|
PART I |
|
ITEM 1 Business |
|
Tri-Valley Corporation, a Delaware corporation formed in 1971, is in the business of exploring, acquiring and developing prospective and producing petroleum, industrial minerals and precious metals properties and interests therein. Substantially all of our oil and gas reserves are located in northern California. Tri-Valley has three wholly owned subsidiaries. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Company, Select Resources Corporation Inc., and Tri-Valley Power Corporation. |
|
Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Company ("TVOG") operates the oil & gas activities. TVOG derives the majority of its revenue from sale of oil and gas properties. TVOG primarily generates its own exploration prospects from its internal database, and also screens prospects from other geologists and companies. TVOG generates these geological "plays" within a certain geographic area of mutual interest. The prospect is then presented to potential co-ventures. The company deals with both accredited individual investors and energy industry companies. TVOG is the operator of these co-ventures. |
|
We sell substantially all of our oil and gas production to ConocoPhillips. Other gatherers of oil and gas production operate within our area of operations in California, and we are confident that if ConocoPhillips ceased purchasing our production we could find another purchaser on similar terms with no adverse consequences to our income or operations. |
|
In 1987, we acquired precious metals claims on Alaska state lands. We have conducted exploration operations on these properties and have reduced our original claims to a block of approximately 28,720 acres (44.9 square miles). We have conducted trenching, core drilling, bulk sampling and assaying activities to date and have reason to believe that mineralization exists to justify additional exploration activities. However, to date, we have not identified probable mineral reserves on these properties. There is no assurance that a commercially viable mineral deposit exists on any of these above-mentioned mineral properties. Further exploration is required before a final evaluation as to the economic and legal feasibility can be determined. |
|
In December 2004, we created Select Resources Corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary. In 2004, Select Resources engaged in limited activities associated with its organization. We expect to transfer our existing gold mining properties located near Richardson, Alaska, to this new subsidiary. In addition, the new subsidiary will endeavor to acquire and develop new precious metals and other industrial mineral properties. |
|
Tri-Valley Power Corporation is the third wholly owned subsidiary. However, this subsidiary is inactive at the present time. |
|
Competition |
|
The oil and gas industry is highly competitive in all its phases. Competition is particularly intense with respect to the acquisition of desirable producing properties, the acquisition of oil and gas prospects suitable for enhanced production efforts, and the hiring of experienced personnel. Our competitors in oil and gas acquisition, development, and production include the major oil companies in addition to numerous independent oil and gas companies, individual proprietors and drilling programs. Many of these competitors possess and employ financial and personnel resources substantially greater than those which are available to us and may be able to pay more for desirable producing properties and prospects and to define, evaluate, bid for, and purchase a greater number of producing properties and prospects than we can. Our financial or personnel resources to generate reserves in the future will be dependent on our ability to select and acquire suitable producing propert ies and prospects in competition with these companies. |
|
Governmental Regulation |
|
Domestic exploration for the production and sale of oil and gas is extensively regulated at both the federal and state levels. Legislation affecting the oil and gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion, frequently increasing the regulatory burden. Also, numerous departments and agencies, both federal and state, are authorized by statute to issue, and have issued, rules and regulations affecting the oil and gas industry which often are difficult and costly to comply with and which carry substantial penalties for noncompliance. State statutes and regulations require permits for drilling operations, drilling bonds, and reports concerning operations. Most states in which we will operate also have statutes and regulations governing conservation matters, including the unitization or pooling of properties and the establishment of maximum rates of production from wells. Many state statutes and regulations may limit the rate at |
|
1 |
|
|
which oil and gas could otherwise be produced from acquired properties. Somestates have also enacted statutes prescribing ceiling prices for natural gas sold within their states. Our operations are also subject to numerous laws and regulations governing plugging and abandonment, the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. The heavy regulatory burden on the oil and gas industry increases its costs of doing business and consequently affects its profitability. We cannot be sure that a change in such laws, rules, regulations, or interpretations, will not harm our financial condition or operating results. |
|
Environmental Regulation |
|
Mining Activities |
|
Mining activities in the United States are subject to federal and state laws and regulations covering mining safety and environmental quality. However, because we do not have active mining operations at present, these regulations have little impact on our current activities. In 2004, 2003 and 2002, the regulatory requirements had no significant effect on our precious metals activity as we continued our exploration efforts. |
|
Should we seek to develop our precious metals claims, development efforts would require compliance with mining laws and regulations. State and federal laws impose minimum safety standards to protect workers in the construction and development of mines and conduct of mining operations. Mining activities are subject to environmental regulation of the output of mines, particularly in the storage and disposal of waste from mining operations. Environmental regulations restrict the storage, use and disposal of both the materials used in mining operations and the waste contained in mineral ore, all of which contain toxic materials that would damage the surrounding land and ground water if not carefully handled. |
|
In addition, federal and state regulations call for reclamation of land which has been altered by mining activities. These regulations may require significant expenditures to clean up a mining site during and after mining. |
|
Before we could begin actual mining operations on our claims, we would have to develop a feasibility study which would, among other things, address the potential costs of labor, safety and environmental regulation on any proposed mining activity. |
|
Energy Operations |
|
Our energy operations are subject to risks of fire, explosions, blow-outs, pipe failure, abnormally pressured formations and environmental hazards, such as oil spills, natural gas leaks, ruptures or discharges of toxic gases, the occurrence of any of which could result in substantial losses due to injury or loss of life, severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment, pollution or other environmental damage, clean-up responsibilities, regulatory investigation and penalties and suspension of operations. In accordance with customary industry practice, we maintain insurance against these kinds of risks, but we cannot be sure that our level of insurance will cover all losses in the event of a drilling or production catastrophe. Insurance is not available for all operational risks, such as risks that we will drill a dry hole, fail in an attempt to complete a well or have problems maintaining production from existing wells. |
|
Oil and gas activities can result in liability under federal, state, and local environmental regulations for activities involving, among other things, water pollution and hazardous waste transport, storage, and disposal. Such liability can attach not only to the operator of record of the well, but also to other parties that may be deemed to be current or prior operators or owners of the wells or the equipment involved. Numerous governmental agencies issue rules and regulations to implement and enforce such laws, which are often difficult and costly to comply with and which carry substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties and in some cases injunctive relief for failure to comply. Some laws, rules and regulations relating to the protection of the environment may, in certain circumstances, impose "strict liability" for environmental contamination. These laws render a person or company liable for environmental and natural resource damages, cleanup costs and, in the case of oil spills in certain states, consequential damages without regard to negligence or fault. Other laws, rules and regulations may require the rate of oil and gas production to be below the economically optimal rate or may even prohibit exploration or production activities in environmentally sensitive areas. In addition, state laws often require some form of remedial action, such as closure of inactive pits and plugging of abandoned wells, to prevent pollution from former or suspended operations. |
