FPS Organized by IBC: 23 rd annual FPSO conference in this series. London, 3-4 December 2008

Transcription

1 FPS 2008 Organized by IBC: 23 rd annual FPSO conference in this series London, 3-4 December 2008

2 An Operator s Outlook for FPSOs in the Ultra Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Peter Lovie Devon Energy Corporation Houston, Texas 2of 55

3 Key Messages a. Different operators have different philosophies, e.g. exhaustive studies before sanction, OR, less study and adjust as well results are seen. b. It s all about eye on the prize, risks and NPV! c. GoM Ultra Deep Water (UDW) stretches drillers and calls for field development strategies like never before; d. Increasing lag, UDW discovery to development; e. One more time: the easy oil has been found! f. Hubs & spoke tradition may continue, export a bigger consideration than before; g. FPSOs different for today s GoM, more of them possible, flexibility critical. 3of 55

4 Today s Agenda An idea of Devon s frame of reference 1. Focus on production from remote prospects; 2. High stakes frontier: extreme physical, risk and financial challenges; 3. Highly prospective but risks slow sanction; 4. Huge drilling investments affecting facility choice; 5. Export issues the coming shootout: pipelines and shuttle tankers; 6. Projecting what lies ahead for FPSOs in UDW GoM. 4of 55

5 1. Focus on Production from Remote Prospects Very deep wells far from shore over mountainous seabed 5of 55

6 History in GoM GoM far behind the rest of the world in employing FPSOs MMS/USCG approval in principle achieved in Record of Decision in December 2001 for FPSOs and shuttle tankers in US waters; For service in US waters FPSOs can be built anywhere. In contrast shuttle tankers must be owned, built and crewed in US; For the record, the first two FPSOs in GoM were in Mexican waters: 1st FPSO 1989 Owned by Pemex 1st FSO 1998 Charter from Modec 2nd FPSO 2007 Charter from BW Offshore Third FPSO in GoM - and first on US side - was contracted in 2007 to enter service in of 55

7 An Important Modest Start in 07 FPSO & tanker export contracted for EPS Gaining production experience in the Lower Tertiary The Early Production System (EPS) at Cascade / Chinook is the first FPSO in US waters in GOM and first use of Jones Act shuttle tankers In GOM. Contracted 2007, first oil May 2010; Cascade is 50:50 Petrobras: Devon Chinook is 2/3:1/3 Petrobras: Total (Petrobras operator of both); 8,200 ft. water depth; Full field development solution not yet decided, not necessarily an FPSO; 5 year lease with BW Offshore 600,000 bbl capacity Max. 80,000 bopd Other operators now starting to consider FPSOs seriously in remote deep waters of GoM 7of 55

8 Marine Safety & The Valdez Syndrome Still Loom Large in the Public Mind for Tankers Simple prescriptions available to prevent nightmares Marine industry best practices are very safe - hundreds of millions of barrels on the water every day worldwide. 8of 55 69

9 The Pipeline Network Shore to the Shelf to Deep Water Shipping lanes already well travelled by lightering tankers Flat Mountains of the moon! 9of 55

10 Existing Pipelines in Deepwater Out to the LT Discoveries in WR & KC Pipeline tentacles out into FPSO territory! 10 of 55

11 Shuttle Tankers Travel Shipping Lanes (In Blue) Then out to any offshore location Typically ten ports considered as shuttle tanker destinations In an emergency shuttle tankers could deliver to East Coast refineries, e.g. Philadelphia 11 of 55

12 2. High Stakes Frontier: Extreme Physical, Risk and Financial Challenges; For GoM, the Final Frontier. For Devon, a Priority. 12 of 55

13 Devon s Exploration Inventory Net Unrisked Resource Potential GULF OF MEXICO 4 7 BBOE 40 Prospects CHINA 1 2 BBOE 6 Prospects BRAZIL 2 4 BBOE 11 Prospects 13 of 55

14 Devon s Lower Tertiary Discoveries & Prospect Inventory Lower Tertiary Devon Discovery Devon Prospect Trend Latigo Merope Capella Jericho Bass Sardinia West Cherry Bomb Bottle Rocket Kampilan Ponza Deep Kaskida Trend 4 significant discoveries to date 25 additional prospects Gorgona M80 Vinita Fury Dart Azha Knik Navi Jack Cypress West Propus 14 of 55 Lower Tertiary St. Malo Of discoveries shown, Cascade committed to shuttling, Jack/St. Malo evaluating shuttling/pipe now, Kaskida also evaluating Fist Bolt Damascus Trend Cordoba Wombat Cascade

