Item 1. Business
General
Dril-Quip, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Dril-Quip”), designs, manufactures, sells and services highly engineered offshore drilling and production equipment that is well suited for use in deepwater, harsh environment and severe service applications. The Company’s principal products consist of subsea and surface wellheads, subsea and surface production trees, subsea control systems and manifolds, mudline hanger systems, specialty connectors and associated pipe, drilling and production riser systems, liner hangers, wellhead connectors and diverters. Dril-Quip’s products are used by major integrated, large independent and foreign national oil and gas companies in offshore areas throughout the world. Dril-Quip also provides technical advisory assistance on an as-requested basis during installation of its products, as well as rework and reconditioning services for customer-owned Dril-Quip products. In addition, Dril-Quip’s customers may rent or purchase running tools from the Company for use in the installation and retrieval of the Company’s products.
Dril-Quip has developed its broad line of subsea equipment, surface equipment and offshore rig equipment primarily through its internal product research and development efforts. The Company believes that it has achieved significant market share and brand name recognition with respect to its established products due to the technological capabilities, reliability, cost effectiveness and operational timesaving features of these products.
The Company’s operations are organized into three geographic segments-Western Hemisphere (including North and South America; headquartered in Houston, Texas), Eastern Hemisphere (including Europe and Africa; headquartered in Aberdeen, Scotland) and Asia-Pacific (including the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Australia, India and the Middle East; headquartered in Singapore). Each of these segments sells similar products and services and the Company has major manufacturing facilities in all three of its headquarter locations as well as Macae, Brazil. The Company maintains additional facilities for fabrication and/or reconditioning in Norway, Denmark, China and Australia. The Company’s manufacturing operations are vertically integrated, allowing it to perform substantially all of its forging, heat treating, machining, fabrication, inspection, assembly and testing at its own facilities. The Company’s major subsidiaries are Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited (DQE), located in Aberdeen with branches in Denmark, Norway and Holland; Dril-Quip Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. (DQAP), located in Singapore; Dril-Quip do Brasil LTDA (DQB), located in Macae, Brazil; and DQ Holdings Pty Ltd. (DQH), located in Perth, Australia. Other subsidiaries include Dril-Quip (Ghana) Ltd. located in Takoradi, Ghana, PT DQ Oilfield Services Indonesia located in Jakarta, Indonesia, Dril-Quip (Nigeria) Ltd. located in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, Dril-Quip Egypt for Petroleum Services S.A.E. located in Alexandria, Egypt, Dril-Quip Oilfield Services (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. located in Tianjin, China and Dril-Quip Qatar LLC, located in Doha, Qatar. For additional discussion of our geographic segments, please see Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Dril-Quip markets its products through its offices and sales representatives located in the major international energy markets throughout the world. In 2012, the Company generated approximately 74% of its revenues from foreign sales compared to 69% in 2011 and 61% in 2010.
The Company makes available, free of charge on its website, its Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q (in both HTML and XBRL formats), current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after it electronically files such reports with, or furnishes them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The Company’s website address is www.dril-quip.com. Documents and information on the Company’s website, or on any other website, are not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K. Any materials the Company files with the SEC may be read and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. Information concerning the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains a website (www.sec.gov) that contains reports the Company has filed with the SEC.
The Company also makes available free of charge on its website (www.dril-quip.com/govern.htm) its:
•
Code of Business Conduct and Ethical Practices,
•
Corporate Governance Guidelines,
•
Nominating, Governance and Compensation Committee Charter, and
•
Audit Committee Charter.
Any stockholder, who so requests, may obtain a printed copy of any of these documents from the Company. Changes in or waivers to our Code of Business Conduct and Ethical Practices involving directors and executive officers of the Company will be posted on its website.
Overview and Industry Outlook
Both the market for offshore drilling and production equipment and services and the Company’s business are substantially dependent on the condition of the oil and gas industry and, in particular, the willingness of oil and gas companies to make capital expenditures on exploration, drilling and production operations offshore. The level of capital expenditures has generally been dependent upon the prevailing view of future oil and gas prices, which are influenced by numerous factors affecting the supply and demand for oil and gas, including worldwide
economic activity, interest rates and the cost of capital, environmental regulation, tax policies, and the ability of OPEC and other producing nations to set and maintain production levels and prices. Capital expenditures are also dependent on the cost of exploring for and producing oil and gas, the availability, expiration date and price of offshore leases, the discovery rate of new oil and gas reserves in offshore areas and technological advances. Oil and gas prices and the level of offshore drilling and production activity have historically been characterized by significant volatility. Declines in oil and gas prices may adversely affect the willingness of some oil and gas companies to make capital expenditures on exploration, drilling and production operations offshore, which could have an adverse impact on the Company’s operations, financial position and cash flows.
In 2010, oil prices began to rise from the relatively low levels seen in 2008 and 2009 and generally ranged between $70 to $80 per barrel for West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude and ended the year at $91 per barrel. In April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon incident resulted in a temporary drilling moratorium in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Although the moratorium was lifted sooner than anticipated, the stagnation of the permitting process continued to be a significant issue throughout 2010 and 2011. In 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Interior issued numerous new regulations in an effort to improve offshore drilling safety. In 2011, WTI oil prices generally ranged between $75 and $113 per barrel and ended the year at $99 per barrel. Oil prices ranged between $96 to $109 per barrel for the period from January to May 2012. Between May and December 2012, prices did not reach $100 per barrel and averaged $90 per barrel, dipping to a low of $78 per barrel in June 2012 and ending the year at $92 per barrel. The Company expects that the need for specialized products on a global basis will continue. See “Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
In this Item 1A. the terms “we,” “our,” “us,” and “Dril-Quip” used herein refer to Dril-Quip, Inc. and its subsidiaries unless otherwise indicated or as the context so requires.
A material or extended decline in expenditures by the oil and gas industry could significantly reduce our revenue and income.
Our business depends upon the condition of the oil and gas industry and, in particular, the willingness of oil and gas companies to make capital expenditures on exploration, drilling and production operations offshore. The
level of capital expenditures is generally dependent on the prevailing view of future oil and gas prices, which are influenced by numerous factors affecting the supply and demand for oil and gas, including:
•
worldwide economic activity;
•
the level of exploration and production activity;
•
interest rates and the cost of capital;
•
environmental regulation;
•
federal, state and foreign policies regarding exploration and development of oil and gas;
•
the ability of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to set and maintain production levels and pricing;
•
governmental regulations regarding future oil and gas exploration and production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, including activities impacted by the 2010 drilling moratorium in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and related permitting delays;
•
the cost of exploring and producing oil and gas;
•
the cost of developing alternative energy sources;
•
the availability, expiration date and price of offshore leases in the United States and overseas;
•
the discovery rate of new oil and gas reserves in offshore areas;
•
the success of drilling for oil and gas in unconventional resource plays such as shale formations;
•
technological advances; and
•
weather conditions.
Oil and gas prices and the level of offshore drilling and production activity have been characterized by significant volatility in recent years. Worldwide military, political and economic events have contributed to oil and natural gas price volatility and are likely to continue to do so in the future. WTI crude oil prices in 2012 ranged from $77 per barrel to $109 per barrel. WTI crude oil prices in 2011 ranged from $75 per barrel to $113 per barrel. WTI crude oil prices in 2010 ranged from $64 per barrel to $91 per barrel. We expect continued volatility in both crude oil and natural gas prices as well as in the level of drilling and production related activities. Even during periods of high prices for oil and natural gas, companies exploring for oil and gas may cancel or curtail programs, or reduce their levels of capital expenditures for exploration and production for a variety of reasons. In addition, future significant or prolonged declines in hydrocarbon prices may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Certain matters relating to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, subsequent oil spill, moratorium and related regulations on deepwater drilling offshore in the U. S. Gulf of Mexico may continue to adversely affect our business in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and potentially in other worldwide locations.
On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon that was operated by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP”) sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. We are a party to an ongoing contract with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP’s U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and our wellhead and certain of our other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident.
We were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. The actions filed against us were consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly naming us, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (“MDL Proceeding”). The lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, violation of state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, personal injury and/or property damages and generally sought awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory relief.
On January 20, 2012, the judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding, a related proceeding filed by affiliates of Transocean Ltd under the Limitation of Liability Act, and the U.S. government’s action under the Oil Pollution Act, issued an order that granted our Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims asserted against us in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of us with respect to the court’s prior order that granted our Motion for Summary Judgment.
Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We intend to continue to vigorously defend any litigation, fine or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident.
At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, we had a general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. The coverage was increased to $200 million in October 2010. The insurance policies may not cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, our policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated clean up of pollution. We have received a “reservation of rights” letter from our insurer. This letter details the insurer’s obligation under the current policy and the insurer’s interpretations of key provisions within the policy relating to any claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. The incident may also lead to further tightening of the availability of insurance coverage. If liability limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development activities may increase, which could materially impact our results of operations.
In November 2012, the EPA suspended BP from new contracts with the U.S. government. Under the suspension, no new contracts can be entered into between the U.S. government and BP, including new leases of offshore tracts. If the suspension lasts for a lengthy period, it could have an adverse effect on our revenues in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Since the Deepwater Horizon incident, various new regulations intended to improve offshore safety systems and environmental protection have been issued which have increased the complexity of the drilling permit process and may limit the opportunity for some operators to continue deepwater drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, which could adversely affect the Company’s financial operations. For example, the U.S. government has indicated that before any recipient of a deepwater drilling permit may resume drilling, (i) the operator must demonstrate that containment resources are available promptly in the event of a deepwater blowout, (ii) the chief executive officer of the operator seeking to perform deepwater drilling must certify that the operator has complied with all applicable regulations and (iii) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (“BSEE”) will conduct inspections of such deepwater drilling operation for compliance with the applicable regulations. We cannot predict when the applicable government agency will determine that any deepwater driller is in compliance with the new regulations. Third party challenges to industry operations in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico may also serve to further delay or restrict activities. Further, in 2010 and 2011, the BSEE and its predecessor agency issued initial regulations on the design and operation of well control and other equipment at offshore production sites, implementation of safety and environmental management systems (“SEMS”), and mandatory third-party compliance audits. On August 22, 2012, BSEE published a final rule amending the regulations regarding design and operation of well control and other equipment, and a new SEMS rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget for a 90-day review on January 31, 2013. BSEE has indicated that there will be an additional, separate rulemaking to govern the design, performance and maintenance of blowout preventers but that rule has not yet been published. BSEE has also published a draft statement of policy on safety culture with nine proposed characteristics of a robust safety culture. If the new regulations, policies, operating procedures and possibility of increased legal liability are
viewed by our current or future customers as a significant impairment to expected profitability on projects, then
they could discontinue or curtail their offshore operations, thereby adversely affecting our financial operations by decreasing demand for our products.
We may not be able to satisfy technical requirements, testing requirements or other specifications under contracts and contract tenders.
Our products are used in deepwater, harsh environments and severe service applications. Our contracts with customers and customer requests for bids typically set forth detailed specifications or technical requirements for our products and services, which may also include extensive testing requirements. We anticipate that such testing requirements will become more common in our contracts. In addition, recent scrutiny of the offshore drilling industry triggered by the Deepwater Horizon incident may result in more stringent technical specifications for our products and more comprehensive testing requirements for our products to ensure compliance with such specifications. We cannot assure you that our products will be able to satisfy the specifications or that we will be able to perform the full-scale testing necessary to prove that the product specifications are satisfied in future contract bids or under existing contracts, or that the costs of modifications to our products to satisfy the specifications and testing will not adversely affect our results of operations. If our products are unable to satisfy such requirements, or we are unable to perform any required full-scale testing, our customers may cancel their contracts and/or seek new suppliers, and our business, results of operations or financial position may be adversely affected.
We rely on technology provided by third parties and our business may be materially adversely affected if we are unable to renew our licensing arrangements with them.