|
2 |
|
The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, also known as the "Superfund" law, imposes liability, without regard to fault, on certain classes of persons with respect to the release of a "hazardous substance" into the environment. These persons include the current or prior owner or operator of the disposal site or sites where the release occurred and companies that transported, disposed or arranged for the transport or disposal of the hazardous substances found at the site. Persons who are or were responsible for releases of hazardous substances under CERCLA may be subject to joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment and for damages to natural resources, and it is not uncommon for the federal or state government to pursue such claims. It is also not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal inju ry or property or natural resource damages allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment. Under CERCLA, certain oil and gas materials and products are, by definition, excluded from the term "hazardous substances." At least two federal courts have held that certain wastes associated with the production of crude oil may be classified as hazardous substances under CERCLA. Similarly, under the federal Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, which governs the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of "solid wastes" and "hazardous wastes," certain oil and gas materials and wastes are exempt from the definition of "hazardous wastes." This exemption continues to be subject to judicial interpretation and increasingly stringent state interpretation. During the normal course of operations on properties in which we have an interest, exempt and non-exempt wastes, including hazardous wastes, that are subject to RCRA and comparable state statutes and implementing regulations are generated or have been generated in the past. The federal Environmental Protection Agency and various state agencies continue to promulgate regulations that limit the disposal and permitting options for certain hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. |
|
Compliance with environmental requirements, including financial assurance requirements and the costs associated with the cleanup of any spill, could have a material adverse effect on our capital expenditures or earnings. These laws and regulations have not had a material affect on our capital expenditures or earnings to date. Nevertheless, changes in environmental laws have the potential to adversely affect operations. At this time, we have no plans to make any material capital expenditures for environmental control facilities. |
|
Employees |
|
We had a total of five full-time employees, one part-time bookkeeper, and three consultants on December 31, 2004. |
|
Available Information |
|
We file annual and quarterly reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission using SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC maintains a site on the Internet at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding us and other registrants that file reports electronically with the SEC. You may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at its Public Reference Room at 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. Our common stock is listed on the American Stock Exchange, under the symbol TIV. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information about their public reference rooms. Our website is located at http://www.tri-valleycorp.com. |
|
We furnish our shareholders with a copy of our annual report on Form 10-K, which contains audited financial statements, and such other reports as we, from time to time, deem appropriate or as may be required by law. We use the calendar year as our fiscal year. |
|
ITEM 2 Properties |
|
Our headquarters and administrative offices are located at 5555 Business Park South, Suite 200, Bakersfield, California 93309. We lease approximately 4,500 square feet of office space at that location. Our principal propertiesconsist of proven and unproven oil and gas properties, mining claims on unproven precious metals properties, maps and geologic records related to prospective oil and gas and unproven precious metal properties, office and other equipment. TVOG has a worldwide geologic library with data on every continent except Antarctica including over 700 leads and prospects in California,our present area of emphasis. |
|
3 |
|
Oil and Gas Operations |
|
The oil and gas properties in whichwe hold interests are primarily located in the area of central California known as the Sacramento Valley.We alsolease exploration acreage in the San Joaquin and Santa Maria Valleys.Tri-Valley contracts for the drilling of all wells and do not own any drilling equipment, bulk storage facilities, or refineries. Tri-Valley do own a small segment of pipeline at Tracy, California. |
|
Tri-Valley has retained the services of Cecil Engineering, an independent engineer qualified to estimateour net share of proved developed oil and gas reserves on allof our oil and gas properties at December 31, 2004 for SEC filing.We do not include any undeveloped reserves in these reserve studies. Only proved developed reserves arelisted in our reserve report. Price is a material factor inour stated reserves, because higher prices permit relatively higher-cost reserves to be produced economically. Higher prices generally permit longer recovery, hence larger reserves at higher values. Conversely, lower prices generally limit recovery to lower-cost reserves, hence smaller reserves. The process of estimating oil and gas reserve quantities is inherently imprecise. Ascribing monetary values to tho se reserves, therefore, yields imprecise estimated data at best. |
|
Our estimated future net recoverable oil and gas reserves from proved developed properties as of December 31, 2004, December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 were as follows: |
ITEM 7 Management's Discussion And Analysis Of Financial Condition |
|
Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements |
|
This report contains forward-looking statements. The words, "anticipate," "believe," "expect," "plan," "intend," "estimate," "project," "could," "may," "foresee," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking |
|
7 |
|
statements. These statements include information regarding expected development of the Company's business, lending activities, relationship with customers, and development in the oil and gas industry. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially and adversely from those anticipated, believed, estimated or otherwise indicated. |
|
Overview |
|
Production from TVOG's existing reserves continues to decline, while demand increases. While the trend for demand to outstrip available supplies is worldwide as well as national, we believe that it is particularly acute in California, our primary venue for exploration and production, which imports nearly 60% of its oil and nearly 90% of its natural gas demand. Oil prices tend to be set based on worldwide supplies and prices, while natural gas prices seem to be more dependent on local conditions. We expect that gas prices will hold steady or possibly increase over this year. If, however, prices should fall, for instance due to new regulatory measures or the discovery of new and easily producible reserves, our revenue from oil and gas sales would also fall. |
|
In 2002 the Company created a limited partnership called the OPUS-I. The purpose of this partnership is to raise one hundred million dollars by selling partnership interests. With the funds raised we will drill up to twenty-six exploratory wells, mostly in California, of which three are targeted for Nevada. We begin drilling for the OPUS I partnership as sufficient funds are invested to drill the next target. For the year ended December 31, 2004, we have raised $9,173,550 and spent $6,861,245 on evaluating previously drilled wells on the Oil Creek, Oil Lake and Elk Ridge prospects. We have determined to abandon these wells. Additionally, in 2004 we drilled one well on the Los Gatos prospect which was a dry hole and was abandoned. |
|
Tri-Valley continues grading and prioritizing our geologic library, which contains over 700 California leads and prospects, for exploratory drilling. We use our library to decide where we should seek oil and gas leases for future exploration. From this library we were able to put together many of the prospects currently in OPUS-I. Of course, we cannot be sure that any future prospect can be obtained at an attractive lease price or that any exploration efforts would result in a commercially successful well. |