15 Devon s Lower Tertiary Summary of Discoveries Project Year Discovered Working Interest Net Feet of Hydrocarbon Sands Wells Drilled Cascade % > St. Malo % > Jack % > Kaskida % Estimated Discovered Resource Net to Devon: MMBOE Potential Undrilled prospects identified: 25 Average working interest: 50% Gross potential per prospect: MMBOE Devon s net unrisked potential: 3 5 BBOE 15 of 55

16 Upcoming Deepwater Gulf Exploration Activity Deepwater Miocene Deepwater Lower Tertiary Louisiana Texas Kaskida Appraisal 2 nd Half 2008 Spud Bass Q Spud Currently Drilling Jack No. 3 Appraisal Q Spud Currently Drilling Mission Deep Appraisal Q Spud Currently Drilling Damascus Q Spud Currently Drilling Cascade No. 3 Q Spud St. Malo No. 4 Appraisal Q Spud Currently Drilling Sturgis North Q Spud Currently Drilling 16 of 55

17 Lower Tertiary Prospect Inventory Devon Operates 14 of 25 Prospect Area Operator DVN Block W.I. Water Depth Azha Keathley Canyon Devon 100% 5,583 Bottle Rocket Keathley Canyon Anadarko 16.7% 4,189 Bass Keathley Canyon Devon 50% 6,475 Bolt Walker Ridge Devon 50% 6,721 Capella Keathley Canyon Devon 75% 5,511 Cordoba Walker Ridge Petrobras 50% 6,232 Cherry Bomb Keathley Canyon Chevron 33.3% 6,324 Cypress West Keathley Canyon Chevron 12.5% 6,237 Dart Keathley Canyon Devon 50% 4,685 Damascus Walker Ridge Chevron 25% 7,030 Fist Walker Ridge Devon 50% 5,820 Fury Keathley Canyon Devon 50% 5, of 55

18 Lower Tertiary Prospect Inventory - Continued Operated By: Anadarko (1), Chevron (8), Devon (14), Petrobras (2) Prospect Area Operator DVN Block W.I. Water Depth Gorgona Keathley Canyon Chevron 25% 6,059 Jericho Garden Banks Devon 100% 4,200 Kampilan Keathley Canyon Petrobras 50% 6,500 Knik Walker Ridge Devon 100% 6,764 Latigo Keathley Canyon Devon 50% 4,094 M80 Keathley Canyon Chevron 50% 5,645 Merope Garden Banks Devon 100% 3,422 Navi Keathley Canyon Devon 50% 6,364 Ponza Deep Keathley Canyon Chevron 25% 6,219 Propus Keathley Canyon Chevron 50% 6,482 Sardinia West Keathley Canyon Chevron 35% 6,062 Vinita Keathley Canyon Devon 75% 5,525 Wombat Atwater Valley Devon 55% 5,500 You can now see why Devon is taking a serious interest in FPSOs! 18 of 55

19 3. Highly Prospective but Risks Slow Sanction Devon truly open to different development options 19 of 55

20 Increasing Lag Discovery and Development in the Ultra Deep Reproduced by Permission of RPSEA Proven Reserves Add Value MMS Report : Deepwater Gulf of Mexico, Interim Report of 2006 Highlights 20 of 55

21 Industry Pressures The US government for about two years has seen the slowdown in translating discoveries into booked reserves and royalty producing production; The industry sees the slow down too planning is difficult, cannot take these risks without exhaustive work, witness Jack St. Malo; The US public presses for reduction of dependence on foreign oil (witness the election!); Devon like many operators in GoM has used various types of floaters in the past in different parts of the world; For the development choice to be an FPSO for GoM it has to be proven the optimum business choice. 21 of 55

22 Devon Portfolio of Floating Systems Most types, different parts of the world D e v o n F l o a t i ng P r o d u c t i o n a n d E x p o r t S y s t e m s Mostly non operated projects hitherto - that is changing now Development Location Water depth, feet Platform Type, Export method First production Facility Capacity, boepd Devon role Partners Cascade GOM 8,200 F P S O ,000 Non op Petrobras Jones Act shuttle tanker Polvo Brazil 344 F P S O ,000 Operator SK Tanker of convenience Independence Hub GOM 8,000 Semisubmersible Pipeline ,000 Non op Anadarko, Dominion, StatoilHydro Red Hawk GOM 5,300 Cell Spar Pipeline ,000 Non op Anadarko Magnolia GOM 4,700 T L P ,000 Non op ConocoPhillips Tanker of convenience Panyu South China Sea 320 F P S O Tanker of convenience ,000 Non op CNOOC, ConocoPhillips 22 of 55

