ConocoPhillips - 10-Q quarterly report FY2011 Q2

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [  ] No [X]

The registrant had 1,373,024,600 shares of common stock, $.01 par value, outstanding at June 30, 2011.

The interim-period financial information presented in the financial statements included in this report is unaudited and includes all known accruals and adjustments, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the consolidated financial position of ConocoPhillips and its results of operations and cash flows for such periods. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature. To enhance your understanding of these interim financial statements, see the consolidated financial statements and notes included in our 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We hold significant variable interests in VIEs that have not been consolidated because we are not considered the primary beneficiary. Information on these VIEs follows:

We have a 30 percent ownership interest with a 50 percent governance interest in the OOO Naryanmarneftegaz (NMNG) joint venture to develop resources in the Timan-Pechora province of Russia. The NMNG joint venture is a VIE because we and LUKOIL have disproportionate interests, and LUKOIL was a related party at the inception of the joint venture. Since LUKOIL is no longer a related party, we do not believe NMNG would be a VIE if reconsidered today. LUKOIL owns 70 percent versus our 30 percent direct interest; therefore, we have determined we are not the primary beneficiary of NMNG, and we use the equity method of accounting for this investment. The funding of NMNG has been provided with equity contributions, primarily for the development of the Yuzhno Khylchuyu (YK) Field. The book value of our investment in the venture was $708 million and $735 million at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

We have an agreement with Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) to participate in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Quintana, Texas. We have no ownership in Freeport LNG; however, we own a 50 percent interest in Freeport LNG GP, Inc. (Freeport GP), which serves as the general partner managing the venture. We entered into a credit agreement with Freeport LNG, whereby we agreed to provide loan financing for the construction of the terminal. We also entered into a long-term agreement with Freeport LNG to use 0.9 billion cubic feet per day of regasification capacity. The terminal became operational in June 2008, and we began making payments under the terminal use agreement. Freeport LNG began making loan repayments in September 2008, and the loan balance outstanding was $632 million at June 30, 2011, and $653 million at December 31, 2010. Freeport LNG is a VIE because Freeport GP holds no equity in Freeport LNG, and the limited partners of Freeport LNG do not have any substantive decision making ability. We performed an analysis of the expected losses and determined we are not the primary beneficiary. This expected loss analysis took into account that the credit support arrangement requires Freeport LNG to maintain sufficient commercial insurance to mitigate any loan losses. The loan to Freeport LNG is accounted for as a financial asset, and our investment in Freeport GP is accounted for as an equity investment.

Inventories consisted of the following:

Inventories valued on the last-in, first-out (LIFO) basis totaled $5,724 million and $4,051 million at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. The estimated excess of current replacement cost over LIFO cost of inventories amounted to $8,400 million and $6,800 million at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively.

The long-term portion of these loans is included in the “Loans and advances—related parties” line on the consolidated balance sheet, while the short-term portion is in “Accounts and notes receivable—related parties.”

Significant long-term receivables and loans to non-affiliated companies at June 30, 2011, included $365 million related to seller financing of U.S. retail marketing assets. Long-term receivables and the long-term portion of these loans are included in the “Investments and long-term receivables” line item on the consolidated balance sheet, while the short-term portion related to non-affiliate loans is in “Accounts and notes receivable.”

Merey Sweeny, L.P. (MSLP) is a limited partnership that owns a 70,000-barrel-per-day delayed coker and related facilities at the Sweeny Refinery. MSLP processes our long residue, which is produced from heavy sour crude oil, for a processing fee. Fuel-grade petroleum coke is produced as a by-product and becomes the property of MSLP. Prior to August 28, 2009, MSLP was owned 50/50 by us and Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). Under the agreements that govern the relationships between the partners, certain defaults by PDVSA with respect to supply of crude oil to the Sweeny Refinery gave us the right to acquire PDVSA’s 50 percent ownership interest in MSLP. On August 28, 2009, we exercised that right. PDVSA has initiated arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce challenging our actions, and the arbitration process is underway. We continue to use the equity method of accounting for our investment in MSLP.

Our investment in properties, plants and equipment (PP&E), with the associated accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization (Accum. DD&A), was:

The capitalized cost of suspended wells at June 30, 2011, was $1,049 million, an increase of $36 million from $1,013 million at year-end 2010. For the category of exploratory well costs capitalized for a period greater than one year as of December 31, 2010, no wells were charged to dry hole expense during the first six months of 2011.

