- Lower commodity prices this year have significantly affected upstream companies' cash flow and creditworthiness.
- Out of the 61 negative rating actions we took on midstream companies from February to July 2020, 17 explicitly mentioned counterparty risk as a key driver.
- We think that in order to truly mitigate counterparty risk, companies generally must diversify. It's possible for a company with a diverse pool of low-rated counterparties to have an issuer credit rating that is above the average counterparty rating.
- If a single counterparty's contracts represent most of a midstream company's revenue streams, and we believe the company likely could not replace the contracts at current rates, the counterparty ratings would constrain the midstream company's stand-alone credit profile.
Counterparty risk has been a significant theme for midstream companies this year given deteriorating upstream creditworthiness and the importance of upstream activity to cash flows. Midstream counterparties generally consist of shippers in the upstream sector (exploration and production [E&P] companies), and to a lesser extent, players in various downstream segments (refineries, utilities, industrials, power producers, liquefied natural gas producers, etc.).
In February, we took various rating actions on nine U.S oil and gas E&P companies after revising of our natural gas hydrocarbon price assumptions (see "Rating Actions Taken On 9 U.S. Oil And Gas Exploration And Production Companies On Revised Natural Gas Price Assumptions," published Feb. 3, 2020). Then in March, the market changed drastically. After the one-two punch of the COVID-19 pandemic (demand shock) and the overseas Russian-Saudi price war (supply shock), market equilibrium was thrown off balance, and this has changed the landscape for oil producers. Oil prices fell below $25 per barrel (bbl) for a sustained period between February and May and bottomed out deep in negative territory in April, prompting producers to cut growth spending to preserve liquidity and curtail production to reduce exposure to lower commodity prices and quickly filling storage capacity. Both the oil price and volumes have rebounded since, but lasting damage was done.In March, we lowered our expectations for oil prices (see "S&P Global Ratings Cuts WTI And Brent Crude Oil Price Assumptions Amid Continued Near-Term Pressure," published March 19, 2020), and we took a staggering 108 negative rating actions (downgrades, negative outlooks, or CreditWatch negative placements) on the 88 U.S. E&P companies we rate from March through July. As of July 27, 35% of these E&P companies were rated 'CCC+' or lower,--indicating significant risk of future defaults. As of the same date, about 85% of this universe had an issuer credit rating that was either on negative outlook or CreditWatch with negative implications.
At the same time, refiners, utilities, and other off-takers that generally make up end markets have suffered along with upstream companies, given the loss of demand for end products and power. However, we've taken fewer rating actions on these issuers because the stress has been less severe to date. Ratings on about half of the U.S. refiners have negative outlooks, but we did not lower any issuer credit ratings outright. Even as commodity prices rebound (oil prices have risen recently to about $40/barrel [bbl]), companies are still reeling from general demand and price weakness.
This weakness has affected our ratings on midstream companies, given we've had to reassess counterparty exposures for many of these companies. We think most players--including large, diversified companies and small, single-basin gathering companies--have seen some deterioration in credit quality among their customers. In fact, of the 80 rating actions we took on midstream companies between February and July 2020, 61 were negative rating actions (the others were mostly affirmations), and counterparty risk was mentioned as a key driver for 17 of these negative actions.
