors remained selective relative to prior shale upcycles, transactions that did occur reflected a clear pattern: buyers focused on long-duration gas exposure, scale, and proximity to Gulf Coast export markets rather than short-term development upside.Producers and capital providers increasingly refocused efforts on the Haynesville basin during the year, including raising capital to acquire both operating assets and mineral positions. This renewed attention followed a period of subdued transaction activity and underscored the basin’s continued relevance within global natural gas portfolios.Although the Haynesville did not experience the breadth of consolidation seen in some oil-weighted plays, the size, counterparties, and strategic motivations behind 2025 transactions reinforced the basin’s role as a long-term supply source for LNG-linked demand.Announced Upstream TransactionsTokyo Gas (TG Natural Resources) / ChevronIn April 2025, Tokyo Gas Co., through its U.S. joint venture TG Natural Resources, entered into an agreement to acquire a 70% interest in Chevron’s East Texas natural gas assets for $525 million. The assets include significant Haynesville exposure and were acquired through a combination of cash consideration and capital commitments.The transaction was characterized as part of Tokyo Gas’s broader strategy to secure long-term U.S. natural gas supply and expand its upstream footprint. The deal reflects a growing trend among international utilities to obtain direct exposure to U.S. shale gas through ownership interests rather than relying solely on long-term offtake contracts or third-party supply arrangements.From an M&A perspective, the transaction highlights continued willingness among major operators to monetize non-core or minority positions while retaining operational involvement, and it underscores the Haynesville’s attractiveness to buyers with a long-term, strategic view of gas demand.JERA / Williams & GEP Haynesville IIIn October 2025, JERA Co., Japan’s largest power generator, announced an agreement to acquire Haynesville shale gas production assets from Williams Companies and GEP Haynesville II, a joint venture between GeoSouthern Energy and Blackstone. The transaction was valued at approximately $1.5 billion.This acquisition marked JERA’s first direct investment in U.S. shale gas production, representing a notable expansion of the company’s upstream exposure and reinforcing JERA’s interest in securing supply from regions with strong connectivity to U.S. LNG export infrastructure.This transaction further illustrates the appeal of the Haynesville to international buyers seeking stable, scalable gas assets and highlights the role of upstream M&A as a tool for portfolio diversification among global utilities and energy companies.Reported Negotiations (Not Announced)Mitsubishi / Aethon Energy ManagementIn June 2025, Reuters reported that Mitsubishi Corp. was in discussions to acquire Aethon Energy Management, a privately held operator with substantial Haynesville production and midstream assets. The potential transaction was reported to be valued at approximately $8 billion, though Reuters emphasized that talks were ongoing and that no deal had been finalized at the time.While the transaction was not announced during 2025, the reported discussions were notable for both their scale and the identity of the potential buyer. Aethon has long been viewed as one of the largest private platforms in the Haynesville, and any transaction involving the company would represent a significant consolidation event within the basin.The reported talks underscored the depth of international interest in Haynesville-oriented platforms and highlighted the potential for large-scale transactions even in an otherwise measured M&A environment.ConclusionWhile overall deal volume remained selective, the transactions and reported negotiations in 2025 reflected sustained global interest in U.S. natural gas assets with long-term relevance. Collectively, the transactions and negotiations discussed above point to a Haynesville M&A landscape driven less by opportunistic consolidation and more by deliberate, long-term positioning. As global energy portfolios continue to evolve, the Haynesville basin remains a focal point for strategic investment, particularly for buyers seeking exposure tied to U.S. natural gas supply and LNG export linkages.
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released-Data as of 06-11-2025
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released

With Market Data as of June 11, 2025

Mercer Capital has thoughtfully analyzed the corporate and capital structures of the publicly traded mineral aggregators to derive meaningful indications of enterprise value. We have also calculated valuation multiples based on a variety of metrics, including distributions and reserves, as well as earnings and production on both a historical and forward-looking basis.

Cart

Your cart is empty