XML 84 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Asset Impairments
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Asset Impairments [Abstract]  
Asset Impairments
Note 4.  Asset Impairments
 
Pre-tax (non-cash) asset impairment charges were as follows:
 
 
   
Year Ended December 31,
 
   
2011
  
2010
  
2009
 
(millions)
         
Piceance (Onshore US)
 $487  $-  $- 
Tri-State (Onshore US)
  121   -   - 
Iron Horse (Onshore US)
  15   89   - 
East Texas (Onshore US)
  128   -   - 
New Albany Shale (Onshore US)
  -   19   44 
Granite Wash (Onshore US)
  -   -   389 
Main Pass (Gulf of Mexico Shelf)
  -   5   48 
Raton (Deepwater Gulf of Mexico)
  -   6   23 
Noa/Noa South (Offshore Israel)
  -   25   - 
Ecuador
  -   -   100 
Other Onshore US Proved Properties
  6   -   - 
Other Offshore International Proved Properties
  2   -   - 
Total
 $759  $144  $604 
 
2011 Asset Impairments   Due to a significant decline in spot and five-year forward natural gas prices, specifically during the fourth quarter of 2011, as well as field performance, we determined that the carrying amounts of certain of our onshore US developments were not recoverable from future cash flows and, therefore, were impaired. The assets were written down to their estimated fair values, which were determined using discounted cash flow models. The discounted cash flow models included management's estimates of future oil and gas production, commodity prices based on forward commodity price curves as of the date of the estimate, operating and development costs, and discount rates.
 
2010 Asset Impairments   Due to declines in natural gas prices and recent drilling results, we determined that the carrying amount of our onshore US development at Iron Horse was not recoverable from future cash flows and, therefore, was impaired. We also recorded impairments of our non-core, New Albany Shale assets which had been reclassified to held-for-sale; our deepwater Gulf of Mexico development at Raton, primarily due to declines in natural gas prices; a Gulf of Mexico shelf asset; and our investment in the Noa/Noa South development, offshore Israel. At December 31, 2010, we believed that it was less likely that Noa would be pursued for development due to near-term capability at the Mari-B field and the longer-term outlook from our discoveries at Tamar and Leviathan. During 2011, due to unexpected natural gas supply disruptions into Israel, we decided to develop Noa/Noa South.
 
The Iron Horse, Raton and Gulf of Mexico Shelf assets were written down to their estimated fair values, which were determined using discounted cash flow models, as described above. The New Albany Shale assets were written down to anticipated sales proceeds less costs to sell.
 
2009 Asset Impairments    Declines in natural gas prices resulted in impairments of Granite Wash, an onshore US area where we significantly reduced our investment beginning in 2007, and our New Albany Shale development. We also impaired our deepwater Gulf of Mexico development at Raton, primarily due to well performance issues and our Gulf of Mexico shelf asset at Main Pass, which had been reclassified from held-for-sale to held-and-used.   The assets were written down to their estimated fair values, which were determined using discounted cash flow models, as described above.
 
We also reviewed our investment in Ecuador for impairment, as a result of the increasingly unsettled economic and political environment in Ecuador, and determined that the carrying value of our investment exceeded its fair value. We estimated the fair value of our investment using a probability-weighted discounted cash flow model that considered the likelihood of possible outcomes of (1) the event of continued operation of the assets in contemplation of resolving the dispute and in accordance with the existing contract, (2) the event of a sale of our investment to a third party, and (3) the event of arbitration with varying degrees of award and collection. The use of alternative judgments and/or assumptions could have resulted in the recognition of an impairment charge that was significantly different.
 
See also Note 16. Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.