We have existing contracts and may enter into new contracts with customers that require us to use technology or to purchase components from third parties, including some of our competitors. In the ordinary course of our business, we have entered into licensing agreements with some of these third parties for the use of such technology, including a license from a competitor of a technology important to our subsea wellheads. We may not be able to renew our existing licenses or to purchase these components on terms acceptable to us, or at all. If we are unable to use a technology or purchase a component, we may not be able to meet existing contractual commitments without increased costs or modifications or at all. In addition, we may need to stop selling products incorporating that technology or component or to redesign our products, either of which could result in a material adverse effect on our business and operations.
We may be unable to successfully compete with other manufacturers of drilling and production equipment.
Several of our primary competitors are diversified multinational companies with substantially larger operating staffs and greater capital resources than ours and which have been engaged in the manufacturing business for a much longer time than us. If these competitors substantially increase the resources they devote to developing and marketing competitive products and services, we may not be able to compete effectively. Similarly, consolidation among our competitors could enhance their product and service offerings and financial resources, further intensifying competition.
The loss of a significant customer could have an adverse impact on our financial results.
Our principal customers are major integrated oil and gas companies, large independent oil and gas companies and foreign national oil and gas companies. Offshore drilling contractors and engineering and construction companies also represent a portion of our customer base. In 2012 and 2011, our top 15 customers represented approximately 62% of total revenues, with one customer, Petrobras, accounting for approximately 12% and 15%, respectively, of our total revenues. In 2010, our top 15 customers represented approximately 63% of total revenues, with one customer, Keppel Fels, accounting for approximately 13% of our total revenues.
While we are not dependent on any one customer or group of customers, the loss of one or more of our significant customers could, at least on a short-term basis, have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.
Our customers’ industries are undergoing continuing consolidation that may impact our results of operations.
The oil and gas industry is rapidly consolidating and, as a result, some of our largest customers have consolidated and are using their size and purchasing power to seek economies of scale and pricing concessions. This consolidation may result in reduced capital spending by some of our customers or the acquisition of one or more of our primary customers, which may lead to decreased demand for our products and services. We cannot assure you that we will be able to maintain our level of sales to a customer that has consolidated or replace that revenue with increased business activity with other customers. As a result, the acquisition of one or more of our primary customers may have a significant negative impact on our results of operations or our financial position. We are unable to predict what effect consolidations in the industry may have on price, capital spending by our customers, our selling strategies, our competitive position, our ability to retain customers or our ability to negotiate favorable agreements with our customers.
Increases in the cost of raw materials and energy used in our manufacturing processes could negatively impact our profitability.
Any increases in commodity prices for items such as nickel, molybdenum and heavy metal scrap that are used to make the steel alloys required for our products would result in an increase in our raw material costs. Similarly, any increase in energy costs would increase our product costs. If we are not successful in raising our prices on products to compensate for any increased raw material or energy costs, our margins will be negatively impacted.
We depend on third-party suppliers for timely deliveries of raw materials, and our results of operations could be adversely affected if we are unable to obtain adequate supplies in a timely manner.
Our manufacturing operations depend upon obtaining adequate supplies of raw materials from third parties. The ability of these third parties to deliver raw materials may be affected by events beyond our control. Any interruption in the supply of raw materials needed to manufacture our products could adversely affect our business, results of operations and reputation with our customers.
Conditions in the global financial system may have impacts on our business and financial position that we currently cannot predict.
Uncertainty and turmoil in the credit markets may negatively impact the ability of our customers to finance purchases of our products and services and could result in a decrease in, or cancellation of, orders included in our backlog or adversely affect the collectability of our receivables. If the availability of credit to our customers is reduced, they may reduce their drilling and production expenditures, thereby decreasing demand for our products and services, which could have a negative impact on our financial position. Additionally, unsettled conditions could have an impact on our suppliers, causing them to be unable to meet their obligations to us. Although we do not currently anticipate a need to access the credit markets in the short term, a prolonged constriction on future lending by banks or investors could result in higher interest rates on future debt obligations or could restrict our ability to obtain sufficient financing to meet our long-term operational and capital needs.
Our international operations expose us to instability and changes in economic and political conditions and other risks inherent to international business, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, cash flows or financial condition.
We have substantial international operations, with approximately 74%, 69% and 61% of our revenues derived from foreign sales in each of 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. We operate our business and market our
products and services in all of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and are, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and investments in foreign countries. Risks associated with our international operations include:
•
volatility in general economic, social and political conditions;
•
terrorist threats or acts, war and civil disturbances;
•
expropriation or nationalization of assets;
•
the sovereign debt crisis of the European Union countries;
•
renegotiation or nullification of existing contracts;
•
foreign taxation, including changes in law or interpretation of existing law;
•
assaults on property or personnel;
•
restrictive action by local governments;
•
foreign and domestic monetary policies;
•
limitations on repatriation of earnings;
•
travel limitations or operational problems caused by public health threats; and
•
changes in currency exchange rates.
Any of these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to manufacture products abroad or the demand for our products and services in some locations. To date, we have not experienced any significant problems in foreign countries arising from local government actions or political instability, but there is no assurance that such problems will not arise in the future. Interruption of our international operations could have a material adverse effect on our overall operations.
Our operations require us to deal with a variety of cultures, exposing us to compliance risks.
Doing business on a worldwide basis exposes us and our subsidiaries to risks inherent in complying with the laws and regulations of a number of different nations, including various anti-bribery laws. We do business and have operations in a number of developing countries that have relatively underdeveloped legal and regulatory systems compared to more developed countries. Several of these countries are generally perceived as presenting a higher than normal risk of corruption, or as having a culture in which requests for improper payments are not discouraged. Maintaining and administering an effective anti-bribery compliance program under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act of 2010, and similar statutes of other nations, in these environments presents greater challenges than is the case in more developed countries. The precautions we take to prevent and detect misconduct, fraud or non- compliance with applicable laws and regulations may not be able to prevent such occurrences, and we could face unknown risks or losses. Our failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations or acts of misconduct could subject us to fines, penalties or other sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to taxation in many jurisdictions and there are inherent uncertainties in the final determination of our tax liabilities.
As a result of our international operations, we are subject to taxation in many jurisdictions. Therefore, the final determination of our tax liabilities involves the interpretation of the statutes and requirements of taxing authorities worldwide. Foreign income tax returns of foreign subsidiaries and related entities are routinely examined by foreign tax authorities. These tax examinations may result in assessments of additional taxes, interest or penalties. Refer to “Item 3. Legal Proceedings” regarding tax assessments in Brazil.
Our excess cash is invested in various financial instruments which may subject us to potential losses.
We invest excess cash in various financial instruments including interest bearing accounts, money market mutual funds and funds which invest in U.S. Treasury obligations and repurchase agreements backed by U.S. Treasury obligations. However, changes in the financial markets, including interest rates, as well as the performance of the issuers, can affect the market value of our short-term investments.
We may suffer losses as a result of foreign currency fluctuations and limitations on the ability to repatriate income or capital to the U.S.
We conduct a portion of our business in currencies other than the United States dollar, and our operations are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. We cannot assure you that we will be able to protect the Company against such fluctuations in the future. Historically, we have not conducted business in countries that limit repatriation of earnings. However, as we expand our international operations, we may begin operating in countries that have such limitations. Further, we cannot assure you that the countries in which we currently operate will not adopt policies limiting repatriation of earnings in the future.
Our business involves numerous operating hazards that may not be covered by insurance. The occurrence of an event not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows and results of operations.
Our products are used in potentially hazardous drilling, completion and production applications that can cause personal injury, product liability and environmental claims. In addition, certain areas where our products are used, including in and near the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, are close to high population areas and subject to hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions on a relatively frequent basis. A catastrophic occurrence at a location where our equipment and/or services are used may expose us to substantial liability for personal injury, wrongful death, product liability or commercial claims. Effective October 1, 2010, we increased our general liability insurance program to include an aggregate coverage limit of $200 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. However, our insurance policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated clean up of pollution. In addition, our insurance does not provide coverage for all liabilities, and we cannot assure you that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover claims that may arise or that we will be able to maintain adequate insurance at rates we consider reasonable. The occurrence of an event not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.
We attempt to further limit our liability through contractual indemnification provisions with our customers. We generally seek to enter into contracts for the provision of our products and services that provide for (1) the responsibility of each party to the contract for personal injuries to, or the death of, its employees and damages to its property, (2) cross-indemnification with other contractors providing products and/or services to the other party to the contract with respect to personal injury, death and property damage and (3) the operator being responsible for claims brought by third parties for personal injury, death, property loss or damage relating to pollution or other well control events. We may not be able to successfully obtain favorable contractual provisions, and a failure to do so may increase our risks and costs, which could materially impact our results of operations. In addition, we cannot assure you that any party that is contractually obligated to indemnify us will be financially able to do so.
We may lose money on fixed-price contracts.
A portion of our business consists of the designing, manufacturing and selling of our equipment for major projects pursuant to competitive bids, and is performed on a fixed-price basis. Under these contracts, we are typically responsible for all cost overruns, other than the amount of any cost overruns resulting from requested changes in order specifications. Our actual costs and any gross profit realized on these fixed-price contracts may
vary from the estimated amounts on which these contracts were originally based. This may occur for various reasons, including:
•
errors in estimates or bidding;
•
changes in availability and cost of labor and materials; and
•
variations in productivity from our original estimates.
These variations and the risks inherent in our projects may result in reduced profitability or losses on projects. Depending on the size of a project, variations from estimated contract performance could have a material adverse impact on our operating results.
Our business could be adversely affected if we do not develop new products and secure and retain patents related to our products.
Technology is an important component of our business and growth strategy, and our success as a company depends to a significant extent on the development and implementation of new product designs and improvements. Whether we can continue to develop systems and services and related technologies to meet evolving industry requirements and, if so, at prices acceptable to our customers will be significant factors in determining our ability to compete in the industry in which we operate. Many of our competitors are large multinational companies that may have significantly greater financial resources than we have, and they may be able to devote greater resources to research and development of new systems, services and technologies than we are able to do.
Our ability to compete effectively will also depend on our ability to continue to obtain patents on our proprietary technology and products. Although we do not consider any single patent to be material to our business as a whole, the inability to protect our future innovations through patents could have a material adverse effect.
We may be required to recognize a charge against current earnings because of percentage-of-completion accounting.
Revenues and profits on long-term project contracts are recognized on a percentage-of-completion basis. We calculate the percent complete and apply the percentage to determine revenues earned and the appropriate portion of total estimated costs. Accordingly, purchase order price and cost estimates are reviewed periodically as the work progresses, and adjustments proportionate to the percentage complete are reflected in the period when such estimates are revised. To the extent that these adjustments result in a reduction or elimination of previously reported profits, we would have to recognize a charge against current earnings, which could be significant depending on the size of the project or the adjustment.
Loss of our key management or other personnel could adversely impact our business.
We depend on the services of Blake DeBerry, President and Chief Executive Officer, and James Gariepy, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Together, Mr. DeBerry and Mr. Gariepy have over 30 years with the Company and approximately 60 years of relevant industry experience. The loss of either of these officers could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial position.
In addition, competition for skilled machinists, fabricators and technical personnel among companies that rely heavily on engineering and technology is intense, and the loss of qualified employees or an inability to attract, retain and motivate additional highly skilled employees required for the operation and expansion of our business could hinder our ability to conduct research activities successfully and develop and produce marketable products and services. A significant increase in the wages paid by competing employers could result in a reduction of our skilled labor force, increases in the wage rates paid by us or both. If either of these events were to occur, in the near-term, the profits realized by us from work in progress would be reduced and, in the long-term, our production capacity and profitability could be diminished and our growth potential could be impaired.
Our operations and our customers’ operations are subject to a variety of governmental laws and regulations that may increase our costs, limit the demand for our products and services or restrict our operations.
Our business and our customers’ businesses may be significantly affected by:
•
federal, state and local and foreign laws and other regulations relating to the oilfield operations, worker safety and the protection of the environment;
•
changes in these laws and regulations; and
•
the level of enforcement of these laws and regulations.
