Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas

January 28, 2019

Risk and Return

Working Interests and Royalty Interests

Because of the historical popularity of this post, we revisit it this week. Originally published in 2017, this post helps you, the reader, understand the various risk factors which pertain to mineral interests.
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:

When valuing mineral interests, it is important to consider the nuances of 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

Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released-Data as of 03-10-2026
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released

With Market Data as of March 10, 2026

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.
Themes from the Q4 2025 Energy Earnings Calls
Themes from the Q4 2025 Energy Earnings Calls
Fourth quarter 2025 earnings calls suggest an industry preparing for a transitional 2026, emphasizing organic inventory expansion, structural natural gas demand growth, and tightening service market fundamentals. Management teams appear focused less on short-term volatility and more on positioning for the next upcycle.
NAPE Summit 2026: Dealmaking at the Crossroads of Molecules, Electrons, and Minerals
NAPE Summit 2026: Dealmaking at the Crossroads of Molecules, Electrons, and Minerals
Mercer Capital joined industry leaders at the 2026 NAPE Summit (NAPE Expo), held February 18th to 20th, at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. As with prior Expos, NAPE delivered a focused marketplace where conversations move quickly from “nice to meet you” to “what would it take to get this done?” This year, Bryce Erickson and David Smith represented Mercer Capital on the expo floor and across the conference programming, meeting with operators, minerals groups, capital providers, and advisors.If there was one defining characteristic of NAPE 2026, it was convergence. The industry’s traditional center of gravity, upstream oil and gas dealmaking, was still very much present. But the surrounding ecosystem is widening, as programming incorporated adjacent (and increasingly intertwined) sectors. The hubs for 2026, included Offshore, Data Centers, and Critical Minerals, as part of an event lineup designed to broaden the deal flow and participant mix. Below are our key takeaways from the conference, with a tour through the hub sessions and the themes that were emphasized.The Hub Sessions Told a Clear Story: Energy Is Becoming a Multi-Asset PortfolioThe 2026 NAPE hubs provided a useful lens into where capital is flowing and how industry priorities are evolving. This year’s programming demonstrated a market that still values traditional upstream opportunities, while increasingly integrating adjacent and emerging sectors into the broader deal landscape.Prospect Preview Hub: Showcasing OpportunitiesNAPE’s Prospect Preview Hub once again served as a platform for exhibitors to showcase available prospects on the expo floor, providing concise overviews of their technical merits and commercial potential. Presenters framed their investment thesis in a narrative that reflects how assets are marketed in a competitive transaction environment.Minerals & NonOp Hub: Strategies and TrendsThe Minerals & NonOp Hub discussions focused on market trends, financing strategies, and technology-driven approaches to sourcing and managing acquisition opportunities. Presentations in this hub addressed strategies, recent trends, technologies, and related developments.Offshore Hub: Long-Cycle Capital with Global ImplicationThe Offshore Hub highlighted exploration frontiers, development innovation, and the broader geopolitical context influencing offshore investment. Particular emphasis was placed on high-potential offshore regions, navigating environmental and regulatory frameworks, supply-demand trends, and the role of offshore energy in the global energy mix. Offshore projects require significant upfront investment and longer development timelines, which heighten sensitivity to regulatory stability, cost control, and commodity price outlook assumptions. In this sense, offshore dealmaking underscores how long-cycle assets must be evaluated differently from shorter-cycle onshore plays.Renewable Energy Hub: An Integrated FrameworkThe Renewable Energy Hub reflected an industry increasingly focused on integration rather than segmentation. Presentations centered on integrating renewables with traditional energy sources, hybrid project models, sustainability pathways with a focus on technology, and strategies for navigating evolving energy markets. Rather than viewing renewables as a standalone vertical, participants frequently discussed how renewable assets fit within broader portfolios that include natural gas, storage, and transmission infrastructure.Critical Minerals Hub: Supply Chain Strategy Comes to the ForefrontThe Critical Minerals Hub emphasized the strategic importance of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite within evolving energy supply chains. The three sessions - Exploration/Development, Market Dynamics, and Sustainability/Innovation - featured presentations focused on resource development pathways, supply chain positioning, sourcing practices, and recycling technologies. Unlike traditional upstream projects, critical mineral investments often face unique permitting, processing, and geopolitical risks. As capital flows into the space, differentiation increasingly depends on technical credibility and downstream integration potential.Data Center Hub: Power Demand Is Now a First-Order VariableThe Data Center Hub positioned data centers as a critical component of the global economy, emphasizing the sector’s immense and growing energy needs and the resulting opportunities for collaboration between energy and technology stakeholders. Sessions addressed (i) structuring power supply, interconnection, and grid compliance, (ii) managing data center development risk, and (iii) how rising energy demands impact data center development.In practical terms, this emerged in two ways. First, site selection and power availability are increasingly central to “deal conversations.” Co-location strategies, generation capacity, transmission access, and long-term power contracting are becoming key underwriting considerations. Second, infrastructure constraints are entering valuation frameworks. Power availability, interconnection queues, permitting timelines, and fuel optionality are no longer secondary factors; they directly influence project timing, risk, and expected returns.Our Takeaways: What We Heard Repeatedly on the FloorAcross hub sessions and meetings, three themes came up again and again:Infrastructure constraints are turning into valuation drivers. Power, pipelines, processing, and permitting are not background details—they’re often the gating items that shape cash flow timing, risk, and ultimate marketability.The market is hungry for clarity. Whether the topic is policy, commodity outlook, or capital availability, counterparties are placing a premium on deals with understandable risks and executable paths.Energy dealmaking is becoming “multi-asset” by default. Even when the transaction is traditional upstream, the conversation increasingly touches power, infrastructure, data, or minerals adjacency.Final ThoughtsMercer Capital has long valued NAPE as an event where real deal conversations happen and where shifting industry priorities can be identified early on. As the lines between upstream, infrastructure, power, and emerging energy/minerals continue to blur, independent valuation and transaction advisory services become even more important, since the hardest part isn’t building a model, it’s choosing the right assumptions.We have assisted many clients with various valuation needs in the upstream oil and gas space for both conventional and unconventional plays in North America and around the world. Contact a Mercer Capital professional to discuss your needs in confidence and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

Cart

Your cart is empty