|Rating Changes From February 2020 To July 2020|
|Company||Early February Rating||Early July Rating||Notches||Counterparty exposure||Analyst|
|Antero Midstream Partners L.P.||BB/Negative||B-/Negative||(4)||Main customer and parent, Antero Resources; downgraded||Mike Pastrich|
|BCP Renaissance Parent LLC||B+/Negative||B/Stable||(1)||General counterparty stress at Rover Pipeline||Alex Shvetsov|
|CNX Midstream Partners L.P.||BB-/Negative||B+/Negative||(1)||Main customer and parent, CNX Resources; downgraded||Karthik Iyer|
|Enable Midstream Partners L.P.||BBB-/Stable||BBB-/Negative||0||General counterparty stress||Mike Pastrich|
|EQM Midstream Partners L.P.||BBB-/Negative||BB-/Negative||(3)||Main customer and parent, EQT Corp.; downgraded||Mike Pastrich|
|Glass Mountain Pipeline LLC||B/Negative||CCC/Negative||(3)||General counterparty stress and exposure to Chesapeake Energy||Alex Shvetsov|
|Inter Pipeline (Corridor) Inc.||BBB+/Stable||BBB/Stable||(1)||Main customer, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.; downgraded||Luqman Ali|
|Medallion Gathering & Processing LLC||B/Stable||B-/Negative||(1)||General counterparty stress; 60% of volumes from speculative-grade counterparties||Viviane Gosselin|
|MPLX L.P.||BBB/Stable||BBB/Negative||0||Main customer and parent, Marathon Petroleum; revised to negative outlook||Mike Llanos|
|Navitas Midstream Midland Basin LLC||B/Stable||B-/Negative||(1)||General counterparty stress; most customers are now non-investment-grade||Viviane Gosselin|
|Oryx Midstream Holdings LLC||B/Positive||B-/Negative||(1)||General counterparty stress; 60% of volumes from speculative-grade counterparties||Alex Shvetsov|
|PBF Logistics||BB-/Stable||BB-/Negative||0||Main customer and parent, PBF Holding Co. LLC; revised to negative outlook||Mike Llanos|
|Rockies Express Pipeline LLC||BBB-/Stable||BB+/Negative||(1)||Multiple important shipping counterparties in Appalachia downgraded||Mike Pastrich|
|Ruby Pipeline LLC||BBB-/Negative||B+/Negative||(4)||General counterparty stress amid elevated recontracting risk.||Viviane Gosselin|
|Traverse Midstream Partners LLC||B+/Stable||B/Stable||(1)||General counterparty stress at Rover Pipeline||Alex Shvetsov|
|Western Midstream Operating L.P.||BBB-/Negative||BB+/CreditWatch Negative||(1)||Main customer and parent, Occidental Petroleum Corp.; downgraded||Mike Pastrich|
|Woodford Express LLC||B/Negative||CCC+/Negative||(2)||Main customer, Gulfport Energy Corp.; downgraded||Rebecca Hu|
|Source: S&P Global Ratings|
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you evaluate counterparty risk when the customer base is well-diversified?
A diverse customer base minimizes customer concentration, thereby reducing the potential for operational disruptions and cash flow volatility. In other words, diversification is important in mitigating counterparty risk because it reduces exposures to isolated events and the idiosyncratic risks of any single customer. For well-diversified companies such as Plains All American Pipeline L.P. or Energy Transfer L.P., we have more flexibility to consider average counterparty ratings, the percentage of investment-grade counterparties, and customer-base characteristics. We think the competitive position is often stronger in terms of scale, scope, diversification, and competitive advantage when the contract profile consists of a diverse pool of higher rated customers. Historically, it's much less likely that a single counterparty downgrade prompts a downgrade for a well-diversified midstream company.
We recently used this rationale for Enable Midstream Partners L.P. (Enable). We downgraded its largest customer, Continental Resources Inc., but we did not downgrade Enable when we reviewed it in April 2020, though we did consider general counterparty weakness when we revised the outlook to negative. Counterparties on the gathering and processing segment are exposed to commodity prices, but given the customer diversification, a single-notch downgrade on any single customer is less likely to change our view of competitive advantage. Enable benefits from strong, investment-grade counterparties in its transportation and storage segment.
Compare this to Antero Midstream Partners L.P. (AM), which receives nearly all of its volumes from Antero Resources Corp. (AR). If a counterparty's contracts represent most of a midstream company's revenue streams, and we believe the company likely could not replace the contracts at current rates, the counterparty ratings would constrain the midstream company's stand-alone credit profile (SACP). As such, our credit rating on AR caps our rating on AM. When we downgraded AR to 'B-' based on challenging market conditions in April, we also lowered the rating on AM to 'B-'.
What if a well-diversified company has very low-rated counterparties?
When a company has cash flow exposure to several non-investment-grade counterparties, we typically assess the competitive advantage as weak or adequate/weak. However, it's possible for a company with a diverse pool of low-rated counterparties to have an issuer credit rating higher than the average counterparty rating.
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (REX), for instance, has a diverse customer base and includes both associated gas producers operating in the Rockies region and gas-focused producers in the Appalachian region. The company has a very diverse set of counterparties, and though there are three to four key customers on the Appalachian side, it would be unlikely for us to downgrade REX based on any isolated counterparty downgrade. That's why several downgrades on EQT Corp.--from 'BBB-' to 'BB-' did not in and of themselves prompt us to change the rating even though it's a key customer. However, when we downgraded several companies in a short timeframe in March, including Ascent Resources Utica Holdings LLC (to 'CCC+'), Gulfport Energy Corp. (to 'CCC+'), AR (to 'B-'), and EQT (to 'BB-'), we lowered our rating on REX to 'BB+' from 'BBB-'. We are comfortable rating REX several notches higher than its average counterparty because we think REX's leverage is sufficiently conservative for the rating, and we don't think upstream credit issues will materially affect volumes. Given the negative outlooks on the ratings on many of its counterparties, our rating on REX has a negative outlook, and we could lower the rating if we further downgrade its counterparties or if we think leverage will surpass 4.5x. An increase in leverage would likely be the result if volumes decrease or contracted rates fall materially. REX's diverse customer base also mitigates the recently announced Ultra Resources Inc. bankruptcy. Even if that contract were canceled outright, it wouldn't materially affect REX's credit metrics.