In addition, we depend on the demand for our products and services from the oil and gas industry. This demand is affected by changing taxes, price controls and other laws and regulations relating to the oil and gas industry in general, including those specifically directed to offshore operations. For example, the adoption of laws and regulations curtailing exploration and development drilling for oil and gas for economic or other policy reasons could adversely affect our operations by limiting demand for our products. We cannot determine the extent to which our future operations and earnings may be affected by new legislation, new regulations or changes in existing regulations and enforcement thereof.
Because of our foreign operations and sales, we are also subject to changes in foreign laws and regulations that may encourage or require hiring of local contractors or require foreign contractors to employ citizens of, or purchase supplies from, a particular jurisdiction. If we fail to comply with any applicable law or regulation, our business, results of operations or financial position may be adversely affected.
Our businesses and our customers’ businesses are subject to environmental laws and regulations that may increase our costs, limit the demand for our products and services or restrict our operations.
Our operations and the operations of our customers are also subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of human health and the environment. These environmental laws and regulations affect the products and services we design, market and sell, as well as the facilities where we manufacture our products. For example, our operations are subject to numerous and complex laws and regulations that, among other things, may regulate the management and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes; require acquisition of environmental permits related to our operations; restrict the types, quantities and concentrations of various materials that can be released into the environment; limit or prohibit operation activities in certain ecologically sensitive and other protected areas; regulate specific health and safety criteria addressing worker protection; require compliance with operational and equipment standards; impose testing, reporting and record-keeping requirements; and require remedial measures to mitigate pollution from former and ongoing operations. We are required to invest financial and managerial resources to comply with such environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and anticipate that we will continue to be required to do so in the future. In addition, environmental laws and regulations could limit our customers’ exploration and production activities. These laws and regulations change frequently, which makes it impossible for us to predict their cost or impact on our future operations. For example, legislation to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases has been introduced in the U.S. Congress, and there has been a wide-ranging policy debate, both nationally and internationally, regarding the impact of these gases and possible means for their regulation. In addition, efforts have been made and continue to be made in the international community toward the adoption of international treaties or protocols that would address global climate change issues, such as the annual United Nations Climate Change Conferences. Also, the EPA has undertaken new efforts to collect information regarding greenhouse gas emissions and their effects. Following a finding by the EPA that certain greenhouse gases represent a danger to human health, the EPA has expanded its regulations relating to those emissions and has adopted rules imposing permitting and reporting obligations. To date, there has been no significant progress in cap and trade proposals. The results of the permitting and reporting requirements could lead to further regulation of these greenhouse gases by the EPA. It is too early to determine whether, or in what form, further regulatory action regarding
greenhouse gas emissions will be adopted or what specific impacts a new regulatory action might have on us or our customers. Generally, the anticipated regulatory actions do not appear to affect us in any material respect that is different, or to any materially greater or lesser extent, than other companies that are our competitors. However, our business and prospects could be adversely affected to the extent laws are enacted or modified or other governmental action is taken that prohibits or restricts our customers’ exploration and production activities or imposes environmental protection requirements that result in increased costs to us or our customers.
Environmental laws may provide for “strict liability” for damages to natural resources or threats to public health and safety, rendering a party liable for environmental damage without regard to negligence or fault on the part of such party. Sanctions for noncompliance may include revocation of permits, corrective action orders, administrative or civil penalties, and criminal prosecution. Some environmental laws and regulations provide for joint and several strict liability for remediation of spills and releases of hazardous substances. In addition, we may be subject to claims alleging personal injury or property damage as a result of alleged exposure to hazardous substances, as well as damage to natural resources. These laws and regulations also may expose us to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by others, or for our acts that were in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations at the time such acts were performed. Any of these laws and regulations could result in claims, fines or expenditures that could be material to results of operations, financial position and cash flows.
The market price of our common stock is volatile.
The trading price of our common stock and the price at which we may sell common stock in the future are subject to large fluctuations in response to any of the following:
•
limited trading volume in our common stock;
•
quarterly variations in operating results;
•
general financial market conditions;
•
the prices of natural gas and oil;
•
announcements by us and our competitors;
•
our liquidity;
•
changes in government regulations;
•
our ability to raise additional funds;
•
our involvement in litigation; and
•
other events.
We do not anticipate paying dividends on our common stock in the near future.
We have not paid any dividends in the past and do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Our Board of Directors reviews this policy on a regular basis in light of our earnings, financial position and market opportunities. We currently intend to retain any earnings for the future operation and development of our business.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties
Major Manufacturing Facilities
Dril-Quip has manufacturing facilities in Houston, Aberdeen, Singapore and Macae. The Houston facility at Eldridge produces in-house a majority of the Company’s forging and heat treatment requirements.
Sales, Service and Reconditioning Facilities
(1) All facilities are leased except Stavanger, Norway, which is owned.
The Company also performs sales, service and reconditioning activities at its facilities in Houston, Aberdeen, Singapore and Macae.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Deepwater Horizon Incident
On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP, sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. We are a party to an ongoing contract with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP’s U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and our wellhead and certain of our other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident. Following the incident, a moratorium was placed on offshore deepwater drilling on May 28, 2010 in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and was lifted on October 12, 2010. Since the first quarter of 2011, after delays attributed to new regulations that increased the complexity of the drilling permit process, the issuance of deepwater permits resumed and deepwater drilling activity in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has steadily increased.
We were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. The actions filed against us were consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly naming us, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (“MDL Proceeding”). The lawsuits generally alleged, among
other things, violation of state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, personal injury and/or property damages and generally sought awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory relief.
On January 20, 2012, the judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding, a related proceeding filed by affiliates of Transocean Ltd under the Limitation of Liability Act, and the U.S. government’s action under the Oil Pollution Act, issued an order that granted our Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims asserted against us in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of us with respect to the court’s prior order that granted our Motion for Summary Judgment.
Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We intend to continue to vigorously defend any litigation, fine or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. We do not believe this litigation will have a material impact and accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with these matters.
At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, we had a general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. The coverage was increased to $200 million in October 2010. The insurance policies may not cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, our policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated clean up of pollution. We have received a “reservation of rights” letter from our insurer. This letter details the insurer’s obligation under the current policy and the insurer’s interpretation of key provisions within the policy relating to any claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. The incident may also lead to further tightening of the availability of insurance coverage. If liability limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development activities may increase, which could materially impact our results of operations.
Brazilian Tax Issue
From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws.
In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing.
In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described in the immediately preceding paragraph. The Company has objected to these assessments on the basis that they would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis, the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter.
Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007.
ATP Bankruptcy
The Company has entered into several contracts with ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (“ATP”). In August 2012, ATP filed for bankruptcy in the U.S Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $1.4 million of receivables owed by ATP or its subsidiaries and $4.3 million in customer prepayments from ATP. The Company has not provided for any losses due to the ATP bankruptcy filings as of December 31, 2012.
For a further description of the Company’s legal proceedings, see “Commitments and Contingencies,” Note 10 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company also is involved in a number of legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such legal actions, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability with respect thereto will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure
Not applicable
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Stock, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
The Company’s Common Stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DRQ. The following table sets forth the quarterly high and low sales prices of the Common Stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange for the indicated quarters of fiscal 2012 and 2011.
There were approximately 20 stockholders of record of the Company’s Common Stock as of December 31, 2012. This number does not include the number of security holders for whom shares are held in a “nominee” or “street” name.
The Company has not paid any dividends in the past. The Company currently intends to retain any earnings for the future operation and development of its business and does not currently anticipate paying any dividends in the foreseeable future. The Board of Directors will review this policy on a regular basis in light of the Company’s earnings, financial position and market opportunities.
Information concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans is included in Note 13 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Repurchase of Equity Securities
On June 18, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a share repurchase plan of up to $100 million of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2012, no shares had been repurchased. The repurchase plan has no expiration date and all shares purchased are expected to be cancelled.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The information set forth below should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto included elsewhere in this report on Form 10-K.
(1) See discussion on pages 33 and 35 under “Special Items.”
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following is management’s discussion and analysis of certain significant factors that have affected aspects of the Company’s financial position, results of operations, comprehensive income and cash flows during the periods included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and notes thereto presented elsewhere in this Report.
Overview
Dril-Quip designs, manufactures, sells and services highly engineered offshore drilling and production equipment that is well suited for use in deepwater, harsh environment and severe service applications. The Company designs and manufactures subsea equipment, surface equipment and offshore rig equipment for use by major integrated, large independent and foreign national oil and gas companies in offshore areas throughout the world. The Company’s principal products consist of subsea and surface wellheads, subsea and surface production trees, subsea control systems and manifolds, mudline hanger systems, specialty connectors and associated pipe, drilling and production riser systems, liner hangers, wellhead connectors and diverters. Dril-Quip also provides technical advisory services on an as-requested basis during installation of its products, as well as rework and reconditioning services for customer-owned Dril-Quip products and rental of running tools for use in connection with the installation and retrieval of the Company’s products.
Oil and Gas Prices
Both the market for offshore drilling and production equipment and services and the Company’s business are substantially dependent on the condition of the oil and gas industry and, in particular, the willingness of oil and gas companies to make capital expenditures on exploration, drilling and production operations offshore. Oil and gas prices and the level of offshore drilling and production activity have historically been characterized by significant volatility. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors-A material or extended decline in expenditures by the oil and gas industry could significantly reduce our revenue and income.”
According to the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) of the U.S. Department of Energy, average WTI crude oil and natural gas (Henry Hub) closing prices are listed below for periods covered by this report:
In 2010, WTI crude oil prices began the year at $81.52 per barrel and reached a peak in December at $91.48 per barrel. However, crude oil prices averaged $79.48 per barrel for 2010. In 2011, WTI crude oil prices ranged between $75.40 per barrel and $113.39 per barrel. Crude oil ended the year at $98.83 per barrel. In 2012, the WTI oil price ranged between a low of $77.72 per barrel and a high of $109.39 per barrel with an average of $94.05 per barrel and ended the year at $91.83 per barrel.
According to the January 2013 release of the Short-Term Energy Outlook published by the EIA, WTI crude oil prices are projected to average $89.54 per barrel in 2013 and $91.00 in 2014. These projections are based upon the assumption that the U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) will grow by 1.8% in 2013 and by 2.6% in 2014.
In its January 2013 report, the EIA expects Henry Hub natural gas prices to average $3.86 per Mcf in 2013 and $4.02 per Mcf in 2014. Henry Hub natural gas price was $3.54 per Mcf at the end of December 2012.
In its January 2013 Oil Market Report, the International Energy Agency projected global oil demand to be 90.8 million barrels per day in 2013.
According to the EIA, between January 1, 2013 and February 5, 2013, the price of WTI crude oil ranged from $92.97 per barrel to $97.98 per barrel, closing at $96.68 per barrel on February 5, 2013. For the same period, Henry Hub natural gas price ranged from $3.18 per Mcf to $3.74 per Mcf, closing at $3.44 per Mcf on February 5, 2013.
Rig Count
Detailed below is the average contracted offshore rig count for the Company’s geographic regions for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010. The rig count data includes floating rigs (semi-submersibles and drillships) and jack-up rigs. The Company has included only these types of rigs as they are the primary end users of the Company’s products.
The table above represents rigs under contract and includes rigs currently drilling as well as rigs committed, but not yet drilling. According to ODS-Petrodata RigBase, as of December 31, 2012, there were 69 rigs under contract (38 floating rigs and 31 jack-up rigs) in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, 65 of which were actively drilling (34 floating rigs and 31 jack-up rigs). As of December 31, 2011, there were 64 rigs under contract in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (29 floating rigs and 35 jack-up rigs), of which 57 were actively drilling (22 floating rigs and 35 jack-up rigs), and as of December 31, 2010, there were 55 rigs under contract (26 floating rigs and 29 jack-up rigs), of which 35 were actively drilling (7 floating rigs and 28 jack-up rigs).