|
Tri-Valley seeks to fund and drill enough exploratory wells for commercial discoveries to make up for the cost of the inevitable dry holes that we can expect in the exploration business. The Company believes our existing inventory of projects bears a high enough ratio of potentially successful to unsuccessful projects to deliver value to our drilling partners and our shareholders from successful wells, in excess of the total costs of all successful and unsuccessful projects. Our future results will depend on our success in finding new reserves and commercial production, and there can be no assurance what revenue we can ultimately expect from any new discoveries. Tri-Valley Corporation does not engage in hedging activities and does not use commodity futures or forward contracts for cash management functions. |
|
Restatements |
|
Management discovered in 2005 that the stocks issued to the board of directors were inadvertently over-priced at the end of 2004 for total of $105,000. As the result the Company restated its 2004 financial statement to correct this error. |
|
During 2004, the Company documented and tested its system of internal controls in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404. From this activity, management determined its historic accounting procedures, surrounding revenue and cost recognition for its sales and performance surrounding turnkey drilling, were no longer appropriate and required an adjustment for fiscal year 2003 and the first two quarters for fiscal 2004. Management therefore reported that its financial statements for the year 2003, and for the first and second quarters of 2004 should no longer be relied upon because of these pending restatements. The restatements decreased net income approximately $704,000 for the year ended December 31, 2003, increased net income by approximately $799,000 for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 and approximately $1,240,000 for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The restatements for the December 31, 2003, 10-K and the quarter ended March 31, 2004 result from a change in revenue recognition policy. The restatement for the second quarter ended June 30, 2004 was due to the discovery of an expense that had been double charged and has now been corrected. Management determined these mismatching and accounting errors, which resulted in the restatements, were caused by a significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting. In the third quarter of 2004, management implemented procedures to prevent this in the future,See Item 9A, Controls and Procedures. |
|
8 |
|
|
The Company receives monies from third parties who participate in drilling oil and gas wells and records this as revenue. Previously we recognized revenue and associated costs when the well was begun, as long as drilling was completed by close of books based on accrual accounting. At the end of fiscal 2003, we began drilling a turnkey well, which was taken to total depth by January 8, 2004. Although we had collected all payment for the drilling by December 31, 2003, we had not completely performed the turnkey contract to total depth until after December 31, 2003. Because the collected turnkey revenue was essentially nonrefundable, we had recorded the entire turnkey revenue and its associated drilling costs before the close of books based on accrual accounting rather than the date certain of the close of the fiscal year on December 31. Upon review of this practice, to remove all doubt, we now believe turnkey revenue and associated costs should be recorded when the well is drilled to total targ et depth and/or logged. We have changed our revenue recognition policy to recognize these payments as revenue only when drilling is actually completed and the well has been logged within the actual dates of the fiscal/calendar year. This change caused reported drilling revenue and related costs in 2003 to decrease and reported revenue and related costs in 2004 to increase. Additionally, reported revenue for the June 30, 2004 quarter increased approximately $441,000 due to a double entry of an expense. During management's review of internal controls the double entry was discovered and the adjustment resulted in the increase in fiscal 2004 earnings. |
|
The anticipated changes discussed above do not affect the Company's ongoing cash flows. |
|
Critical Accounting Policies |
|
The Company prepares its consolidated financial statements for inclusion in this Report in accordance with accounting principles that are generally accepted in the United States ("GAAP"). See Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in "Item 8. Financial Statements" for a comprehensive discussion of the Company's significant accounting policies. GAAP represents a comprehensive set of accounting and disclosure rules and requirements, the application of which requires management to make judgments and estimates including, in certain circumstances, choices between acceptable GAAP alternatives. |
|
Critical accounting policies are those that may have a material impact on our financial statements and also require management to exercise significant judgment due to a high degree of uncertainty at the time the estimate is made. Our senior management has discussed the development and selection of our accounting policies, related accounting estimates and disclosures with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors. We believe our critical accounting policies include those addressing the recoverability and useful lives of assets, oil and gas estimates and income taxes and application of these accounting policies on a consistent basis enables us to provide timely and reliable financial information about our earnings results, financial condition and cash flows. |
|
Goodwill and Intangible Assets |
|
Deferred tax asset valuation allowances. From 1995 to 2004, the Company has maintained a valuation allowance against a portion of its deferred tax assets. SFAS 109 requires that the Company continually assess both positive and negative evidence to determine whether it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets can be realized prior to their expiration. As of December 31, 2004, the Company has concluded that it is more likely than not that it will realize its gross deferred tax asset position after giving consideration to relevant facts and circumstances. |
|
Tri-Valley will continue to monitor company-specific, oil and gas industry economic factors and will reassess the likelihood that the Company's net operating loss and statutory depletion carryforwards will be utilized prior to their expiration. |
|
Environmental contingencies. The Company makes judgments and estimates in recording liabilities for ongoing litigation and environmental remediation. Actual costs can vary from such estimates for a variety of reasons. Environmental remediation liabilities are subject to change because of changes in laws, regulations, additional information obtained relating to the extent and nature of site contamination and improvements in technology. Under GAAP, a liability is recorded for these types of contingencies if the Company determines the loss to be both probable and reasonably estimated. See Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in "Item 8. Financial Statements" for additional information regarding the Company's commitments and contingencies. |
|
9 |
|
The Company has adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" (SFAS 142). Under SFAS 142, goodwill is a non-amortizable asset, and is subject to a periodic review for impairment. The carrying amount of goodwill is evaluated periodically. |
|
The following is a discussion of the Company's most critical accounting estimates, judgments and uncertainties that are inherent in the Company's application of GAAP: |
|
Accounting for Oil and Gas Producing Activities |
|
The accounting for and disclosure of oil and gas producing activities requires the Company's management to choose between GAAP alternatives and to make judgments about estimates of future uncertainties. |
|
Successful efforts method of accounting: The Company utilizes the successful efforts method of accounting for oil and gas activities as opposed to the alternate acceptable full cost method. In general, the Company believes that, during periods of active exploration, net assets and net income are more conservatively measured under the successful efforts method of accounting for oil and gas producing activities than under the full cost method. The critical difference between the successful efforts method of accounting and the full cost method of accounting is as follows: Under the successful efforts method, exploratory dry holes and geological and geophysical exploration costs are charged against earnings during the periods in which they occur; whereas, under the full cost method of accounting, such costs and expenses are capitalized as assets, pooled with the costs of successful wells and charged against the earnings of future periods as a component of depletion expense. During the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, the Company recognized exploration, abandonment, geological and geophysical expense of $1,029,898, $366,039, and $169,111, respectively, under the successful efforts method. |
