Strategic Considerations for Bridging the Bid-Ask Spread in Upstream M&A During Oil Price Volatility

Apr 19, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

While it is certainly a buyer’s market, a bid-ask spread continues to be a sticking point in many transactions. Despite pressing circumstances, potential sellers looking to boost liquidity may hesitate to sell low and miss the increase in value associated with an eventual price rebound. Conversely, potential buyers remain cautious, or even pessimistic, on the timing and magnitude of the rebound. However, parties who do not see eye to eye can explore the following options to bridge the gap and facilitate a transaction:

  • Earnouts/Contingent Payments. In a contingent payment’s simplest form, the parties could negotiate a contingent payment based on the increase in commodity prices post-closing. This can be an effective way to alleviate valuation concerns with respect to both buyers and sellers. By proposing a contingent payment, a prospective buyer can trade a portion of its short-term upside on an acquisition to address a seller’s reluctance to sell at a possible price floor. The time horizon, target price and payment amount for the contingent payment can be tailored to provide a level of shared benefit if oil prices rise. However, parties should carefully consider the interplay of such post-closing payments with other aspects of the transaction. For example, a buyer should consider whether payments should be contingent upon key employees continuing to operate the assets.
  • Retaining a Minority Interest. Similar to an earnout/contingent payment, a seller retaining a minority position in the asset will be able to participate in the upside with respect to its retained share when prices rebound. For example, a seller may choose to retain a minority working interest or an overriding royalty interest in a lease. While a retained working interest allows a seller to retain a portion of the upside in a property, such working interest also requires an owner to bear a share of the cost for operating the property. Thus, a cash-strapped seller may not be inclined to retain a working interest in a property that is subject to significant short-term operating costs. Parties may attempt to address such price sensitivities by providing for a carried retained working interest whereby, after the sale, the buyer will bear the seller’s share of costs on the properties for a period of time or up to a certain dollar amount. However, such “carry consideration” will affect a buyer’s valuation, and any carry amount will likely lead to a decrease in the buyer’s cash offer. Alternatively, a retained overriding royalty interest will allow a seller to maintain a cost-free share of revenues from the properties. However, there may be a significant tax impact if a seller retains an overriding royalty interest when selling an oil and gas lease, because the transaction would be treated as a lease, rather than a sale, for federal income tax purposes. As a result, the sale proceeds would be treated as ordinary income rather than capital gains. A seller should carefully consider the tax impact of any such transaction with counsel.
  • Escrow/Holdback. Although an escrow/holdback arrangement does not directly address the valuation issue, it is likely to facilitate a deal by giving the seller comfort with respect to the financial impact of certain risks identified during its diligence process. For example, the parties may deposit into an escrow account or hold back funds if there is ongoing material litigation with respect to the conveyed assets. Such funds would be released to the seller only if the issue were to be resolved in favor of the buyer post-closing.
  • Risk Shifting. Typically, the higher the risk, the lower the amount the buyer would be willing to pay for the subject assets. In this regard, motivated sellers seeking to maximize the sale price might consider covenants, reps and warranties, and indemnification provisions that favor the buyer in an effort to boost the sale price. This can prove to be a win-win, especially if the seller is confident about the quality of its internal recordkeeping and the quality of the conveyed assets. In some cases, a seller’s need for immediate cash infusion may make a lengthy escrow holdback period unpalatable. For such parties, insurance policies for the seller’s representations and warranties are an increasingly viable option in upstream asset sales. A buyer may purchase a policy (or request the seller to purchase a policy on the buyer’s behalf) to protect the buyer against risk without the need for a holdback. Likewise, a seller may prefer to bear the cost of purchasing an insurance policy and get paid in full immediately, rather than put a portion of its purchase price at risk for a period of time after the sale.

Parties exploring the above and other creative means to bridge the valuation gap will undoubtedly deviate from their tried-and-true forms. Despite exigent circumstances, both buyers and sellers must be mindful that hastily drafted ambiguous and inadequate language could potentially lead to future disputes and only exacerbate problems being faced by owners and operators in the current times. Careful discussion and drafting after consultation with accountants, legal counsel and financial advisors is therefore of paramount importance.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 22, 2025

On May 19, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports (the 2024 Study) through the release of a Response to Comments on the 2024 Study. The Response to Comments concludes that the 2024 Study, as augmented through public comments submitted on or before March 20, 2025, supporting a finding that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports serve the public interest. With the comment process complete, DOE will move forward with final orders on pending applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 20, 2025

On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines and Safety held a hearing titled, “Pipeline Safety Reauthorization: Ensuring the Safe and Efficient Movement of American Energy.” The hearing examined legislative priorities for reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.