The Company believes that the number of rigs (semi-submersibles, drillships and jack-up rigs) under construction impacts its revenues because in certain cases, its customers order some of the Company’s products during the construction of such rigs. As a result, an increase in rig construction activity tends to favorably impact the Company’s backlog while a decrease in rig construction activity tends to negatively impact the Company’s backlog. According to ODS-Petrodata, at the end of 2012, 2011 and 2010, there were 186, 146 and 117 rigs, respectively, under construction and the expected delivery dates for the rigs under construction on December 31, 2012 are as follows:
Regulation
The demand for the Company’s products and services is also affected by laws and regulations relating to the oil and gas industry in general, including those specifically directed to offshore operations. The adoption of new laws and regulations, or changes to existing laws or regulations that curtail exploration and development drilling for oil and gas for economic or other policy reasons could adversely affect the Company’s operations by limiting demand for its products. For a description of certain actions taken by the U.S. government related to the Deepwater Horizon incident, see “Commitments and Contingencies” in Note 10 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
Business Environment
Oil and gas prices and the level of offshore drilling and production activity have been characterized by significant volatility in recent years. Worldwide military, political, economic and other events have contributed to oil and natural gas price volatility and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Oil and gas prices fell from previously high historic levels beginning in mid-2008 and continued into 2009, and began to stabilize somewhat in the latter half of 2009. WTI crude oil prices in 2010 ranged from $64.78 per barrel to $91.48 per barrel. In 2011, WTI crude oil prices peaked at $113.39 per barrel and ended the year at $98.83 per barrel. In 2012 the WTI crude oil prices ranged between $77.72 per barrel and $109.39 per barrel with an average price of $94.05 per barrel and ended the year at $91.83 per barrel. The Company expects continued volatility in both crude oil and natural gas prices, as well as in the level of drilling and production related activities. The volatility in prices appears to have impacted land drilling activity more so than offshore drilling, particularly in deeper offshore waters, where Dril-Quip’s products are more often utilized. Even during periods of high prices for oil and natural gas, companies exploring for oil and gas may cancel or curtail programs, or reduce their levels of capital expenditures for exploration and production for a variety of reasons. In addition, a significant and prolonged decline in hydrocarbon prices would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.
The Company operates its business and markets its products and services in most of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and is, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and investments in foreign countries. These risks include nationalization, expropriation, war, acts of terrorism and civil disturbance, restrictive action by local governments, limitation on repatriation of earnings, change in foreign tax laws and change in currency exchange rates, any of which could have an adverse effect on either the Company’s ability to manufacture its products in its facilities abroad or the demand in certain regions for the Company’s products or both. To date, the Company has not experienced any significant problems in foreign countries arising from local government actions or political instability, but there is no assurance that such problems will not arise in the future. Interruption of the Company’s international operations could have a material adverse effect on its overall operations. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Our international operations expose us to instability and changes in economic and political conditions and other risks inherent to international business, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, cash flows or financial condition.”
Revenues. Dril-Quip’s revenues are generated from two sources: products and services. Product revenues are derived from the sale of offshore drilling and production equipment. Service revenues are earned when the Company provides technical advisory assistance for installation of the Company’s products, reconditioning services and rental of running tools for installation and retrieval of the Company’s products. In 2012, the Company derived 83% of its revenues from the sale of its products and 17% of its revenues from services compared to 85% and 15% in 2011 and 86% and 14% in 2010, respectively. Service revenues generally correlate to revenues from product sales because increased product sales typically generate increased demand for technical advisory services during installation and rental of running tools. The Company has substantial international operations, with approximately 74%, 69% and 61% of its revenues derived from foreign sales in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Substantially all of the Company’s domestic revenue relates to operations in the U. S. Gulf of Mexico. Domestic revenue approximated 26%, 31% and 39%, respectively, of the Company’s total revenues for 2012, 2011 and 2010.
Product contracts are typically negotiated and sold separately from service contracts. In addition, service contracts are not typically included in the product contracts or related sales orders and are not offered to the customer as a condition of the sale of the Company’s products. The demand for products and services is generally based on world-wide economic conditions in the offshore oil and gas industry, and is not based on a specific relationship between the two types of contracts. Substantially all of the Company’s sales are made on a purchase order basis. Purchase orders are subject to change and/or termination at the option of the customer. In case of a change or termination, the customer is required to pay the Company for work performed and other costs necessarily incurred as a result of the change or termination.
Generally, the Company attempts to raise its prices as its costs increase. However, the actual pricing of the Company’s products and services is impacted by a number of factors, including competitive pricing pressure, the level of utilized capacity in the oil service sector, maintenance of market share, the introduction of new products and general market conditions.
The Company accounts for larger and more complex projects that have relatively longer manufacturing time frames on a percentage-of-completion basis. During 2012 and 2011 there were 21 and 18 projects, respectively, that were accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method, which represented approximately 20% for both years of the Company’s total revenues and 24% and 23% of the Company’s product revenues in each year, respectively. During 2010, there were 19 projects representing 19% of the Company’s total revenues and 23% of the Company’s product revenues. This percentage may fluctuate in the future. Revenues accounted for in this manner are generally recognized based upon a calculation of the percentage complete, which is used to determine the revenue earned and the appropriate portion of total estimated cost of sales. Accordingly, price and cost estimates are reviewed periodically as the work progresses, and adjustments proportionate to the percent complete are reflected in the period when such estimates are revised. Losses, if any, are recorded in full when they become known. Amounts received from customers in excess of revenues recognized are classified as a current liability. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors-We may be required to recognize a charge against current earnings because of percentage-of-completion accounting.”
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, a breakdown of the Company’s U.S. Gulf of Mexico products and services revenues:
As a result of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium and subsequent delays in the issuance of permits, many of the Company’s customers in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico still have unused inventory of the Company’s subsea wellhead equipment. However, the number of floating rigs actively drilling in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico averaged 29 for 2012 as compared to 18 for 2011. The Company believes that the effects of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium and related permitting delays have had little or no impact on revenues related to offshore rig equipment. The change in offshore rig equipment revenues in 2012 compared to 2011 resulted primarily from a reduction of revenues from projects accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method. The Company’s U.S. Gulf of Mexico service revenues, which decreased in each quarter of 2010 as a percentage
of worldwide revenues as a result of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium, have increased since the beginning of 2011. In 2011, U.S. Gulf of Mexico service revenues were 4.3%, or approximately $25.8 million, of total worldwide revenue and increased to 6.9%, or approximately $50.3 million, of total worldwide revenue in 2012. The Company will continue to monitor any remaining effects of the U.S. drilling moratorium and the subsequent permitting delays on its ongoing business operations.
Cost of Sales. The principal elements of cost of sales are labor, raw materials and manufacturing overhead. Cost of sales as a percentage of revenues is influenced by the product mix sold in any particular period, costs from projects accounted for under the percentage of completion method and market conditions. The Company’s costs related to its foreign operations do not significantly differ from its domestic costs.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses include the costs associated with sales and marketing, general corporate overhead, compensation expense, stock-based compensation expense, legal expenses, foreign currency transaction gains and losses and other related administrative functions.
Engineering and Product Development Expenses. Engineering and product development expenses consist of new product development and testing, as well as application engineering related to customized products.
Income Tax Provision. The Company’s overall effective income tax rate has historically been lower than the statutory rate primarily due to foreign income tax rate differentials, research and development credits and deductions related to domestic production activities.
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, certain consolidated statements of income data expressed as a percentage of revenues:
(1) See discussion on pages 33 and 35 under “Special Items.”
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, a breakdown of our products and service revenues:
Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2011
Revenues. Revenues increased by $131.7 million, or approximately 21.9%, to $733.0 million in 2012 from $601.3 million in 2011. Product revenues increased by approximately $98.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 as a result of increased revenues of $95.9 million in subsea equipment and $11.5 million in surface equipment, partially offset by a $8.8 million decrease in offshore rig equipment. The decrease in offshore rig equipment revenue was primarily due to the reduction in the number of long-term projects with offshore rig equipment components. Product revenues increased in the Western Hemisphere by $33.8 million, $32.2 million in the Eastern Hemisphere, and in Asia-Pacific by $32.6 million. Service revenues increased by approximately $33.1 million resulting from increased service revenues in the Western Hemisphere of $31.4 million and $4.0 million in the Eastern Hemisphere, and partially offset by a slight decrease of $2.3 million in Asia-Pacific. The majority of the increases in service revenues related to increased technical advisory services and increased rental of running and installation tools.
Cost of Sales. Cost of sales increased by $89.9 million, or approximately 24.8%, to $451.7 million for 2012 from $361.8 million for the same period in 2011. As a percentage of revenues, cost of sales were approximately 61.6% in 2012 and 60.2% in 2011. Cost of sales as a percentage of revenue increased in 2012 primarily due to changes in the product mix and increases in unabsorbed manufacturing overhead expenses.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. For 2012, selling, general and administrative expenses increased by approximately $11.7 million, or 16.6%, to $82.2 million from $70.5 million in 2011. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to increased personnel and related expenses and foreign currency transactions, and an increase in stock award expense. Personnel and related expenses were higher by $5.9 million in 2012 as compared to 2011. The Company recognized approximately $5.2 million in foreign currency transaction losses during 2012 compared to approximately $3.5 million of losses during 2011. Stock award expense for 2012 totaled $5.7 million compared to $4.5 million in 2011. The stock award expense in 2011 excludes $1.4 million of non-cash expense due to the vesting of J. Mike Walker’s stock options as a result of his retirement as CEO of the Company. Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues were 11.2% in 2012 and 11.7% in 2011.
Engineering and Product Development Expenses. For 2012, engineering and product development expenses increased by approximately $2.9 million, or 8.4%, to $37.5 million from $34.6 million in 2011. The increase was primarily due to additional personnel required to meet the demands of the higher backlog related to long-term projects. Engineering and product development expenses as a percentage of revenues decreased to 5.1% in 2012 from 5.8% in 2011.
Special Items. In October 2011, J. Mike Walker retired and stepped down from his positions as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Under the circumstances of Mr. Walker’s retirement, he was
entitled to severance under his employment agreement with the Company. Pursuant to Mr. Walker’s employment agreement, the Company was obligated to pay Mr. Walker, among other things, his base salary and his annual bonus through his remaining employment period (October 27, 2014). In addition, stock options owned by Mr. Walker that were outstanding at the date of the termination of his employment were immediately vested. Accordingly, the Company recognized a pre-tax expense of $4.7 million during the fourth quarter of 2011. The amount includes base salary and bonus, including payroll taxes, which totaled $3.3 million. The acceleration of the vesting of his stock options increased pre-tax non-cash expenses by $1.4 million.
Interest Income. Interest income for 2012 was approximately $462,000 as compared to $419,000 in 2011. The Company keeps the majority of its short-term investments in funds that invest in U.S. Treasury obligations, which normally earn lower interest rates than money market funds.
Interest expense. Interest expense for 2012 was approximately $32,000 compared to $53,000 in 2011. The term credit agreement for Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited was paid in full in April 2011.
Income tax provision. Income tax expense for 2012 was $42.9 million on income before taxes of $162.1 million, resulting in an effective income tax rate of approximately 26.4%. Income tax expense in 2011 was $34.7 million on income before taxes of $130.0 million, resulting in an effective tax rate of approximately 26.7%.
On January 2, 2013, the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012” extended the Research and Development tax credit retroactive to January 1, 2012 and was extended through December 31, 2013. The Research and Development credit for 2012 of $1.2 million will be recognized on the Company’s 2012 U.S. federal income tax return but will be recorded for financial statement purposes in the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with ASC 740, which requires that changes in tax laws are recorded when enacted.
Net Income. Net income was approximately $119.2 million in 2012 and $95.3 million in 2011, for the reasons set forth above.
Year ended December 31, 2011 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2010
Revenues. Revenues increased by $35.0 million, or approximately 6.2%, to $601.3 million in 2011 from $566.3 million in 2010. Product revenues increased by approximately $25.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 as a result of increased revenues of $53.1 million in subsea equipment and $0.5 million in surface equipment, partially offset by a $28.1 million decrease in offshore rig equipment. The decrease in offshore rig equipment revenue was primarily due to the reduction in the number of long-term projects with offshore rig equipment components. Product revenues increased in the Eastern Hemisphere by $33.3 million and $0.9 million in Asia-Pacific, partially offset by a decrease in the Western Hemisphere of $8.7 million. Service revenues increased by approximately $9.5 million resulting from increased service revenues in the Eastern Hemisphere of $2.9 million, $5.6 million in Asia-Pacific and $1.0 million in the Western Hemisphere. The majority of the increases in service revenues related to increased technical advisory services and the rental of running and installation tools, slightly offset by decreases in reconditioning services.