|
Proved reserve estimates. Estimates of the Company's proved reserves included in this Report are prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC guidelines. The accuracy of a reserve report estimate is a function of: |
|
The Company's proved reserve information included in this Report as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 was based on evaluations audited by independent petroleum engineers with respect to the Company's major properties. Estimates prepared by other third parties may be higher or lower than those included herein. |
|
Because these estimates depend on many assumptions, all of which may substantially differ from future actual results, reserve estimates will be different from the quantities of oil and gas that are ultimately recovered. In addition, results of drilling, testing and production after the date of an estimate may justify material revisions to the estimate. |
|
It should not be assumed that the present value of future net cash flows included in this Report as of December 31, 2004 is the current market value of the Company's estimated proved reserves. In accordance with SEC requirements, the Company has based the estimated present value of future net cash flows from proved reserves on prices and costs on the date of the estimate. Actual future prices and cost may be materially higher or lower than the prices and costs as of the date of the estimate. |
|
The Company's estimates of proved reserves materially impact depletion expense. If the estimates of proved reserves decline, the rate at which the Company records depletion expense will increase, reducing future net income. Such a decline may result from lower market prices, which may market uneconomic to drill for and produce higher cost fields. In addition, a decline in proved reserve estimates may impact the outcome of the Company's assessment of its oil and gas producing properties for impairment. |
|
Impairment of proved oil and gas properties: The Company reviews its long-lived proved properties to be held and used whenever management determines that events or circumstances indicate that the recorded carrying value of the properties may not be recoverable. Management assesses whether or not an impairment provision is necessary based |
|
10 |
|
upon its outlook of future commodity prices and net cash flows that may be generated by the properties. Proved oil and gas properties are reviewed for impairment by depletable field pool, which is the lowest level at which depletion of proved properties are calculated. |
|
Impairment of unproved oil and gas properties: Management periodically assesses individually significant unproved oil and gas properties for impairment, on a project-by-project basis. Management's assessment of the results of exploration activities, commodity price outlooks, planned future sales or expiration of all or a portion of such projects impact the amount and timing of impairments. |
|
Asset Retirement Obligations: The Company has adopted SFAS No. 143, "Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations" effective January 1, 2003. Under this guidance, management is required to make judgments based on historical experience and future expectations regarding the future abandonment cost of its oil and gas properties and equipment as well as an estimate of the discount rate to be used in order to bring the estimated future cost to a present value. The discount rate is based on the risk free interest rate which is adjusted for the credit worthiness of the Company. The adjusted risk free rate is then applied to the estimated abandonment costs to arrive at the obligation existing at the end of the period under review. The Company reviews its estimate of the future obligation quarterly and accrues the estimated obligation based on the above. |
|
Petroleum Activities |
|
The Company generally sells a percentage of production at the monthly spot price. In times when we expect the price of gas to weaken, we try to increase the amount we sell under fixed prices. When we expect the price of gas to rise, we seek to sell more gas in the spot market. In 2004, 2003 and 2002, we sold our gas 100% on the spot market. Because we expect gas prices to rise, we intend to sell 100% of our production on the spot market in 2005. Thus, a drop in the price of gas in 2005 could possibly have a more adverse impact on us than if we entered into some fixed price contracts for sale of future production. |
|
Our proved hydrocarbon reserves were valued using a standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows of $1,958,238 at December 31, 2004, compared to $2,270,632 on December 31, 2003, after taking into account a 10% discount rate and also taking into consideration the effect of income tax. This reduction was due primarily to the fluctuations in gas prices and production rates. Estimates such as these are subject to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation of quantities of proved reserves. Because of unpredictable variances in expenses and capital forecasts, crude oil and natural gas price changes, largely influenced and controlled by U.S. and foreign government actions, and the fact that the basis for such estimates vary significantly, management believes the usefulness of these projections is limited. Estimates of future net cash flows presented do not represent management's assessment of future profitability or future cash flows to the Company. This val ue does not appear on the balance sheet because accounting rules require discovered reserves to be carried on the balance sheet at the cost of obtaining them rather than the actual future net revenue from producing them. Tri-Valley typically has no discovery cost to put on the balance sheet as explained below. |
|
Tri-Valley sold working interests in its test wells on prospects to the Opus-1 drilling partnership. The sales price of the interest is intended to pay for all drilling and testing costs on the property. Tri-Valley retains a minority "carried" ownership interest in the well and does not pay its proportionate share of drilling and testing costs for the first well drilled on each prospect. However, the Company does pay its proportionate cost of any subsequent well drilled on each prospect. Under these arrangements, we usually minimize the Company's cost to drill and also receive a minority interest from the reserves we discover. On the other hand, we occasionally incur extra expenses for drilling or development that we choose, in our discretion, not to pass on to other venture participants. |
|
In 2003 we drilled the Oil Creek, Oil Lake and Elk Ridge Prospects. After thorough review it was determined the prospects would not be commercially successful and will be abandoned. In 2004 we drilled the Los Gatos prospect which was a dry hole and was abandoned. |
|
We are fracing the deep Ekho well in the first quarter of 2005 and are preparing to redrill a horizontal test of the Sunrise-Mayel #2. |
|
|
11 |
|
Mining Activity |
|
The price of gold has fluctuated between $374 and $438 per ounce rekindling interest of investors to support junior exploration ventures. Accordingly, management implemented its plan to establish a wholly owned subsidiary to handle all mining business for eventual spin off to Tri-Valley shareholders. |
|
The Company began the buyout of royalty and carried working interest burdens on its Richardson, Alaska gold exploration project in order to transfer a clean property into the new Delaware corporation, Select Resources Corporation. Tri-Valley Corporation expects to record substantial non cash losses as a result of issuing stock for these interests which are non producing at this time and cannot be booked as assets equal to the value of the stock paid. The Company believes the ultimate return it can realize on the property unburdened by royalty and carried interests will handily exceed the upfront costs of the buyout. |
|
Select Resources Corporation is initially staffed by F. Lynn Blystone, Chairman and CEO, Dr. Harold J. Noyes, President, Dr. Henry J. "Rick" Sandri, Executive Vice President, Thomas J. Cunningham, Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Odin Christensen, consulting geologist and technical team leader, Dr. Craig Beagle, consulting geophysicist, Dr. Jeffrey Jaecks, consulting geochemist and Sandra Perry, consulting remote sensing specialist. |
|
In December 2004, Select Resources acquired another gold/copper property in Alaska, the 5,000 acre Shorty Creek Prospect near Livengood some 70 miles north of Fairbanks on the Dalton Highway pipeline haul road. Select has recently completed staking another 5,300 acres of claims adjoining and speculated to be on trend with mapped mineralization of the initial claim block acquisition. There are no proven reserves at this time. Select plans extensive prospecting on Shorty Creek and drilling on one or more targets on Richardson in this 2005 season. Tri-Valley advanced to Select $500,000 for geological and geophysical mapping and drilling. |
