Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas
shutterstock_54860827.jpg

October 1, 2019

The Fair Market Value of Oil & Gas Reserves

Due to the historical popularity of this post, we revisit it this week. Originally published in 2017, this post helps you, the reader, understand how to determine the fair market value of oil and gas reserves.
Oil and gas assets represent the majority of value of an E&P company. The Oil and Gas Financial Journal describes reserves as “a measurable value of a company's worth and a basic measure of its life span.”  Thus, understanding the fair market value of a company’s PDP, PDNP, and PUDs is key to understanding the fair market value of the Company.  As we discussed before, the FASB and SEC offer reporting guidelines regarding the disclosure of proved reserves, but none of these represent the actual market price.  It is especially important to understand the price one can receive for reserves as many companies have recently sold “non-core” assets to generate cash to pay off debt and fund operations. The American Society of Appraisers defines the Fair market value as:
The price, expressed in terms of cash equivalents, at which property would change hands between a hypothetical willing and able buyer and a hypothetical willing and able seller, acting at arm’s length in an open and unrestricted market, when neither is under compulsion to buy or sell and when both have reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.1

The American Society of Appraisers recognizes three general approaches to valuation: (1) The Cost Approach, (2) The Income Approach, and (3) The Market Approach.  The IRS provides guidance in determining the fair market value of an oil and gas producing property.  Treasury Reg. 1.611–2(d) offers that if possible the cost approach or comparative sale approach should be used before a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF).  When valuing acreage rights comparable transactions do provide the best indication of value.  However, when valuing reserves, a DCF is often the best way to allocate value to different reserve categories because comparable transactions are very rare as the details needed to compare these specific characteristics of reserves are rarely disclosed.

Cost Approach

The cost approach determines a value indication of an asset by considering the cost to replicate the existing operations of an asset. The cost approach is used when reserves have not been proved up and there have been no historical transactions, yet a participant has spent significant time, talents, and investments into exploratory data on an oil and gas prospect project.

Market Approach

The market approach is a general way of determining a value indication of an asset by using one or more methods that compare the subject to similar assets that have been sold.

Because reserve values vary between oil and gas plays and even within a single play, finding comparable transactions is difficult. A comparable sale must have occurred at a similar time due to the volatile nature of oil and gas prices.  A comparable sale should be for a property that is located within the same play and within a field of similar maturity.  Additionally, comparable transactions must be thoroughly analyzed to make sure that they were not transacted at a premium or discount due to external factors.  Thus, the market approach is often difficult to perform because true comparable transactions are rare. However, the transaction method generally provides the best indication of fair market value for acreage and lease rights.

Income Approach

The income approach estimates a value indication of an asset by converting anticipated economic benefits into a present single amount.  Treasury Reg 1.611 – 2(e)(4) provides a straightforward outline of how the approach should be used.

In practice, this method requires that:
  1. The appraiser project income, expense, and net income on an annual basis
  2. Each year's net income is discounted for interest at the "going rate" to determine the present worth of the future income on an annual and total basis
  3. The total present worth of future income is then discounted further, a percentage based on market conditions, to determine the fair market value. The costs of any expected additional equipment necessary to realize the profits are included in the annual expense, and the proceeds of any expected salvaged of equipment is included in the appropriate annual income.
Although the income approach is the least preferred method of the IRS, these techniques are generally accepted and understood in oil and gas circles to provide reasonable and accurate appraisals of hydrocarbon reserves, and most closely resembles the financial statement reporting requirements discussed in our previous post.  This method is the best indication of value when a seismic survey has been performed and reliable reserve estimates are available.  In order to properly account for risk, we divide the reserves by PDP, PDNP, PUD, Probable, and Possible reserves.  We will review the key inputs in a DCF analysis of oil and gas reserves below.

Cash Inflows

In order to estimate revenue generated by an oil and gas reserve, we must have an estimate of production volume and price.  Estimates of production are collected from Reserve reports which are produced by geological engineers.

The forward price curve provides monthly price estimates for 84 months from the current date.  Generally, the price a producer receives varies with the price of benchmark crude such as WTI or Brent. Thus, it is important to carefully consider a producers contract with distributors. For example, a company may sell raw crude to the distributor at 65% of Brent.

Cash Outflows

Many E&P companies do not own the land on which they produce. Instead, they pay royalty payments to the land owner as a form of a lease payment.  Royalty payments are generally negotiated as a percentage of the gross or net revenues derived from the use of the property.  Besides royalty payments and daily operating costs, it is important to have conversations with management to understand future infrastructure maintenance and capital expenditures.

Discount

Oil and gas reserves can be based on pre-tax or after-tax cash flows.  Pre-tax cash flows make reserve values more comparable as tax rates vary by location.  When using pre-tax cash flows, we use a pre-tax cost of debt and pre-tax cost of equity to develop a WACC.

Risk Adjustment Factors

While DCF techniques are generally reliable for proven developed reserves (PDPs), they do not always capture the uncertainties and opportunities associated with the proven undeveloped reserves (PUDs) and particularly are not representative of the less certain upside of the Probable and Possible reserve categories.  A risk adjustment factor could be used to the discounted present value of cash flows according to the category of the reserves being valued to account for PUDs upside and uncertainty by reducing expected returns from an industry weighted average cost of capital (WACC).  You could also add a risk premium for each reserve category to adjust a baseline WACC, or keep the same WACC for all reserves but discount the present value of the cash flows accordingly with comparable discounts to those shown below.

exhibit_risk-adjustment-factor The low oil price environment forced many companies to sell acreage and proved reserves in order to generate cash to pay off debt.  In order to create a new business models in the face of low oil prices, it is critical for companies to understand the value of their assets.  The valuation implications of reserves and acreage rights can swing dramatically in resource plays. Utilizing an experienced oil and gas reserve appraiser can help to understand how location impacts valuation issues in this current environment. Contact Mercer Capital to discuss your needs and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

End Notes

1 American Society of Appraisers, ASA Business Valuation Standards© (Revision published November 2009), “Definitions,” p. 27.

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