Cost of Sales. Cost of sales increased by $39.2 million, or approximately 12.2%, to $361.8 million for 2011 from $322.6 million for the same period in 2010. As a percentage of revenues, cost of sales were approximately 60.2% in 2011 and 57.0% in 2010. Cost of sales as a percentage of revenue increased in 2011 due to changes in the product mix and increases in unabsorbed manufacturing overhead expenses.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses. For 2011, selling, general and administrative expenses increased by approximately $9.4 million, or 15.4%, to $70.5 million from $61.1 million in 2010. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses was primarily due to the effect of foreign currency transactions, increased personnel and related expenses, slightly offset by a decrease in stock options expense. The Company
experienced approximately $3.5 million in foreign currency transaction losses during 2011 compared to approximately $1.4 million of gains during 2010. Stock option expense for 2011 totaled $4.5 million compared to $5.0 million in 2010. The stock option expense in 2011 excludes $1.4 million of non-cash expense due to the vesting of Mr. Walker’s stock options as a result of his retirement as CEO of the Company. The stock option expense in 2010 excludes of $2.0 million of non-cash expense due to the vesting of former Co-CEO Larry Reimert’s stock options as a result of his termination with the Company. These expenses are included in Special Items below. Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percentage of revenues were 11.7% in 2011 and 10.7% in 2010.
Engineering and Product Development Expenses. For 2011, engineering and product development expenses increased by approximately $5.4 million, or 18.5%, to $34.6 million from $29.2 million in 2010. The increase was primarily due to additional personnel required to meet the demands of the higher backlog related to long-term projects. Engineering and product development expenses as a percentage of revenues increased to 5.8% in 2011 from 5.2% in 2010.
Special Items. In October 2011, the Company announced that Mr. Walker stepped down from his positions as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Under the circumstances of Mr. Walker’s retirement, he was entitled to severance under his employment agreement with the Company. Pursuant to Mr. Walker’s employment agreement, the Company was obligated to pay Mr. Walker, among other things, his base salary and his annual bonus through the remaining employment period (October 27, 2014). In addition, stock options owned by Mr. Walker that were outstanding at the date of the termination of his employment were immediately vested. Accordingly, the Company recognized a pre-tax expense of $4.7 million during the fourth quarter of 2011. The amount includes base salary and bonus, including payroll taxes, which totaled $3.3 million. The acceleration of the vesting of his stock options increased pre-tax non-cash expenses by $1.4 million.
From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws.
In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing.
In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described in the immediately preceeding paragraph. The Company has objected to these assessments on the basis that they would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis, the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter.
Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007.
Of the total amount paid of BRL28.2 million, BRL13.8. million (approximately USD7.8 million as of December 2010) is reflected in “Special items” on the Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 31, 2010. The remaining BRL14.4 million (approximately USD8.6 million as of December 2010) is considered a prepaid tax that the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary will utilize to offset future liabilities for state taxes on the importation of goods over the next five years. The Company’s Brazilian subsidiary is in the process of having these tax credits certified by the State of Rio de Janeiro.
In December 2010, Larry E. Reimert’s employment as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company was terminated effective December 31, 2010 under circumstances entitling him to severance under his employment agreement with the Company. Under the terms of Mr. Reimert’s employment agreement, the Company was obligated to pay Mr. Reimert’s base salary and his annual bonus through the remaining employment period (October 27, 2014). In addition, stock options owned by Mr. Reimert that were outstanding at the date of the termination of his employment were immediately vested under the terms of the contract. Accordingly, the Company recognized a pre-tax expense of $6.9 million during the fourth quarter of 2010. The amount related to base salary and bonus, including payroll taxes, which totaled $4.9 million, is reflected in the accounts payable balance on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010. The acceleration of the vesting of his stock options increased pre-tax non-cash expenses by $2.0 million.
Interest Income. Interest income for 2011 was approximately $419,000 as compared to $321,000 in 2010. This increase was due to higher cash and short-term investment balances. The Company keeps the majority of its short-term investments in funds that invest in U.S. Treasury obligations, which normally earn lower interest rates than money market funds.
Interest expense. Interest expense for 2011 was approximately $53,000 compared to $131,000 in 2010. The term credit agreement for Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited was paid in full in April 2011.
Income tax provision. Income tax expense for 2011 was $34.7 million on income before taxes of $130.0 million, resulting in an effective income tax rate of approximately 26.7%. Income tax expense in 2010 was $36.7 million on income before taxes of $138.9 million, resulting in an effective tax rate of approximately 26.4%. The increase in the effective income tax rate reflects the difference in income before income taxes among the Company’s three geographic areas, which have different income tax rates.
Net Income. Net income was approximately $95.3 million in 2011 and $102.2 million in 2010, for the reasons set forth above.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash flows provided by (used in) operations by type of activity were as follows:
Statements of cash flows for entities with international operations that are local currency functional exclude the effects of the changes in foreign currency exchange rates that occur during any given year, as these are non-cash changes. As a result, changes reflected in certain accounts on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows may not reflect the changes in corresponding accounts on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The primary liquidity needs of the Company are (i) to fund capital expenditures to improve and expand facilities and manufacture additional running tools and (ii) to fund working capital. Recently, the Company’s principal sources of funds have been cash flows from operations.
During 2012, the Company used $8.2 million of cash from operations as compared to generating $101.9 million for 2011. Cash totaling approximately $159.9 was used during 2012 due to increases in operating assets and liabilities, compared to $20.7 million that was used during 2011. The increase in operating assets and liabilities during 2012 primarily reflected an increase in trade receivables of $81.6 million and an increase in inventory of $81.9 million. Trade receivables increased due to the growth of revenues in 2012 and an increase in unbilled revenues related to long-term projects. Inventory increased due to higher balances in work in progress and finished goods to accommodate the higher backlog requirements related to long-term projects. Trade accounts payable and accrued expenses were higher by approximately $4.1 million.
Capital expenditures by the Company were $50.8 million, $56.2 million and $74.8 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Capital expenditures in 2012, 2011 and 2010 included expanding manufacturing facilities in the Asia Pacific, Eastern and Western Hemispheres and increased expenditures on machinery and equipment and running tools due to expanded operations. The capital expenditures for 2012 were primarily $9.3 million for facilities, $26.9 million for machinery and equipment, $10.5 million for running tools and other expenditures of $4.1 million. Principal payments on debt were approximately $39,000, $269,000 and $679,000 in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The following table presents long-term contractual obligations of the Company and the related payments in total and by year as of December 31, 2012:
In addition to the above, the Company has issued purchase orders in the ordinary course of business for the purchase of goods and services. These purchase orders are enforceable and legally binding. However, none of the Company’s purchase obligations call for deliveries of goods or services for time periods in excess of one year.
The Company believes that cash generated from operations plus cash on hand will be sufficient to fund operations, working capital needs and anticipated capital expenditure requirements for the next twelve months. However, any significant future declines in hydrocarbon prices, catastrophic events or significant changes in regulations affecting the Company or its customers could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity. Should market conditions result in unexpected cash requirements, the Company believes that borrowing from commercial lending institutions would be available and adequate to meet such requirements.
Backlog
Backlog consists of firm customer orders for which a purchase order or signed contract has been received, satisfactory credit or financing arrangements exist and delivery is scheduled. The Company’s revenues for a specific period have not been directly related to its backlog as stated at a particular point in time. The Company’s backlog was approximately $881 million, $716 million and $627 million at December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. This represents an increase of approximately $165 million, or 23%, from 2011 to 2012 and an increase of approximately $254 million, or 41%, from 2010 to 2012. In August 2012, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary, Dril-Quip do Brasil LTDA, was awarded a four-year contract by Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company. At date of award exchange rates, the contract is valued at $650 million, net of Brazilian taxes, if all the equipment under contract is ordered. Amounts are included in the Company’s backlog as purchase orders under the contract are received. The Company’s December 31, 2012 backlog includes $105 million relating to the new Petrobras contract. Accordingly, the Company expects to fill approximately 66% of the December 31, 2012 backlog by December 31, 2013. The remaining backlog at December 31, 2012 consists of longer-term projects which are being designed and manufactured to customer specifications requiring longer lead times.
The Company can give no assurance that backlog will remain at current levels. Sales of the Company’s products are affected by prices for oil and natural gas, which may fluctuate significantly. Additional future declines in oil and natural gas prices could reduce new customer orders, possibly causing a decline in the Company’s future backlog. All of the Company’s projects currently included in its backlog are subject to change and/or termination at the option of the customer. If the Company’s existing or future products are unable to satisfy any new testing required by its customers or triggered by the Deepwater Horizon incident, or if the costs of the modifications to such products necessary to satisfy the testing are not acceptable to the Company’s customers, the customers may terminate their contracts with the Company. In the case of a change or termination, the customer is required to pay the Company for work performed and other costs necessarily incurred as a result of the change or termination. In the past, terminations and cancellations have not been significant to the Company’s overall operating results.
Geographic Segments
The Company’s operations are organized into three geographic segments-Western Hemisphere (including North and South America; headquartered in Houston, Texas), Eastern Hemisphere (including Europe and Africa; headquartered in Aberdeen, Scotland) and Asia-Pacific (including the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Australia, India and the Middle East; headquartered in Singapore). Each of these segments sells similar products and services and the Company has major manufacturing facilities in all three of its headquarter locations as well as Macae, Brazil.
Revenues for each of these segments are dependent upon the ultimate sale of products and services to the Company’s customers. For information on revenues by geographic segment, see Note 12 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. Revenues of the Western Hemisphere are also influenced by its sale of products to the Eastern Hemisphere and Asia-Pacific segments. Accordingly, the operating incomes of each area are closely tied to third-party sales, and the operating income of the Western Hemisphere is also dependent upon its level of intercompany sales.
Currency Risk
Through its subsidiaries, the Company conducts a portion of business in currencies other than the United States dollar, principally the British pound sterling (“GBP”) in the Eastern Hemisphere and the Brazilian real (“BRL”) in Brazil. The Company generally attempts to minimize its currency exchange risk by seeking international contracts payable in local currency in amounts equal to the Company’s estimated operating costs payable in local currency and in U.S. dollars for the balance of the contract. Because of this strategy, the Company has not experienced significant transaction gains or losses associated with changes in currency exchange rates and does not anticipate such exposure to be material in the future. In 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company had, net of income taxes, transaction losses of $3.8 million, and $2.5 million, and a transaction gain of $1.0 million, respectively.
There is no assurance that the Company will be able to protect itself against such fluctuations in the future. Historically, the Company has not conducted business in countries that limit repatriation of earnings. However, as the Company expands its international operations, it may begin operating in countries that have such limitations. Further, there can be no assurance that the countries in which the Company currently operates will not adopt policies limiting repatriation of earnings in the future. The Company also has significant investments in countries other than the United States, principally its manufacturing operations in Aberdeen, Scotland, Singapore, Brazil and, to a lesser extent, Norway. The functional currency of these foreign operations is the local currency except for Singapore, where the U.S. dollar is used. Financial statement assets and liabilities are translated at the end of the period exchange rates. Resulting translation adjustments are reflected as a separate component of stockholders’ equity and have no current effect on earnings or cash flow.
Critical Accounting Policies
The Company’s discussion and analysis of its financial condition and results of operations are based on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. There can be no assurance that actual results will not differ from those estimates. The Company believes the following accounting policies affect its more significant judgments and estimates used in preparation of its consolidated financial statements.
Revenue Recognition.
Product Revenue
The Company recognizes product revenues from two methods:
•
product revenues recognized under the percentage-of-completion method; and
•
product revenues from the sale of products that do not qualify for the percentage-of-completion method.