|
|
Select's most ambitious initial effort has been the establishment and operation of the Alpha Minerals and Chemicals LLC joint venture to mine, process and sell high chemical grade-high whitener calcium carbonate from the Monarch Mine in eastern Kern County, California. Select is in the process of refining a business plan and establishing operations in 2005. Select is the operator of the 50-50 joint venture with Trans Western Materials, a privately held Nevada LLC that owns the mineral leases. Select's business objective is to establish a positive cash flow to help support its exploration activities. Select's parent, Tri-Valley Corporation has committed $2.5 million to establish the joint venture with Trans Western Materials contributing its leases and business relationships. |
|
Results of Operations |
|
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 |
|
Revenue |
|
The Company lost $1,171,005 in 2004 comparable to a profit of $456,109 in 2005. Total revenue was $1,965,575 lower this fiscal year compared to fiscal year end 2003. Revenue from oil and gas sales was $102,265 lower for the year ended 2004 compared to year ending 2003 due to decrease production due to wells being shut in for workovers. Interest income was $11,511 more for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to year end 2003 due to more cash on hand during the year earning interest. Sales of oil and gas prospects is $1,881,280 less this period compared to the same period last year. This is due primarily to a shortage of drilling equipment to drill our prospects. |
|
Costs and Expenses |
|
Costs and expenses were $299,461 less for the year ended December 31, 2004 compared to year end 2003. Mining expenses were $663,859 more for the period ended December 31, 2004 than for the same period in 2003, due to the Company buying back royalty interests in our Alaska prospect. Prepaid expenses increased $84,027 in 2004 due to prepaid rents and legal fees. Oil and gas lease activity was $144,101 for year-end 2004 and $183,362 for December 31, 2003. We did not acquire as many leases this year as the previous year. Costs of oil and gas prospects sold were $1,790,096 less this year than in 2003. Fewer prospects we sold this year had higher acquisition costs associated with |
|
12 |
|
them than prospects sold in 2003. General and administrative costs were higher this year than last year due in large part to increased travel costs, insurance premiums and fees to consulting geologists. |
|
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 |
|
Revenues |
|
Oil and gas income was $148,768 more in 2003 than in 2002 due to increased gas prices in 2003. Partnership income was $11,701 more in 2003 compared to 2002 because of increased gas prices in 2003. Sale of oil and gas prospects was $5,440,780 for the year ended December 2003 compared to $5,421,782 for the same period in 2002 due to increased prospect sales in 2003. Other income was $56,718 for the year ended December 31, 2003 compared to $71,971 for the year ended 2002. |
|
Costs and Expenses |
|
Mining costs were $196,928 more in 2003 due to no exploration activity on our claim block in 2002. Oil and gas lease costs were $40,958 lower in 2003 than 2002 due to decreased lease operating activity. Cost of oil and gas prospects sold were $366,800 higher for the period ending December 31, 2003 compared to the same period last year cost of prospect sold varies directly in proportion to the cost of prospect sales. Depreciation, depletion and amortization expenses are $5,168 less in 2003 due to Statements of Financial Accounting Standards 142 that no longer allows annual amortization. Therefore, no amortization was taken in 2003. These assets will now be tested for impairment periodically. If required we would then take an impairment charge. |
|
Financial Condition |
|
Balance Sheet |
|
At December 31, 2004 we had $11,812,920 in cash compared to $6,006,975 for December 31, 2003. This represents, for the most part, cash invested by the OPUS I partners for the drilling of oil and gas wells in that limited partnership. Property and equipment is $235,087 more for the current period compared to last year because of increased leasehold interest acquired. Deposits decreased $171,698 in 2004 compared to 2003 due to the settlement of a lawsuit and the payment of the award, which was secured by a bond. |
|
Shareholder equity increased from $1,851,783 in 2003 to $6,796,903 for 2004. This increase was due mainly from increase in capital in excess of par value, related to sales of our common stock in private transactions. |
|
Commitments |
|
Generally, our financial commitments arise from selling interests in our drilling prospects to third parties, which results in an obligation to drill and develop the prospect. If we are unable to sell sufficient interests in a prospect to fund its drilling and development, we must either amend our agreements to drill the prospect, locate a substitute prospect acceptable to the participants or refund the participants' funds. |
|
The Company sponsored OPUS I, a private placement drilling program intended to raise up to one hundred million dollars to drill and complete 26 prospects. We turnkey the drilling portion and the completion portion is based on costs incurred. In a turnkey program we guarantee to drill a well(s) for a certain amount. If the drilling amount is greater than the turnkey costs the Company would lose money on that well, if the cost is less than the turnkey costs the Company would make a profit on that well. |
|
Delay rentals for oil and gas leases amounted to $159,188 in 2004. Advance royalty payments and gold mining claims maintenance fees were $205,555 for the same period. We expect that approximately equal delay rentals and fees will be paid in 2005 from operating revenues. |
|
Operating Activities |
|
Net cash provided by operating activities was $1,023,187 for the year-end December 31, 2004, compared to $3,548,941 |
|
13 |
|
for the same period in 2003. This was primarily because we had a decrease in advances from joint venture partners. Net loss was $(1,276,005) in 2004 compared to $456,108 for 2003. |
|
Investing Activities |
|
Cash used by investing activities in 2004 was $519,181 compared to cash provided of $402,164 for the same period in 2003. In 2004, this was from the sale of oil and gas prospects to the OPUS I drilling partnership and the reduction of capital expenditures due to increased lease acquisitions and a loan to a wholly owned subsidiary. |
|
Financing Activities |
|
Cash provided by financing activities was $5,301,939 for the period ending December 31, 2004 compared to $119,576 for the same period in 2003. This was due to proceeds from sale of common stock in private transactions and the exercise of stock options by directors. |
|
Liquidity |
|
The recoverability of the our oil and gas reserves depends on future events, including obtaining adequate financing for our exploration and development program, successfully completing our planned drilling program, and achieving a level of operating revenues that is sufficient to support our cost structure. At various times in our history, it has been necessary for us to raise additional capital through private placements of equity financing. When such a need has arisen, we have met it successfully. It is management's belief that we will continue to be able to meet our needs for additional capital as such needs arise in the future. We may need additional capital to pay for our share of costs relating to the drilling prospects and development of those that are successful, and to acquire additional oil and gas leases. The total amount of our capital needs will be determined in part by the number of prospects generated within our exploration program and by the working interest that we retain in those prospects. |
|
Should we choose to make an acquisition of producing oil and gas properties, such an acquisition would likely require that some portion of the purchase price be paid in cash, and thus would create the need for additional capital. Additional capital could be obtained from a combination of funding sources. The potential funding sources include: |
| For the Years Ended December 31, |
| 2004 | 2003 | 2002 |
| (restated) | (restated) | |
| | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES | | | |
Net income (loss) | $ (1,171,005) | $ 456,108 | $ 769,130 |
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash | | | |
provided (used) by operating activities: | | | |
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization | 21,699 | 29,216 | 34,384 |
Impairment, dry hole and other disposals of property | 112,395 | - | 45,143 |
Land acquisition costs sold | - | - | 122,315 |
(Gain) on sale of property | | - | - |
Non-employee stock compensation | 804,180 | - | 119,700 |
Impairment, dry hole and other disposals of property | | | |
and equipment | | - | - |
Changes in operating capital: | | | |
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable | (28,183) | (12,207) | (44,393) |