During the three- and six-month periods of 2011 and 2010, we recognized the following before-tax impairment charges:

In the second quarter of 2010, we recorded a $1,500 million impairment of our refinery in Wilhelmshaven, Germany, due to canceled plans for a project to upgrade the refinery. The six-month period of 2010 also included a property impairment of $100 million in international R&M to write-off capitalized project costs, as a result of our decision to end our participation in a new refinery project in Yanbu Industrial City, Saudi Arabia.

There were no material fair value impairments as of June 30, 2011. The following table shows the values of assets at December 31, 2010, by major category, measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in periods subsequent to their initial recognition:

During 2010, net properties, plants and equipment held for use with a carrying amount of $1,911 million were written down to a fair value of $307 million, resulting in a before-tax loss of $1,604 million. The fair values were determined by the use of internal discounted cash flow models using estimates of future production, prices, costs and a discount rate believed to be consistent with those used by principal market participants and cash flow multiples for similar assets and alternative use.

Also during 2010, net properties, plants and equipment held for sale with a carrying amount of $64 million were written down to their fair value of $23 million less cost to sell of $2 million for a net $21 million, resulting in a before-tax loss of $43 million. The fair values were primarily determined by binding negotiated selling prices with third parties, with some adjusted for the fair value of certain liabilities retained.

In addition, an equity method investment associated with our E&P segment was determined to have a fair value below carrying amount, and the impairment was considered to be other than temporary. This investment with a book value of $1,380 million was written down to its fair value of $735 million, resulting in a charge of $645 million before-tax. The fair value was determined by the application of an internal discounted cash flow model using estimates of future production, prices, costs and a discount rate believed to be consistent with those used by principal market participants. In addition, the equity investment fair value considered market analysis of certain similar undeveloped properties.

We have two commercial paper programs supported by our $7.85 billion revolving credit facilities: the ConocoPhillips $6.35 billion program, primarily a funding source for short-term working capital needs, and the ConocoPhillips Qatar Funding Ltd. $1.5 billion program, which is used to fund commitments relating to the QG3 Project. Commercial paper maturities are generally limited to 90 days.

At both June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, we had no direct outstanding borrowings under our revolving credit facilities, but $40 million in letters of credit had been issued. In addition, under the two commercial paper programs, there was $1,157 million of commercial paper outstanding at June 30, 2011, compared with $1,182 million at December 31, 2010. Since we had $1,157 million of commercial paper outstanding and had issued $40 million of letters of credit, we had access to $6.7 billion in borrowing capacity under our revolving credit facilities at June 30, 2011.

During the first six months of 2011, a $328 million 9.375% Note was repaid at its maturity.

At June 30, 2011, we classified $1,098 million of short-term debt as long-term debt, based on our ability and intent to refinance the obligation on a long-term basis under our revolving credit facilities.

We are obligated to contribute $7.5 billion, plus interest, over a 10-year period that began in 2007, to FCCL Partnership. Quarterly principal and interest payments of $237 million began in the second quarter of 2007 and will continue until the balance is paid. Of the principal obligation amount, approximately $713 million was short-term and was included in the “Accounts payable—related parties” line on our June 30, 2011, consolidated balance sheet. The principal portion of these payments, which totaled $343 million in the first six months of 2011, is included in the “Other” line in the financing activities section of our consolidated statement of cash flows. Interest accrues at a fixed annual rate of 5.3 percent on the unpaid principal balance. Fifty percent of the quarterly interest payment is reflected as a capital contribution and is included in the “Capital expenditures and investments” line on our consolidated statement of cash flows.

Activity for the equity attributable to noncontrolling interests for the first six months of 2011 and 2010 was as follows:

At June 30, 2011, we were liable for certain contingent obligations under various contractual arrangements as described below. We recognize a liability, at inception, for the fair value of our obligation as a guarantor for newly issued or modified guarantees. Unless the carrying amount of the liability is noted below, we have not recognized a liability either because the guarantees were issued prior to December 31, 2002, or because the fair value of the obligation is immaterial. In addition, unless otherwise stated, we are not currently performing with any significance under the guarantee and expect future performance to be either immaterial or have only a remote chance of occurrence.