Revenues recognized under the percentage-of-completion method
The Company uses the percentage-of-completion method on long-term contracts that have the following characteristics:
•
The contracts call for products which are designed to customer specifications;
•
The structural designs are unique and require significant engineering and manufacturing efforts generally requiring more than one year in duration;
•
The contracts contain specific terms as to milestones, progress billings and delivery dates; and
•
Product requirements cannot be filled directly from the Company’s standard inventory.
For each project, the Company prepares a detailed analysis of estimated costs, profit margin, completion date and risk factors which include availability of material, production efficiencies and other factors that may impact the project. On a quarterly basis, management reviews the progress of each project, which may result in revisions of previous estimates, including revenue recognition. The Company calculates the percent complete and applies the percentage to determine the revenues earned and the appropriate portion of total estimated costs. Losses, if any, are recorded in full in the period they become known. Historically, the Company’s estimates of total costs and costs to complete have approximated actual costs incurred to complete the project.
Under the percentage-of-completion method, billings do not always correlate directly to the revenue recognized. Based upon the terms of the specific contract, billings may be in excess of the revenue recognized, in which case the amounts are included in customer prepayments as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Likewise, revenue recognized may exceed customer billings in which case the amounts are reported in trade receivables. Unbilled revenues are expected to be billed and collected within one year. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, trade receivables included $62.1 million and $30.5 million of unbilled receivables, respectively. During 2012, there were 21 projects representing approximately 20% and 24% of the Company’s total revenues and product revenues, respectively, which were accounted for using percentage-of-completion accounting, compared to 18 projects during 2011 representing approximately 20% of the Company’s total revenues and 23% of product revenues, respectively.
Revenues not recognized under the percentage-of-completion method
Revenues from the sale of inventory products, not accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method, are recorded at the time the manufacturing processes are complete and ownership is transferred to the customer.
Service revenue
The Company earns service revenues from three sources:
•
technical advisory assistance;
•
rental of running tools; and
•
rework and reconditioning of customer owned Dril-Quip products.
The Company does not install products for its customers, but it provides technical advisory assistance. At the time of delivery of the product, the customer is not obligated to buy or rent the Company’s running tools and the Company is not obligated to perform any subsequent services relating to installation. Technical advisory assistance service revenue is recorded at the time the service is rendered. Service revenues associated with the rental of running and installation tools are recorded as earned. Rework and reconditioning service revenues are recorded when the refurbishment process is complete.
The Company normally negotiates contracts for products, including those accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method, and services separately. For all product sales, it is the customer’s decision as to the timing of the product installation as well as whether Dril-Quip running tools will be purchased or rented. Furthermore, the customer is under no obligation to utilize the Company’s technical advisory services. The customer may use a third party or their own personnel.
Inventories. Inventory costs are determined principally by the use of the first-in, first-out (FIFO) costing method and are stated at the lower of cost or market. Company manufactured inventory is valued principally using standard costs, which are calculated based upon direct costs incurred and overhead allocations. Inventory purchased from third party vendors is principally valued at the weighted average cost. Periodically, obsolescence reviews are performed on slow-moving inventories and reserves are established based on current assessments about future demands and market conditions. The inventory values have been reduced by a reserve for excess and slow-moving inventories of $30.4 million and $26.2 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. If market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory reserves may be required.
Contingent liabilities. The Company establishes reserves for estimated loss contingencies when the Company believes a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Revisions to contingent liabilities are reflected in net income in the period in which different or additional facts or information become known or circumstances change that affect the Company’s previous assumptions with respect to the likelihood or amount of loss. Reserves for contingent liabilities are based upon the Company’s assumptions and estimates regarding the probable outcome of the matter. Should the outcome differ from the Company’s assumptions and estimates, revisions to the estimated reserves for contingent liabilities would be required.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
The Company has no derivative instruments and no off-balance sheet hedging or financing arrangements, contracts or operations.
New Accounting Standards
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet-Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. This ASU was issued to alleviate some of the differences in presentation between U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as to presentations showing gross versus netted amounts. Entities are required to disclose both gross and net information about instruments and transactions that are eligible for offset in the statements of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement.
In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Clarifying the Scope of Disclosure about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. This ASU clarified that the scope of ASU 2011-11 applies to derivatives accounted for in accordance with Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, including bifurcated embedded derivatives, repurchase agreements and securities borrowing and securities lending transactions that are either offset in accordance with Section 210-20-45 or Section 815-10-45 or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. ASU 2013-01 and ASU 2011-11 are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013 and interim periods within those annual periods. ASC 2013-01 and ASU 2011-1 will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income. This ASU amends the guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income in financial statements to improve the comparability, consistency and transparency of financial reporting and to increase the prominence of items that are recorded in other comprehensive income. The new accounting guidance requires entities to report components of comprehensive income in either (1) a continuous statement of comprehensive income or (2) two separate but consecutive statements. The provisions of this new guidance were effective for the Company on January 1, 2012. The Company adopted ASU 2011-05 effective with the period ended March 31, 2012. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.
In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. This ASU amendment does not change the current requirement for reporting net income or other comprehensive income in financial statements. The amendment requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. An entity is required to present, either on the face of the statements where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income but only if the amount reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirely in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about these amounts.
ASU 2013-02 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company will adopt this filing in the first quarter of 2013 and expects that it will only require additional disclosure.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
The Company is currently exposed to certain market risks related to interest rate changes on its short-term investments and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The Company does not engage in any material hedging transactions, forward contracts or currency trading which could mitigate the market risks inherent in such transactions.
Foreign Exchange Rate Risk
Through its subsidiaries, the Company conducts a portion of its business in currencies other than the United States dollar, principally the British pound sterling and, to a lesser extent, the Brazilian real. The Company has not experienced significant transaction gains or losses associated with changes in currency exchange rates and does not anticipate such exposure to be material in the future. However, there is no assurance that the Company
will be able to protect itself against currency fluctuations in the future. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Currency Risk” in Item 7 of this report.
The Company uses a sensitivity analysis model to measure the impact on revenue and net income of a 10% adverse movement of foreign currency exchange rates against the U.S. dollar over the previous year. Based upon this model, a 10% decrease would have resulted in a decrease in revenues of approximately $34 million and a decrease in net income of approximately $11 million for 2012. There can be no assurance that the exchange rate decrease projected above will materialize as fluctuations in exchange rates are beyond the Company’s control.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Company’s principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by the Company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and includes those policies and procedures that:
•
pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company;
•
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and
•
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Management has designed its internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Management’s assessment included review and testing of both the design effectiveness and operating effectiveness of controls over all relevant assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. 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.
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officers and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on our evaluation under the framework in Internal Control-Integrated Framework, our management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2012.
BDO USA, LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm, which audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, has also issued an attestation on our internal control over financial reporting, and their report is set forth on page 45.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Dril-Quip, Inc.
Houston, Texas
We have audited Dril-Quip, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the COSO criteria). Dril-Quip, Inc.’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, included in the accompanying “Item 8. Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.” Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Dril-Quip, Inc.’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, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included 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, or 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.
In our opinion, Dril-Quip, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on the COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of Dril-Quip, Inc. as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012 and our report dated February 28, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ BDO USA, LLP
Houston, Texas
February 28, 2013
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Dril-Quip, Inc.
Houston, Texas
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Dril-Quip, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Dril-Quip, Inc. at December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), Dril-Quip, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and our report dated February 28, 2013, expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
/s/ BDO USA, LLP
Houston, Texas
February 28, 2013
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements.
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Organization
Dril-Quip, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Dril-Quip”), designs, manufactures, sells and services highly engineered offshore drilling and production equipment that is well suited for use in deepwater, harsh environment and severe service applications. The Company’s principal products consist of subsea and surface wellheads, subsea and surface production trees, subsea control systems and manifolds, mudline hanger systems, specialty connectors and associated pipe, drilling and production riser systems, liner hangers, wellhead connectors and diverters. Dril-Quip’s products are used by major integrated, large independent and foreign national oil and gas companies in offshore areas throughout the world. Dril-Quip also provides technical advisory assistance on an as-requested basis during installation of its products, as well as rework and reconditioning services for customer-owned Dril-Quip products. In addition, Dril-Quip’s customers may rent or purchase running tools from the Company for use in the installation and retrieval of the Company’s products.
The Company’s operations are organized into three geographic segments-Western Hemisphere (including North and South America; headquartered in Houston, Texas), Eastern Hemisphere (including Europe and Africa; headquartered in Aberdeen, Scotland) and Asia-Pacific (including the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Australia, India and the Middle East; headquartered in Singapore). Each of these segments sells similar products and services and the Company has major manufacturing facilities in all three of its headquarter locations as well as Macae, Brazil. The Company’s major subsidiaries are Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited (DQE), located in Aberdeen with branches in Denmark, Norway and Holland; Dril-Quip Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. (DQAP), located in Singapore; Dril-Quip do Brasil LTDA (DQB), located in Macae, Brazil; and DQ Holdings Pty Ltd. (DQH), located in Perth, Australia. Other subsidiaries include Dril-Quip (Ghana) Ltd. located in Takoradi, Ghana, PT DQ Oilfield Services Indonesia located in Jakarta, Indonesia, Dril-Quip (Nigeria) Ltd. located in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, DQ Egypt for Petroleum Services S.A.E. located in Alexandria, Egypt, Dril-Quip Oilfield Services (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. located in Tianjin, China and the Company’s newest subsidiary, Dril-Quip Qatar, LLC located in Doha, Quatar.
2. Significant Accounting Policies
Principles of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its subsidiaries. All material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.
Use of Estimates
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 reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Some of the Company’s more significant estimates are those affected by critical accounting policies for revenue recognition, inventories and contingent liabilities.
Cash and cash equivalents
Short-term investments that have a maturity of three months or less from the date of purchase are classified as cash equivalents. The Company invests excess cash in interest bearing accounts, money market mutual funds and funds which invest in U.S. Treasury obligations and repurchase agreements backed by U.S. Treasury obligations. The Company’s investment objectives continue to be the preservation of capital and the maintenance of liquidity.
Trade Receivables
The Company maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts on trade receivables equal to amounts estimated to be uncollectible. This estimate is based upon historical collection experience combined with a specific review of each customer’s outstanding trade receivable balance. Management believes that the allowance for doubtful accounts is adequate; however, actual write-offs may exceed the recorded allowance. The following is a summary of activity relating to the allowance for doubtful accounts for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012:
Inventories
Inventory costs are determined principally by the use of the first-in, first-out (FIFO) costing method and are stated at the lower of cost or market. Company manufactured inventory is valued principally using standard costs, which are calculated based upon direct costs incurred and overhead allocations. Inventory purchased from third party vendors is principally valued at the weighted average cost. Periodically, obsolescence reviews are performed on slow-moving inventories and reserves are established based on current assessments about future demands and market conditions. The inventory values have been reduced by a reserve for excess and slow-moving inventories. Inventory reserves of $30.4 million and $26.2 million were recorded as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. If market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional inventory reserves may be required.
Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment are carried at cost, with depreciation provided on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
Long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset, an impairment charge is recognized by reflecting the asset at its fair value. No impairments of long-lived assets were recorded in 2012, 2011 or 2010.
Income Taxes
The Company accounts for income taxes using the asset and liability method. Current income taxes are provided on income reported for financial statement purposes, adjusted for transactions that do not enter into the computation of income taxes payable in the same year. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using
enacted tax rates for the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and the tax basis of assets and liabilities. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
Revenue Recognition
Product Revenue
The Company recognizes product revenues from two methods:
•
product revenues recognized under the percentage-of-completion method; and
•
product revenues from the sale of products that do not qualify for the percentage-of-completion method.
Revenues recognized under the percentage-of-completion method
The Company uses the percentage-of-completion method on long-term project contracts that have the following characteristics:
•
The contracts call for products which are designed to customer specifications;
•
The structural designs are unique and require significant engineering and manufacturing efforts generally requiring more than one year in duration;
•
The contracts contain specific terms as to milestones, progress billings and delivery dates; and
•
Product requirements cannot be filled directly from the Company’s standard inventory.