Increase in prepaids | | - | - |
Increase in deposits and other assets | 87,671 | (55,400) | (212,000) |
Increase (decrease) in income taxes payable | (39,000) | (37,000) | 76,000 |
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued expenses | 552,064 | 121,544 | 267,239 |
Increase (decrease) in amounts payable to joint venture | | | |
participants and related parties | 8,840 | 16,863 | 14,781 |
Increase (decrease) in advances from joint venture | | | |
Participants | 674,526 | 3,029,817 | (37,380) |
| | | |
Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities | 1,023,187 | 3,548,941 | 1,154,919 |
| | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES | | | |
Proceeds from sale of property | - | 402,164 | - |
Capital expenditures | (369,181) | - | (184,185) |
(Investment in) advance to joint project | (150,000) | - | - |
(Investment in) distribution from partnerships | - | - | 10,000 |
| | | |
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Investing Activities | (519,181) | 402,164 | (174,185) |
| | | |
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES | | | |
Proceeds from long-term debt | - | - | 29,686 |
Principal payments on long-term debt | (10,006) | (13,792) | (5,739) |
Net Proceeds from issuance of common stock | 5,310,224 | 133,368 | 19,700 |
| | | |
Sale of treasury stock | - | - | - |
Stock issuance costs | - | - | - |
| | | |
Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities | 5,301,939 | 119,576 | 43,647 |
| | | |
The restatements to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003 are due to:
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES |
|
This summary of significant accounting policies of Tri-Valley Corporation is presented to assist in understanding the Company's financial statements. The financial statements and notes are representations of the Company's management, which is responsible for their integrity and objectivity. These accounting policies conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and have been consistently applied in the preparation of the financial statements. |
|
Principles of Consolidation |
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co. and Selected Resources. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. |
|
Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements |
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and disclosures at the date of the financial statements as well as the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. |
|
Material estimates that are particularly susceptible to significant change relate to the estimate of Company oil and gas reserves prepared by an independent engineering consultant. Such estimates are subject to numerous uncertainties inherent in the estimation of quantities of proved reserves. |
|
Estimated reserves are used in the calculation of depletion, depreciation and amortization as well as the Company's assessment of proved oil and gas properties for impairment. |
|
Cash Equivalent and Short-Term Investments |
Cash equivalents include cash on hand and on deposit, and highly liquid debt instruments with original maturities of three months or less. The majority of these funds are held at Smith Barney. |
|
Goodwill |
The consolidated financial statements include the net assets purchased of Tri-Valley Corporation's wholly owned oil and gas subsidiary, TVOG. Net assets are carried at their fair market value at the acquisition date. On January 1, 2002, Tri-Valley Corporation adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" (SFAS 142). Under SFAS 142, goodwill is a non-amortizable asset, and is subject to a periodic review for impairment. Prior to the implementation of SFAS 142, the Company had goodwill of $433,853 that was being amortized. The carrying amount of goodwill is evaluated periodically. Factors used in the evaluation include the Company's ability to raise capital as a public company and anticipated cash flows from operating and non-operating mineral properties. |
|
25 |
|
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and 2002 |
|
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) |
|
Advances from Joint Venture Participants |
Advances received by the Company from joint venture partners for contract drilling projects, which are to be spent by the Company on behalf of the joint venture partners, are classified within operating inflows on the basis they do not meet the definition of financing or investing activities. When the cash advances are spent, the payable is reduced accordingly. These advances do not contribute to the Company's operating profits and are accounted or/disclosed as balance sheet entries only i.e. within cash and payable to joint venture participants. |
|
Revenue Recognition |
|
Sale of Oil and Gas |
Crude oil and natural gas revenues are recognized as production occurs, the title and risk of loss transfers to a third party purchaser, net of royalties, discounts, and allowances, as applicable. |
|
Sale of Oil and Gas Prospects |
Oil and gas prospects are developed by the Company for sale to industry partners and investors. These prospects are usually exploratory, and include costs of leasing, acquisition, and other geological and geophysical costs (hereafter referred to as "GGLA") plus a profit to the Company. Prior to 2002, the Company recognized revenue and profit from prospects sales when sold, irrespective of drilling commencement ("spudding"). |
|
Starting 2002 the Company changed its prospect offerings by inclusion of estimated costs of drilling in addition to GGLA costs. This offering is termed a "turnkey" exploratory drilling opportunity because investors are charged only one certain amount in return for Tri-Valley drilling a well to the agreed total depth. |
|
Once the well is spudded, investor money is not refundable. Tri-Valley recognizes revenue when the well is logged. Amounts charged are included in an Authority for Expenditure (AFE), which is a budget for each project well. Tri-Valley prepares the AFE and bears all risk of well completion to total depth. If the well is drilled to total depth for actual costs less than the AFE amounts, the Company realizes a profit. Conversely, if actual costs exceed the AFE, Tri-Valley realizes a loss. |
|
Drilling Agreements/Joint Ventures |
Tri-Valley frequently participates in drilling agreements whereby it acts as operator of drilling and producing activities. As operator, TVOG is liable for the activities of these ventures. In the initial well in a prospect, the Company owns a carried interest and/or overriding royalty interest in such ventures, earning a working interest upon commencement of drilling. Costs of subsequent wells drilled in a prospect are shared by a pro rata interest. |
|
Receivables from and amounts payable to these related parties (as well as other related parties) have been segregated in the accompanying financial statements. For turnkey projects, amounts received for drilling activities, which have not been spudded are deferred and remain within the joint venture liability, in accordance with the Company's revenue recognition policies. Revenue is recognized upon the completion of drilling operations and the well is logged. Actual or estimated costs to complete the drilling are charged as costs against this revenue. |
|
Oil and Gas Property and Equipment (Successful Efforts) |
The Company accounts for its oil and gas exploration and development costs using the Successful Efforts Method. Under this method, costs to acquire mineral interests in oil and gas properties, to drill and complete exploratory wells that find proved reserves and to drill and complete development wells are capitalized. Exploratory dry-hole costs, geological and geophysical costs and costs of carrying and retaining unproved |
|
26 |
|
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and 2002 |
|
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) |
|
Oil and Gas Property and Equipment (Successful Efforts, continued) |
properties are expensed when incurred, except those GGLA expenditures incurred on behalf of joint venture drilling projects, which the Company defers until the GGLA is sold at the completion of project funding and the target prospect is drilled. Expenditures incurred in drilling exploratory wells are accumulated as work in process until the Company determines whether the well has encountered commercial oil and gas reserves. |
|
If the well has encountered commercial reserves, the accumulated cost is transferred to oil and gas properties; otherwise, the accumulated cost, net of salvage value, is charged to dry hole expense. If the well has encountered commercial reserves but cannot be classified as proved within one year after discovery, then the well is considered to be impaired, and the capitalized costs (net of any salvage value) of drilling the well are charged to expense. In 2004, 2003, and 2002 there was $112,395, $0, and $45,143 respectively, charged to expense for impairment of exploratory well costs. Depletion, depreciation and amortization of oil and gas producing properties are computed on an aggregate basis using the units-of-production method based upon estimated proved developed reserves. |