A number of lawsuits involving a variety of claims have been made against ConocoPhillips that arise in the ordinary course of business. We also may be required to remove or mitigate the effects on the environment of the placement, storage, disposal or release of certain chemical, mineral and petroleum substances at various active and inactive sites. We regularly assess the need for accounting recognition or disclosure of these contingencies. In the case of all known contingencies (other than those related to income taxes), we accrue a liability when the loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. If a range of amounts can be reasonably estimated and no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, then the minimum of the range is accrued. We do not reduce these liabilities for potential insurance or third-party recoveries. If applicable, we accrue receivables for probable insurance or other third-party recoveries. In the case of income-tax-related contingencies, we use a cumulative probability-weighted loss accrual in cases where sustaining a tax position is less than certain.

Based on currently available information, we believe it is remote that future costs related to known contingent liability exposures will exceed current accruals by an amount that would have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements. As we learn new facts concerning contingencies, we reassess our position both with respect to accrued liabilities and other potential exposures. Estimates particularly sensitive to future changes include contingent liabilities recorded for environmental remediation, tax and legal matters. Estimated future environmental remediation costs are subject to change due to such factors as the uncertain magnitude of cleanup costs, the unknown time and extent of such remedial actions that may be required, and the determination of our liability in proportion to that of other responsible parties. Estimated future costs related to tax and legal matters are subject to change as events evolve and as additional information becomes available during the administrative and litigation processes.

Although liability of those potentially responsible for environmental remediation costs is generally joint and several for federal sites and frequently so for state sites, we are usually only one of many companies cited at a particular site. Due to the joint and several liabilities, we could be responsible for all cleanup costs related to any site at which we have been designated as a potentially responsible party. We have been successful to date in sharing cleanup costs with other financially sound companies. Many of the sites at which we are potentially responsible are still under investigation by the EPA or the state agencies concerned. Prior to actual cleanup, those potentially responsible normally assess the site conditions, apportion responsibility and determine the appropriate remediation. In some instances, we may have no liability or may attain a settlement of liability. Where it appears that other potentially responsible parties may be financially unable to bear their proportional share, we consider this inability in estimating our potential liability, and we adjust our accruals accordingly.

As a result of various acquisitions in the past, we assumed certain environmental obligations. Some of these environmental obligations are mitigated by indemnifications made by others for our benefit and some of the indemnifications are subject to dollar limits and time limits. We have not recorded accruals for any potential contingent liabilities that we expect to be funded by the prior owners under these indemnifications.

We are currently participating in environmental assessments and cleanups at numerous federal Superfund and comparable state sites. After an assessment of environmental exposures for cleanup and other costs, we make accruals on an undiscounted basis (except those acquired in a purchase business combination, which we record on a discounted basis) for planned investigation and remediation activities for sites where it is probable future costs will be incurred and these costs can be reasonably estimated. At June 30, 2011, our balance sheet included a total environmental accrual of $988 million, compared with $994 million at December 31, 2010. We expect to incur a substantial amount of these expenditures within the next 30 years. We have not reduced these accruals for possible insurance recoveries. In the future, we may be involved in additional environmental assessments, cleanups and proceedings.

In 2007, we announced we had been unable to reach agreement with respect to our migration to anempresa mixta structure mandated by the Venezuelan government’s Nationalization Decree. As a result, Venezuela’s national oil company, PDVSA, or its affiliates directly assumed control over ConocoPhillips’ interests in the Petrozuata and Hamaca heavy oil ventures and the offshore Corocoro development project. In response to this expropriation, we filed a request for international arbitration on November 2, 2007, with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). An arbitration hearing was held during 2010 before ICSID, and the arbitration process is ongoing.

In 2008, Burlington Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips, initiated arbitration before ICSID against The Republic of Ecuador and PetroEcuador, as a result of the newly enacted Windfall Profits Tax Law and government-mandated renegotiation of our production sharing contracts. Despite a restraining order issued by ICSID, Ecuador confiscated the crude oil production of Burlington and its co-venturer and sold the illegally seized crude oil. In 2009, Ecuador took over operations in Blocks 7 and 21, fully expropriating our assets. In June 2010, the ICSID tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to hear the expropriation claim. An arbitration hearing on case merits occurred in March 2011. The arbitration process is ongoing.