For each project, the Company prepares a detailed analysis of estimated costs, profit margin, completion date and risk factors which include availability of material, production efficiencies and other factors that may impact the project. On a quarterly basis, management reviews the progress of each project, which may result in revisions of previous estimates, including revenue recognition. The Company calculates the percent complete and applies the percentage to determine the revenues earned and the appropriate portion of total estimated costs. Losses, if any, are recorded in full in the period they become known. Historically, the Company’s estimates of total costs and costs to complete have approximated actual costs incurred to complete the project.
Under the percentage-of-completion method, billings do not always correlate directly to the revenue recognized. Based upon the terms of the specific contract, billings may be in excess of the revenue recognized, in which case the amounts are included in customer prepayments as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Likewise, revenue recognized may exceed customer billings in which case the amounts are reported in trade receivables. Unbilled revenues are expected to be billed and collected within one year. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, receivables included $62.1 million and $30.5 million of unbilled receivables, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2012, there were 21 projects representing approximately 20% of the Company’s total revenues and approximately 24% of its product revenues that were accounted for using percentage-of-completion accounting, compared to 18 projects during 2011 which represented 20% of the Company’s total revenue and 23% of its product revenues.
Revenues not recognized under the percentage-of-completion method
Revenues from the sale of inventory products, not accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method, are recorded at the time the manufacturing processes are complete and ownership is transferred to the customer.
Service revenue
The Company earns service revenues from three sources:
•
technical advisory assistance;
•
rental of running tools; and
•
rework and reconditioning of customer owned Dril-Quip products.
The Company does not install products for its customers, but it does provide technical advisory assistance. At the time of delivery of the product, the customer is not obligated to buy or rent the Company’s running tools and the Company is not obligated to perform any subsequent services relating to installation. Technical advisory assistance service revenue is recorded at the time the service is rendered. Service revenues associated with the rental of running and installation tools are recorded as earned. Rework and reconditioning service revenues are recorded when the refurbishment process is complete.
The Company normally negotiates contracts for products, including those accounted for under the percentage-of-completion method, and services separately. For all product sales, it is the customer’s decision as to the timing of the product installation as well as whether Dril-Quip running tools will be purchased or rented. Furthermore, the customer is under no obligation to utilize the Company’s technical advisory services. The customer may use a third party or their own personnel.
Foreign Currency
The financial statements of foreign subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars at period-end exchange rates except for revenues and expenses, which are translated at average monthly rates. Translation adjustments are reflected as a separate component of stockholders’ equity and have no effect on current earnings or cash flows.
Foreign currency exchange transactions are recorded using the exchange rate at the date of the settlement. Exchange gains (losses) were approximately $(3.8) million in 2012, $(2.5) million in 2011, and $1.0 million in 2010, net of income taxes. These amounts are included in selling, general and administrative costs in the Consolidated Statements of Income on a pre-tax basis.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The Company’s financial instruments consist primarily of cash and cash equivalents, receivables and payables. The carrying values of these financial instruments approximate their respective fair values as they are short-term in nature.
Concentration of Credit Risk
Financial instruments which subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk primarily include trade receivables. The Company grants credit to its customers, which operate primarily in the oil and gas industry. The Company performs periodic credit evaluations of its customers’ financial condition and generally does not require collateral. The Company maintains reserves for potential losses, and such losses have historically been within management’s expectations.
In addition, the Company invests excess cash in interest bearing accounts, money market mutual funds and funds which invest in obligations of the U.S. Treasury and repurchase agreements backed by U.S. Treasury obligations. Changes in the financial markets and interest rates could affect the interest earned on short-term investments.
Earnings Per Share
Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the year. Diluted earnings per common share are computed considering the dilutive effect of stock options and awards using the treasury stock method.
3. New Accounting Standards
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet-Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. This ASU was issued to alleviate some of the differences in presentation between U.S. generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as to presentations showing gross versus netted amounts. Entities are required to disclose both gross and net information about instruments and transactions that are eligible for offset in the statements of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement.
In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Clarifying the Scope of Disclosure about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. This ASU clarified that the scope of ASU 2011-11 applies to derivatives accounted for in accordance with Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, including bifurcated embedded derivatives, repurchase agreements and securities borrowing and securities lending transactions that are either offset in accordance with Section 210-20-45 or Section 815-10-45 or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. ASU 2013-01 and ASU 2011-11 are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013 and interim periods within those annual periods. ASC 2013-01 and ASU 2011-1 will not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income. This ASU amends the guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income in financial statements to improve the comparability, consistency and transparency of financial reporting and to increase the prominence of items that are recorded in other comprehensive income. The new accounting guidance requires entities to report components of comprehensive income in either (1) a continuous statement of comprehensive income or (2) two separate but consecutive statements. The provisions of this new guidance were effective for the Company on January 1, 2012. The Company adopted ASU 2011-05 effective with the period ended March 31, 2012. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.
In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. This ASU amendment does not change the current requirement for reporting net income or other comprehensive income in financial statements. The amendment requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. An entity is required to present, either on the face of the statements where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income but only if the amount reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirely in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about these amounts.
ASU 2013-02 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2012. The Company will adopt this filing in the first quarter of 2013 and expects it to only impact disclosures.
4. Inventories
Inventories consist of the following:
Summary of allowance for excess and slow-moving inventory:
5. Property, Plant and Equipment
Property, plant and equipment consists of:
6. Long-Term Debt
Long-term debt consists of the following:
Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited had a term credit agreement with the Bank of Scotland dated March 21, 2001 in the original amount of British pounds sterling 4.0 million (approximately USD6.4 million at March 2011). Borrowing under this facility bore interest at the Bank of Scotland base rate plus 1%, and was repayable in 120 equal monthly installments from the date of the initial drawdown (April 2001), plus interest. Substantially all of this facility was used to finance capital expenditures in Norway. The final payment was made in April 2011 and this credit facility was discharged.
Interest paid on long-term debt for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $-0-, $1,000 and $8,500 respectively.
7. Income Taxes
In accordance with ASC 740-10, the Company is required to recognize in its financial statements the impact of a tax position that is more likely than not to be sustained upon examination based upon the technical merits of the position, including resolution of any appeals. The standard provides guidance on recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. Based on the Company’s evaluation, the Company has concluded that there are no significant uncertain tax positions requiring recognition in the Company’s financial statements. The evaluation was performed for the tax years which remain subject to examination by major tax jurisdictions as of December 31, 2012, which are the years ended December 31, 2006 through December 31, 2012. The Company has occasionally been assessed interest or penalties by major tax jurisdictions; these assessments historically have not materially impacted the Company’s financial results. Interest expense assessed by tax jurisdictions is included with interest expense and assessed penalties are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
Income before income taxes consisted of the following:
The income tax provision (benefit) consists of the following:
The difference between the effective income tax rate reflected in the provision for income taxes and the U.S. federal statutory rate was as follows:
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes. Based upon existing market conditions and the Company’s earnings prospects, it is anticipated that all deferred tax assets will be realized in future years. Significant components of the Company’s deferred tax assets and liabilities are as follows:
Undistributed earnings of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries are considered to be indefinitely reinvested and, accordingly, no provision for U.S. federal income taxes has been provided thereon. The estimate of undistributed earnings of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries amounted to $447 million as of December 31, 2012. Upon distribution of those earnings in the form of dividends or otherwise, the Company may be subject to both U.S. income taxes (subject to an adjustment for foreign tax credits) and withholding taxes payable to the various foreign countries. Determination of the amount of unrecognized deferred U.S. income tax liability is not practicable.
On January 2, 2013, the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012” extended the Research and Development tax credit retroactive to January 1, 2012 and was extended through December 31, 2013. The Research and Development credit for 2012 of $1.2 million will be recognized on the Company’s 2012 U.S. federal income tax return but will be recorded for financial statement purposes in the first quarter of 2013 in accordance with ASC 740.
The Company paid $37.9 million, $31.9 million and $34.1 million in income taxes in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
8. Other Accrued Liabilities
Other accrued liabilities consist of the following:
9. Employee Benefit Plans
The Company has a defined-contribution 401(k) plan covering domestic employees and a defined-contribution pension plan covering certain foreign employees. The Company generally makes contributions to the plans equal to each participant’s eligible contributions for the plan year up to a specified percentage of the participant’s annual compensation. The Company’s contribution expense was $4.4 million, $4.0 million and $2.8 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
10. Commitments and Contingencies
The Company leases certain offices, shop and warehouse facilities, automobiles and equipment. Total lease expense incurred was $2.9 million, $3.7 million and $3.3 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Future annual minimum lease commitments at December 31, 2012 are as follows: 2013-$1.7 million; 2014-$900,000; 2015-$445,000, 2016-$220,000; 2017-$192,000; and thereafter-$1.7 million.
In November 2007, the Company entered into a lease agreement in Singapore for approximately 11 acres of vacant land. The lease term is 30 years but with an additional extension of 13 years on certain conditions. The lease term is 30 years and the Company elected to make a lump sum payment for that initial 30-year term. Also, the Company has been granted the right to an additional 13 year extension of the lease as a result of making certain investments in machinery, leasehold improvements and buildings.
Deepwater Horizon Incident
On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP”), sank after an explosion and fire that began on April 20, 2010. The Company is a party to an ongoing contract with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection with BP’s U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and the Company’s wellhead and certain of its other equipment were in use on the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident. A moratorium was placed on offshore deepwater drilling on May 28, 2010 in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and was lifted on October 12, 2010.
The Company was named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in both class action and other lawsuits arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident. The actions filed against the Company were consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly naming the Company, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (“MDL Proceeding”). The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of state and federal environmental and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, personal injury and/or property damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory relief.
On January 20, 2012, the judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding, another related proceeding filed by affiliates of Transocean Ltd under the Limitation of Liability Act, and the U.S. government’s action under the Oil Pollution Act, issued an order that granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims asserted against the Company in those proceedings with prejudice. On April 9, 2012, the judge issued an order granting a final judgment in favor of the Company with respect to the court’s prior order that granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may be launched in the future. An adverse outcome with respect to any of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend any litigation, fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. The Company does not believe this litigation will have a material impact and accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with these matters.
At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage, injury or death and pollution. The coverage was increased to $200 million in October 2010. The insurance policies may not cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, the Company’s policies may not cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to government-mandated clean up of pollution. The Company has received a “reservation of rights” letter from its insurer. This letter details the insurer’s obligation under the current policy and the insurer’s interpretation of key provisions within the policy relating to any claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. The incident may also lead to further tightening of the availability of insurance coverage. If liability limits are increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development activities may increase, which could materially impact the Company’s results of operations.
Brazilian Tax Issue
From 2002 to 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary imported goods through the State of Espirito Santo in Brazil and subsequently transferred them to its facility in the State of Rio de Janeiro. During that period, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary paid taxes to the State of Espirito Santo on its imports. Upon the final sale of these goods, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary collected taxes from customers and remitted them to the State of Rio de Janeiro net of the taxes paid on importation of those goods to the State of Espirito Santo in accordance with the Company’s understanding of Brazilian tax laws.
In August 2007, the State of Rio de Janeiro served the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary with assessments to collect a state tax on the importation of goods through the State of Espirito Santo from 2002 to 2007 claiming
that these taxes were due and payable to it under applicable law. The Company settled these assessments with payments to the State of Rio de Janeiro of $12.2 million in March 2010 and $3.9 million in December 2010. Approximately $7.8 million of these settlement payments were attributable to penalties, interest and amounts that had expired under the statute of limitations so that amount was recorded as an expense. The remainder of the settlement payments generated credits (recorded as a prepaid tax) that can be used to offset future state taxes on sales to customers in the State of Rio de Janeiro once certified by the tax authorities under a process that is currently ongoing.
In December 2010 and January 2011, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary was served with additional assessments totaling approximately $13.0 million from the State of Rio de Janeiro to cancel the credits associated with the tax payments to the State of Espirito Santo (“Santo Credits”) on the importation of goods from July 2005 to October 2007. The Santo Credits are not related to the credits described in the immediately preceeding paragraph. The Company has objected to this assessment as it would represent double taxation on the importation of the same goods and that the Company is entitled to the credits under applicable Brazilian law. The Company believes that these credits are valid and that success in the matter is probable. Based upon this analysis the Company has not accrued any liability in conjunction with this matter.