|
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the Company carried unproved property costs of $1.381 million and $1.252 million, respectively. Generally accepted accounting principles require periodic evaluation of these costs on a project-by-project basis in comparison to their estimated value. These evaluations will be affected by the results of exploration activities, commodity price outlooks, planned future sales or expiration of all or a portion of the leases, contracts and permits appurtenant to such projects. If the quantity of potential reserves determined by such evaluations is not sufficient to fully recover the cost invested in each project, the Company will recognize non cash charges in the earnings of future periods. |
|
Capitalized costs relating to proved properties are depleted using the unit-of-production method based on proved reserves. Costs of significant non-producing properties, wells in the process of being drilled and development projects are excluded from depletion until such time as the related project is completed and proved reserves are established or, if unsuccessful, impairment is determined. |
|
Upon the sale of oil and gas reserves in place, costs less accumulated amortization of such property are removed from the accounts and resulting gain or loss on sale is reflected in operations. Impairment of non-producing leasehold costs and undeveloped mineral and royalty interests are assessed periodically on a property-by-property basis, and any impairment in value is currently charged to expense. |
|
In addition, we assess the capitalized costs of unproved properties periodically to determine whether their value has been impaired below the capitalized costs. We recognize a loss to the extent that such impairment is indicated. In making these assessments, we consider factors such as exploratory drilling results, future drilling plans, and lease expiration terms. When an entire interest in an unproved property is sold, gain or loss is recognized, taking into consideration any recorded impairment. When a partial interest in an unproved property is sold, the amount is treated as a reduction of the cost of the interest retained, with excess revenue and carrying costs being recognized. Upon abandonment of properties, the reserves are deemed fully depleted and any unamortized costs are recorded in the statement of operations under leases sold, relinquished and impaired. |
|
Gold Mineral Property |
The Company has invested in several gold mineral properties with exploration potential. All mineral claim acquisition costs and exploration and development expenditures are charged to expense as incurred. We capitalize acquisition and exploration costs only after persuasive engineering evidence is obtained to support recoverability of these costs (ideally upon determination of proven and/or probable reserves based upon dense drilling samples and feasibility studies by a recognized independent engineer). Currently no amounts have been capitalized. |
|
27 |
|
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and 2002 |
|
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) |
|
Other Properties and Equipment |
Properties and equipment are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: |
|
Reclassification |
Certain amounts in the financial statements have been reclassified to be consistent and comparable from year-to-year. |
|
Treasury Stock |
The Company records acquisition of its capital stock for treasury at cost. Differences between proceeds for reissuance of treasury stock and average cost are charged to retained earnings or credited thereto to the extent of prior charges and thereafter to capital in excess of par value. |
|
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements |
In April 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 145, "Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44 and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13 and Technical Corrections". SFAS 145, which is effective for fiscal years beginning after May 15, 2002, provides guidance for income statement classification of gains and losses on extinguishment of debt and accounting for certain lease modifications that have economic effects that are similar to sale-leaseback transactions. The adoption of this statement did not impact the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|
In June 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, "Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities." SFAS 146 nullifies the guidance of the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 94-3, "Liability Recognition for Certain Employee Termination Benefits and Other Costs to Exit an Activity (including Certain Costs Incurred in a Restructuring)." SFAS 146 requires that a liability for a cost that is associated with an exit or disposal activity be recognized when the liability is incurred. SFAS 146 also establishes that fair value is the objective for the initial measurement of the liability. The provisions of SFAS 146 are required for exit or disposal activities that are initiated after December 31, 2003. The adoption of this statement did not impact the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|
In December 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure." SFAS 148 amends FASB Statement No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, this Statement amends the disclosure requirements of Statement 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on the reported |
|
29 |
|
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and 2002 |
|
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) |
|
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements (continued) |
results. The provisions of SFAS 148 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. The adoption of this statement did not impact the Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. |
|
During January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued interpretation No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities" ("FIN46"), which requires the consolidation of certain entities that are determined to be variable interest entities ("VIE's"). An entity is considered to be a VIE when either (i) the entity lacks sufficient equity to carry on its principal operations, (ii) the equity owners of the entity cannot make decisions about the entity's activities or (iii) the entity's equity neither absorbs losses or benefits from gains. |
|
In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, "Inventory Costs". SFAS No. 151 amends the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted material (spoilage) under the guidance in ARB No. 43, Chapter 4,"Inventory Pricing". Paragraph 5 of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, previously stated that ". . . under some circumstances, items such as idle facility expense, excessive spoilage, double freight, and rehandling costs may be so abnormal as to require treatment as current period charges. . . ." This Statement requires that those items be recognized as current-period charges regardless of whether they meet the criterion of "so abnormal." In addition, this Statement requires that allocation of fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. This statement is effective for inventory costs incurred during fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. Management does not expect adop tion of SFAS No. 151 to have a material impact on the Company's financial statements. |
|
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 152, "Accounting for Real Estate Time-Sharing Transactions". The FASB issued this Statement as a result of the guidance provided in AICPA Statement of Position (SOP) 04-2,"Accounting for Real Estate Time-Sharing Transactions". SOP 04-2 applies to all real estate time-sharing transactions. Among other items, the SOP provides guidance on the recording of credit losses and the treatment of selling costs, but does not change the revenue recognition guidance in SFAS No. 66, "Accounting for Sales of Real Estate", for real estate time-sharing transactions. SFAS No. 152 amends Statement No. 66 to reference the guidance provided in SOP 04-2. SFAS No. 152 also amends SFAS No. 67, "Accounting for Costs and Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Projects", to state that SOP 04-2 provides the relevant guidance on accounting for incidental operations and costs related to the sale of real estate time-sharing transactions. SFAS No. 152 is effective for years beginning after June 15, 2005, with restatements of previously issued financial statements prohibited. This statement is not applicable to the Company. |
|