These financial instruments appear in the “Cash and cash equivalents” line of our consolidated balance sheet if the maturities at the time we made the investments were 90 days or less; otherwise, these held-to-maturity investments are included in the “Short-term investments” line. We held the following financial instruments:

Purchase and sales contracts with fixed minimum notional volumes for commodities that are readily convertible to cash (e.g., crude oil, natural gas and gasoline) are recorded on the balance sheet as derivatives unless the contracts are eligible for and we elect the normal purchases and normal sales exception (i.e., contracts to purchase or sell quantities we expect to use or sell over a reasonable period in the normal course of business). We record most of our contracts to buy or sell natural gas and the majority of our contracts to sell power as derivatives, but we do apply the normal purchases and normal sales exception to certain long-term contracts to sell our natural gas production. We generally apply this normal purchases and normal sales exception to eligible crude oil and refined product commodity purchase and sales contracts;

however, we may elect not to apply this exception (e.g., when another derivative instrument will be used to mitigate the risk of the purchase or sales contract but hedge accounting will not be applied, in which case both the purchase or sales contract and the derivative contract mitigating the resulting risk will be recorded on the balance sheet at fair value).

We generally value our exchange-traded derivatives using closing prices provided by the exchange as of the balance sheet date, and these are classified as Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy. Where exchange-provided prices are adjusted, non-exchange quotes are used or when the instrument lacks sufficient liquidity, we generally classify those exchange-cleared contracts as Level 2. Over-the-counter (OTC) financial swaps and physical commodity forward purchase and sales contracts are generally valued using quotations provided by brokers and price index developers, such as Platts and Oil Price Information Service. These quotes are corroborated with market data and are classified as Level 2. In certain less liquid markets or for longer-term contracts, forward prices are not as readily available. In these circumstances, OTC swaps and physical commodity purchase and sales contracts are valued using internally developed methodologies that consider historical relationships among various commodities that result in management’s best estimate of fair value. These contracts are classified as Level 3. A contract that is initially classified as Level 3 due to absence or insufficient corroboration of broker quotes over a material portion of the contract will transfer to Level 2 when the portion of the trade having no quotes or insufficient corroboration becomes an insignificant portion of the contract. A contract would also transfer to Level 2 if we began using a corroborated broker quote that has become available. Conversely, if a corroborated broker quote ceases to be available or used by us, the contract would transfer from Level 2 to Level 3. There were no material transfers in or out of Level 1.

Financial OTC and physical commodity options are valued using industry-standard models that consider various assumptions, including quoted forward prices for commodities, time value, volatility factors, and contractual prices for the underlying instruments, as well as other relevant economic measures. The degree to which these inputs are observable in the forward markets determines whether the options are classified as Level 2 or 3.

We use a mid-market pricing convention (the mid-point between bid and ask prices). When appropriate, valuations are adjusted to reflect credit considerations, generally based on available market evidence.

The fair value hierarchy for our derivative assets and liabilities accounted for at fair value on a recurring basis was:

The derivative values above are based on analysis of each contract as the fundamental unit of account; therefore, derivative assets and liabilities with the same counterparty are not reflected net where the right of setoff exists. Gains or losses from contracts in one level may be offset by gains or losses on contracts in another level or by changes in values of physical contracts or positions that are not reflected in the table above.

As reflected in the table above, Level 3 activity was not material.

Commodity Derivative Contracts—We operate in the worldwide crude oil, bitumen, refined product, natural gas, LNG, natural gas liquids and electric power markets and are exposed to fluctuations in the prices for these commodities. These fluctuations can affect our revenues, as well as the cost of operating, investing and financing activities. Generally, our policy is to remain exposed to the market prices of commodities; however, we use futures, forwards, swaps and options in various markets to balance physical systems, meet customer needs, manage price exposures on specific transactions, and do a limited, immaterial amount of trading not directly related to our physical business. We also use the market knowledge gained from these activities to capture market opportunities such as moving physical commodities to more profitable locations, storing commodities to capture seasonal or time premiums, and blending commodities to capture quality upgrades. Derivatives may be used to optimize these activities which may move our risk profile away from market average prices.