Since 2007, the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary has paid taxes on the importation of goods directly to the State of Rio de Janeiro and the Company does not expect any similar issues to exist for periods subsequent to 2007.
ATP Bankruptcy
The Company has entered into several contracts with ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (“ATP”). In August 2012, ATP filed for bankruptcy in the U.S Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas. At December 31, 2012, the Company had $1.4 million of receivables owed by ATP or its subsidiaries and $4.3 million in customer prepayments from ATP. The Company has not provided for any losses due to the ATP bankruptcy filings as of December 31, 2012.
General
The Company operates its business and markets its products and services in most of the significant oil and gas producing areas in the world and is, therefore, subject to the risks customarily attendant to international operations and dependency on the condition of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, products of the Company are used in potentially hazardous drilling, completion, and production applications that can cause personal injury, product liability, and environmental claims. Although exposure to such risk has not resulted in any significant problems in the past, there can be no assurance that ongoing and future developments will not adversely impact the Company.
The Company is also involved in a number of legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of such legal action, in the opinion of management, the ultimate liability with respect thereto will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, comprehensive income, financial position or cash flows.
11. Stockholders’ Equity
Under a Stockholder Rights Plan adopted by the Board of Directors on November 24, 2008, each share of common stock includes one right to purchase from the Company a unit consisting of one one-hundredth of a share (a “Fractional Share”) of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock at a specific purchase price per Fractional Share, subject to adjustment in certain events. The rights will cause substantial dilution to any person or group that attempts to acquire the Company without the approval of the Company’s Board of Directors.
12. Geographic Areas
The Company’s operations are organized into three geographic segments-Western Hemisphere (including North and South America headquartered in Houston, Texas), Eastern Hemisphere (including Europe and Africa; headquartered in Aberdeen, Scotland) and Asia-Pacific (including the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia, Australia, India and the Middle East; headquartered in Singapore). Each of these segments sells similar products and services and the Company has major manufacturing facilities in all three of its headquarter locations as well as Macae, Brazil.
Eliminations of operating profits are related to intercompany inventory transfers that are deferred until shipment is made to third party customers.
In 2012 and 2011, one customer, Petrobras, accounted for approximately 12% and 15% respectively, of the Company’s revenues. In 2010 one customer, Keppel Fels, accounted for approximately 13% of the Company’s total revenues.
13. Stock Options and Awards
Stock Options
On September 19, 1997, the Company adopted the Dril-Quip, Inc. 1997 Incentive Plan (as amended, the “1997 Plan”) and the Company reserved 3,400,000 shares of Common Stock for use in connection with the 1997 Plan. During 2001, the Company reserved an additional 1,400,000 shares for use in connection with the 1997 Plan. Some options remain outstanding under the 1997 Plan as the last grants were made in 2003; however, no additional grants will be awarded under this plan. On May 13, 2004, the Company’s stockholders approved the 2004 Incentive Plan of Dril-Quip, Inc. (the “2004 Plan”), which reserved up to 2,696,294 shares of Common Stock to be used in connection with the 2004 Plan. Persons eligible for awards under the 1997 Plan and 2004 Plan are employees holding positions of responsibility with the Company or any of its subsidiaries and members of the Board of Directors. Options granted under the 1997 Plan and the 2004 Plan have a term of ten years and become exercisable in cumulative annual increments of one-fourth of the total number of shares of Common Stock subject thereto, beginning on the first anniversary of the date of the grant.
The fair value of stock options granted is estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The expected life is based on the Company’s historical trends, and volatility is based on the historical volatility over the expected life of the options. The risk-free interest rate is based on U.S. Treasury yield curve at the grant date. The Company does not pay dividends and, therefore, there is no assumed dividend yield.
On October 28, 2011 and 2010, the Company granted options to purchase 213,000 and 237,484 shares, respectively, of Common Stock pursuant to the 2004 Plan to certain officers and employees. There were no stock options granted in 2012. The following table presents the assumptions used in the option pricing model.
Option activity for the year ended December 31, 2012 was as follows:
The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised in 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $7.6 million, $4.9 million and $13.1 million, respectively. The income tax benefit realized from stock options exercised was $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2012.
Stock-based compensation is recognized as selling, general and administrative expense in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Income. During the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, stock-based compensation expense for stock option exercises totaled $3.8 million, $4.5 million and $5.0 million, respectively. Stock option expense for 2011 excludes $1.4 million of non-cash expense due to the vesting of Mr. J. Mike Walker’s stock options as a result of his retirement. Stock option expense for 2010 excludes $2.0 million of non-cash expense due to the vesting of Mr. Larry E. Reimert’s stock options as a result of his termination with the Company. These expenses for early vesting are included in Special items on the Consolidated Statements of Income and discussed in Note 15 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. No stock-based compensation expense was capitalized during 2012, 2011 or 2010.
Options granted to employees vest over four years and the Company recognizes compensation expense on a straight-line basis over the vesting period of the options. At December 31, 2012, there was $7.2 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to nonvested stock options. This expense is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 1.60 years.
Restricted Stock Awards
On December 8, 2011 pursuant to the 2004 Plan, the Company awarded certain officers and key employees restricted share awards (“RSA”), which is an award of common stock subject to time vesting. In May 2012, the Board of Directors amended the 2004 Plan to include non-employee directors as eligible for restricted stock awards. Restricted shares issued under this plan are restricted as to transference, sale and other disposition. These restrictions vest ratably over a 3-year period. The restrictions may also lapse in case of a change of control. Upon termination, whether voluntary or involuntary, the shares on which restrictions have not lapsed will be returned to the Company resulting in stock forfeitures. The fair market value of the stock on the date of grant is amortized and charged to selling, general and administrative expense over the stipulated time period over which the restrictions lapse on a straight-line basis, net of estimated forfeitures.
On May 10, 2012, the three non-employee members of the Board of Directors were awarded an aggregate of 4,800 RSAs. The terms and conditions are substantially the same as the shares awarded in December 2011 to the officers. The awards were valued at $65.34 which represents the closing price on the date of the grant. On October 26, 2012, the Company awarded 84,250 RSAs to key employees and 4,800 to non-employee members of the Board of Directors. The shares were valued at $69.55 which is the closing price on the date of the grant.
On November 15, 2012 the Company awarded 1,600 RSAs to its newly elected director. These shares were valued at the closing price of $67.56 on the date of grant. The newly awarded shares will vest on the same time period as the RSAs granted on October 26, 2012.
The Company’s RSA activity and related information is presented below:
Restricted stock awards compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 totaled $1.7 million and $87,000 for 2011. There were no grants or expense in 2010. Total income tax benefit recognized in net income for restricted stock awards was $460,000. As of December 31, 2012, there was $8.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested RSAs, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.75 years.
Performance Unit Awards
On October 26, 2012, the Company awarded 46,350 performance unit awards (“Performance Units”) pursuant to the 2004 Plan to certain officers and key employees. The Performance Units were valued based on a Monte Carlo simulation at $84.66 which is approximately 121% of the grant share price. Under the plan, participants may earn from 0% to 200% of their target award based upon the Company’s relative total share return (“TSR”) to the 15 component companies of the Philadelphia Oil Service Index (“OSX index”). Each year on October 1, the Company’s TSR will be calculated and compared to the OSX Index. Based upon the result, the compensation expense for the remainder of the period will be adjusted accordingly. The TSR is calculated over a 3-year period from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2015 and assumes reinvestment of dividends for companies within the index that pay dividends, which Dril-Quip does not. Assumptions used in the Monte Carlo simulation are as follows:
The Company’s Performance Unit activity and related information is presented below:
Performance Unit compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 totaled $235,000 and none for 2011. Total income tax benefit recognized in net income for Performance Units was $82,000. As of December 31, 2012, there was $3.7 million (based on 100% result rate) of total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested Performance Units which is to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.88 years.
The following table summarizes information for equity compensation plans in effect as of December 31, 2012:
(1) Excludes 132,784 shares of unvested restricted stock awards and 46,350 of unvested performance units, which were granted pursuant to the 2004 Plan approved by the stockholders.
14. Earnings Per Share
The following is a reconciliation of the basic and diluted earnings per share computation.
15. Special Items
On October 20, 2011, the Company announced that Mr. J. Mike Walker had stepped down from his positions as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. As a result of Mr. Walker’s retirement, the Board of Directors appointed Mr. John V. Lovoi as Chairman of the Board, Mr. Blake T. DeBerry as President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. James A. Gariepy as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, effective October 20, 2011. Mr. DeBerry was also appointed as member of the Board of Directors to replace Mr. Walker.
Under the circumstances of Mr. Walker’s retirement, he was entitled to severance under his employment agreement with the Company. Pursuant to Mr. Walker’s employment agreement, the Company was obligated to pay Mr. Walker, among other things, his base salary and his annual bonus through the remaining employment period (October 27, 2014). In addition, stock options owned by Mr. Walker that were outstanding at the date of the termination of his employment were immediately vested. Accordingly, the Company recognized a pre-tax expense of $4.7 million during the fourth quarter of 2011. The amount includes base salary and bonus, including
payroll taxes, which totaled $3.3 million is reflected in the accounts payable balances on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011. The acceleration of the vesting increased pre-tax non-cash expenses by $1.4 million.
In December 2010, Larry E. Reimert’s employment as Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company was terminated effective December 31, 2010 under circumstances entitling him to severance under his employment agreement with the Company. Under the terms of Mr. Reimert’s employment contract, the Company was obligated to pay Mr. Reimert’s base salary and his annual bonus through the remaining employment period (October 27, 2014). In addition, stock options owned by Mr. Reimert that were outstanding at the date of the termination of his employment were immediately vested under the terms of the contract. Accordingly, the Company recognized a pre-tax expense of $6.9 million during the fourth quarter of 2010. The amount related to base salary and bonus, including payroll taxes, which totaled $4.9 million, is reflected in the accounts payable balance on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2010. The Company paid the amount owed to Mr. Reimert in July 2011. The acceleration of the vesting increased pre-tax non-cash expenses by $2.0 million.
16. Stock Repurchase Plan
On June 18, 2012, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a stock repurchase plan of up to $100 million of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2012, no shares of common stock had been repurchased. The repurchase plan has no expiration date and all shares purchased are expected to be cancelled.
17. Quarterly Results of Operations (Unaudited):
(1) The sum of the quarterly per share amounts may not equal the annual amount reported, as per share amounts are computed independently for each quarter and for the full year.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
In accordance with Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15, the Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2012 to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, and such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding disclosure.
“Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting” appears on page 44 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
There has been no change in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended December 31, 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information
None.
PART III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
The information required by this item is set forth under the captions “Election of Directors,” “Corporate Governance Matters” and “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in the Company’s definitive Proxy Statement (the “2013 Proxy Statement”) for its annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 16, 2013, which sections are incorporated herein by reference.
Pursuant to Item 401(b) of Regulation S-K, the information required by this item with respect to executive officers of the Company is set forth in Part I of this report.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
The information required by this item is set forth in the sections entitled “Director Compensation,” “Executive Compensation” and “Corporate Governance Matters” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, which sections are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
The information required by this item is set forth in the sections entitled “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Executive Compensation-Equity Compensation Plan Information” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, which sections are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
The information required by this item is set forth in the section entitled “Corporate Governance Matters” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, which section is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
The information required by this item is set forth in the sections entitled “Approval of Appointment of Independent Public Accounting Firm-Fees” and “-Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policy for Audit and Non-Audit Services” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, which sections are incorporated herein by reference.
PART IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
(a)(1) Financial Statements
All financial statements of the registrant are set forth under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
All schedules and other statements are omitted because of the absence of conditions under which they are required or because the required information is presented in the financial statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) Exhibits
Dril-Quip will furnish any exhibit to a stockholder upon payment by the stockholder of the Company’s reasonable expenses to furnish the exhibit.
* Incorporated herein by reference as indicated.
+ Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on February 28, 2013.
DRIL-QUIP, INC.
By:
/s/ BLAKE T. DEBERRY
Blake T. DeBerry
President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.