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, "Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets," an amendment to Opinion No. 29, "Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions". Statement No. 153 eliminates certain differences in the guidance in Opinion No. 29 as compared to the guidance contained in standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. The amendment to Opinion No. 29 eliminates the fair value exception for nonmonetary exchanges of similar productive assets and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges of nonmonetary assets that do not have commercial substance. Such an exchange has commercial substance if the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change significantly as a result of the exchange. SFAS No. 153 is effective for nonmonetary asset exchanges occurring in periods beginning after June 15, 2005. Earlier application is permitted for nonmonetary asset exchanges occuring in periods beginning after December 16, 2004. Management does not expect adoption of SFAS No. 153 to have a material impact on the Company's financial statements. |
|
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R), "Share-Based Payment" which amends SFAS No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation", and APB Opinion 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." SFAS No.123(R) requires that the cost of share-based payment transactions (including those with |
|
30 |
|
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION |
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and 2002 |
|
NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) |
|
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements (Continued) |
employees and non-employees) be recognized in the financial statements. SFAS No. 123(R) applies to all share-based payment transactions in which an entity acquires goods or services by issuing (or offering to issue) its shares, share options, or other equity instruments (except for those held by an ESOP) or by incurring liabilities (1) in amounts based (even in part) on the price of the entity's shares or other equity instruments, or (2) that require (or may require) settlement by the issuance of an entity's shares or other equity instruments. This statement is effective (1) for public companies qualifying as SEC small business issuers, as of the first interim period or fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2005, or (2) for all other public companies, as of the first interim period or fiscal year beginning after June 15, 2005, or (3) for all nonpublic entities, as of the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2005. Management is currently assessing the effect of SFA S No. 123(R) on the Company's financial statement. |
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 |
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires public Companies to report on both internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Internal control over financial reporting refers to: |
|
(a) controls to ensure that a Company's information systems record financial information that allows the Company to issue fair and accurate financial statements; |
(b) controls that ensure against unauthorized receipts and expenditures; and |
(c) controls to prevent and detect unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the assets. |
|
Disclosure controls and procedures refer to controls that ensure that all information that must be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission is received by management on a timely basis. |
|
The effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting must be assessed by management, and reported on in the Company's annual report filed with the SEC. The Company expects to provide this assessment separately in an amendment to their report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. The Company's independent auditors must attest to management's assessment of internal control over financial reporting, and must issue their report, stating whether they agree with management's assessment. In addition, the Company is required to report any changes in their internal control over financial reporting in their annual reports and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. |
|
|
NOTE 4 - PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT |
|
Oil and gas properties, and equipment and fixtures consist of the following: |
|
A material weakness in internal controls is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by the Company. |
|
Management will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of Tri Valley Corporation's disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting on an ongoing basis and will take further action and implement improvements as necessary. |
|
48 |
|
Management's assessment of the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 has been audited by Brown Armstrong Paulden McCown Starbuck & Keeter Accountancy Corporation, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report, which is included herein. |
|
There has been no change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the fourth fiscal quarter of 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting. |
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
To the Board of Directors and |
Stockholders of Tri-Valley Corporation |
Bakersfield, CA |
|
|
We have audited management's assessment, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, that Tri-Valley Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, because of the material weaknesses identified in management's assessment based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organization of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Tri-Valley Corporation's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. |
|
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management's assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. |
|
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, o r disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. |
|
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. |
|
A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The following material weaknesses have been identified and included in management's assessment. Insufficient personnel with appropriate qualifications and training in key accounting roles, and ineffective |
|
49 |
|
assignment of authority and responsibility resulting from the limited accounting personnel; no consistent risk assessment process; inadequate controls to monitor the results of operations and other control activities; inconsistent or inadequate policies and procedures which affect the information and communication controls throughout the company; incompatibility of duties surrounding financial reporting and control activities; controls over the period-end financial reporting process including the procedures used for calculating significant estimates, performing consolidation entries, and considering the ;possibility of unrecorded transactions and disclosures; and a material financial statement error which resulted in a restatement of previously issued financial statements These material weaknesses were considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 2004 financial s tatements, and this report does not affect our report dated March 29, 2005 on those financial statements. |
|
In our opinion, management's assessment that Tri-Valley Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Also, in our opinion, because of the effect of the material weaknesses described above on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria, Tri-Valley Corporation has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). |
|
Exhibit | | |
Number | | Description of Exhibit |
| | |
3.1 | | Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, incorporated by reference to Exhibit A of the Company's 2000 Proxy Statement and Definitive Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on July 26, 2000. |
3.2 | | Amended and Restated Bylaws, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.3 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the SEC on March 24, 2000. |
4.1 | | Rights Agreement, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the SEC on March 24, 2000. |
10.1 | | Employment Agreement with F. Lynn Blystone, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 of the Company's Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the SEC on December 14, 2001. |
10.2 | | Tri-Valley Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan, as amended, incorporated by reference to Exhibit B of the Company's 1999 Proxy Statement and Definitive Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on October 1, 1999. |
14.1 | | Code of Business Conduct & Ethics, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14.1 of the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the SEC on March 31, 2005 |
21.1 | | Subsidiaries of the Registrant, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 21.1 of the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the SEC on March 31, 2005 |
31.1 | | Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a), filed herewith |
31.2 | | Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a), filed herewith |
32.1 | | Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, filed herewith |
32.2 | | Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, filed herewith |