How do we assess customer concentration risk?
When we think a midstream company relies on a single counterparty to meet most of its obligations and the company could not replace the contracts at current rates, the rating on the counterparty may cap the midstream company's SACP. This is somewhat common in the midstream space.
We think EQM Midstream Partners L.P. (EQM) relies on EQT for its volumes and cash flows, even though EQT no longer controls EQM. While we see EQM as a stand-alone company completely separate from EQT, we still lowered our rating on EQM to 'BB-' when we lowered our rating on EQT to 'BB-'. This was due to the latter's importance as a customer. EQT supplies EQM with about 70% of its revenues. Based on the approach we've described, we could continue to match the ratings if we further downgrade EQT.
This relationship also plays out for Woodford Express LLC (WEX), a gatherer and processor in the SCOOP basin, which historically derived about 70% of its volumes from Gulfport. We believe that WEX's creditworthiness is limited by Gulfport's, as well as the producer's strategy and activity levels that it forecasts in the SCOOP basin. When we saw signs of lower volumes in the midcontinent area, and Gulfport announced it would scale back its drilling plans in the SCOOP basin, our forecast pointed to lower ratings, and we revised the outlook to negative. Eventually, we downgraded WEX to 'CCC+' from 'B' when we downgraded Gulfport to that level.
We use the 'CCC' rating category to capture unsustainable capital structures. Once we lower a rating to the 'CCC' category, we focus more on how long the company can maintain operations and service its debt without extraordinary support. In WEX's case, we think the company depends on favorable business, financial, and economic conditions to meet its financial commitments, but we don't think a default is imminent in the short term--hence the 'CCC+' rating. Gulfport's unsustainable capital structure and pullback of operations in the SCOOP basin is a main contributor to our opinion of WEX.
How do you weigh counterparty risk if the company's main customer is its own strategic owner, such as a producer or refiner?
HollyFrontier Corp. (HFC) is the strategic owner of Holly Energy Partners L.P. (HEP); it owns and controls it. We've given HEP a one-notch uplift, given its moderately strategic status to HFC, so the issuer credit rating is 'BB+' even though we think of HEP as 'bb' on a stand-alone basis. HFC supplies about 75% of HEP's cash flows, and the two companies are operationally interconnected. If we lowered the rating on HFC, our group rating methodology would prompt us to lower our rating on HEP. This captures our view that if HFC became distressed, it could extract cash from HEP, or perhaps file HEP into bankruptcy. This rationale also applies to CNX Midstream Partners L.P., which we consider strategically important to CNX Resources Corp.
Western Midstream Operating L.P. (WES) derives significant volumes from its parent, Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY). We assess WES as nonstrategic to OXY because we think OXY would sell WES if it could fetch an adequate price in order to pay down debt and refocus on upstream operations. OXY has control over WES as its most important customer and given its significant board representation, so our rating on OXY caps our rating on WES. Even if WES were to be completely separated from OXY, our rating on OXY would still likely cap our rating on WES because OXY's volumes and business are vital to WES's creditworthiness, and a lower rating on OXY indicates that WES is deriving its volumes from a weaker entity.
Diversification Is The Best Way To Mitigate Counterparty Risk
Energy producers' struggles with challenging market conditions and macroeconomic uncertainty expose midstream companies to counterparty risk. After lowering ratings on upstream companies, we've downgraded several midstream companies based on their reliance on lower-rated shipping customers. There are some mitigation techniques, but in order to truly mitigate counterparty risk, companies generally must diversify. If we consider a particular counterparty material to a midstream company, it typically caps a midstream company's SACP.
- S&P Global Ratings Cuts WTI And Brent Crude Oil Price Assumptions Amid Continued Near-Term Pressure, March 19, 2020
- Rating Actions Taken On 9 U.S. Oil And Gas Exploration And Production Companies On Revised Natural Gas Price Assumptions, Feb. 3, 2020
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analyst:||Michael Pastrich, New York + 1 (212) 438 0604;|
|Secondary Contact:||Michael V Grande, New York (1) 212-438-2242;|
|Research Contributor:||Sheryl Fernandes, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: email@example.com.