The fair value of commodity derivative assets and liabilities and the line items where they appear on our consolidated balance sheet were:

The gains (losses) from commodity derivatives incurred, and the line items where they appear on our consolidated income statement were:

The table below summarizes our material net exposures resulting from outstanding commodity derivative contracts. These financial and physical derivative contracts are primarily used to manage price exposures on our underlying operations. The underlying exposures may be from non-derivative positions such as inventory volumes or firm natural gas transport contracts. Financial derivative contracts may also offset physical derivative contracts, such as forward sales contracts.

Interest Rate Derivative Contracts—During the second quarter of 2010, we executed interest rate swaps to synthetically convert $500 million of our 4.60% fixed-rate notes due in 2015 to a floating rate based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). These swaps qualify for and are designated as fair-value hedges using the short-cut method of hedge accounting. The short-cut method permits the assumption that changes in the value of the derivative perfectly offset changes in the value of the debt; therefore, no gain or loss has been recognized due to hedge ineffectiveness.

The adjustments to the fair values of the interest rate swaps and hedged debt have not been material.

Foreign Currency Exchange Derivatives—We have foreign currency exchange rate risk resulting from international operations. We do not comprehensively hedge the exposure to movements in currency exchange rates, although we may choose to selectively hedge certain foreign currency exchange rate exposures, such as firm commitments for capital projects or local currency tax payments, dividends, and cash returns from net investments in foreign affiliates to be remitted within the coming year.

The fair value of foreign currency exchange derivative assets and liabilities, and the line items where they appear on our consolidated balance sheet were:

Gains and losses from foreign currency exchange derivatives, and the line item where they appear on our consolidated income statement were:

We had the following net notional position of outstanding foreign currency exchange derivatives:

The credit risk from our OTC derivative contracts, such as forwards and swaps, derives from the counterparty to the transaction. Individual counterparty exposure is managed within predetermined credit limits and includes the use of cash-call margins when appropriate, thereby reducing the risk of significant nonperformance. We also use futures, swaps and option contracts that have a negligible credit risk because these trades are cleared with an exchange clearinghouse and subject to mandatory margin requirements until settled.

Our trade receivables result primarily from our petroleum operations and reflect a broad national and international customer base, which limits our exposure to concentrations of credit risk. The majority of these receivables have payment terms of 30 days or less, and we continually monitor this exposure and the creditworthiness of the counterparties. We do not generally require collateral to limit the exposure to loss; however, we will sometimes use letters of credit, prepayments, and master netting arrangements to mitigate credit risk with counterparties that both buy from and sell to us, as these agreements permit the amounts owed by us or owed to others to be offset against amounts due us.

Certain of our derivative instruments contain provisions that require us to post collateral if the derivative exposure exceeds a threshold amount. We have contracts with fixed threshold amounts and other contracts with variable threshold amounts that are contingent on our credit rating. The variable threshold amounts typically decline for lower credit ratings, while both the variable and fixed threshold amounts typically revert to zero if we fall below investment grade. Cash is the primary collateral in all contracts; however, many also permit us to post letters of credit as collateral.

The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with such credit-risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, was $144 million and $225 million, respectively, for which no collateral was posted. If our credit rating were lowered one level from its “A” rating (per Standard and Poor’s) on June 30, 2011, we would be required to post no additional collateral to our counterparties. If we were downgraded below investment grade, we would be required to post $144 million of additional collateral, either with cash or letters of credit.

Our commodity derivative and financial instruments were:

The amounts shown for derivatives in the preceding table are presented net (i.e., assets and liabilities with the same counterparty are netted where the right of setoff exists). In addition, the June 30, 2011, commodity derivative assets and liabilities appear net of $86 million of obligations to return cash collateral and $193 million of rights to reclaim cash collateral, respectively. The December 31, 2010, commodity derivative assets and liabilities appear net of $5 million of obligations to return cash collateral and $324 million of rights to reclaim cash collateral, respectively. No collateral was deposited or held for the foreign currency derivatives or interest rate derivatives.

ConocoPhillips’ comprehensive income was as follows:

Accumulated other comprehensive income in the equity section of the balance sheet included:

Significant transactions with related parties were:

We have organized our reporting structure based on the grouping of similar products and services, resulting in six operating segments:

Corporate and Other includes general corporate overhead, most interest expense and various other corporate activities. Corporate assets include all cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments.

We evaluate performance and allocate resources based on net income attributable to ConocoPhillips. Intersegment sales are at prices that approximate market.