23 Panyu FPSO - South China Sea Export: tanker of convenience Operator: CNOOC CNOOC 51.0% Devon: 24.5% ConocoPhillips: 24.5% Oil development at Panyu Block ,000 bopd max 320 ft. water depth First oil 4Q03 1,000,000 bbl storage 23 of 55 69

24 Red Hawk Cell Spar in GOM Export: pipeline Gas development in GB 877: Peak 120 mmscfd 5,300 ft. w.d. Contracted: 2002 First gas: 2004 Operator: Anadarko 50:50 Anadarko: Devon 24 of 55 69

25 Magnolia TLP in GoM Export: pipeline Oil development in GB 783 Operator: ConocoPhillips 50,000 bopd capacity mmscfd 75: 25: ConocoPhillips: Devon 4,700 ft. w.d. Discovery: May 1999 First oil: November of 55 69

26 Polvo FPSO Brazil Export: tanker of convenience Shown en route, now producing Oil development in BM-C-8: Operator: Devon 90,000 bopd 60:40 Devon:SK 344 ft. w.d. Leased FPSO from Prosafe 1,500,000 bbl storage (7 years + options) Discovery: June 2004, first oil: July of 55 69

27 Devon is an Independent on Facility & Transportation (pun intended) Devon is an E&P company, i.e. has no refineries to feed; Devon owns neither an offshore pipeline company nor a shipping company; Every incentive therefore exists to objectively seek out the most cost efficient facility & transportation solution for Devon s prospective developments in the ultra deep remote waters of the GoM! Rigorous internal debate, little/no bias pro/con FPSOs & shuttle tankers; Concept selection process slow and deliberate with Devon and its Partners. 27 of 55

28 Stating the Obvious? Some may feel GoM is prejudiced against FPSOs; But just like the rest of the world, the production solution is tailored to suit profitable production of oil and gas! Just happens to be difficult to arrive at the right economic technical and minimal risk choice in GoM for Lower Tertiary; Takes an unusually intense and protracted decision making process!!! 28 of 55

29 4. Huge Drilling Investments Affecting Facility Choice Many Prospects; Managing Mega Investments and Risks 29 of 55

30 Devon Deepwater Development (3D) Determining Plans to Produce & Deliver to Market Running studies in team set up like for a mega project Carefully crafted team: project sponsor, sponsor team, management team, multidiscipline project team (top management support); Been at it for a year; Developing strategy for Lower Tertiary prospect portfolio; Capex and Opex models developed for each case (facility configuration) for life of the field; Capex comparison with non operated Devon projects, e.g. Jack / St. Malo and Cascade data in progress; Gantt Charts completed for each development case, including exploration, appraisal, planning, execution, drilling & completions. 30 of 55

31 Decision Analysis Real Options Valuation (ROV).. the Process.. Threading a way through a bewildering number of possibilities Framing of Development Options: Characterizing risks & uncertainties for Difficult-to-Choose options to lead to THE development option, so the TEAM, as a group, can: Clearly defines the decision problem; Choose the options they would like to consider, and Establish the means and measures (metrics i.e. ROR, NPV, etc) they will consider when it comes time to make that choice. Reveals the sensitivities of the different options to the risks and uncertainties characterized above; Understanding & quantifying the impact of More Information (VOI Value of Information exercise). Results not always intuitive! 31 of 55

32 Typical Basis of Design in LT Ranges in current Devon FPSO studies Design oil production flowrate Design associated gas flowrate Design water injection flowrate Design gas injection rate Gas oil ratio Low High bbl/day 70, ,000 mmscf/day bbl/day 70, ,000 mmscf/day 0 0 scf/bbl Water depth feet 6,000 9,000 Reservoir depth feet 28,000 30,000 Reservoir pressure psi 20,000 22,000 Oil quality deg API of 55

33 5. Export Issues the Coming Shoot-out: Pipelines and Shuttle Tankers Far from shore over mountainous terrain a new competition emerges 33 of 55

34 Hubs and Spokes History Likely to Repeat Itself Historic link between production and export to shore Decades of tradition of tie ins of smaller reservoirs to deepwater hubs that process and feed a transportation system often with major oil company ownership; Same practical reasons hold today, looking ahead, may see shared facilities, profit motive for all; FSOG: Devon developed concept for hub storage in remote ultra deep waters of Walker Ridge and Keathley Canyon, ability to collect and process gas on deck; FPSO: Ability to serve as a hub may be a priority in FPSO capabilities, similar to FSOG. 34 of 55

35 A Model for the Lower Tertiary? Independence Hub = Independents Hub Ingenious teamwork: aligning contractor & independents interests GOM Gas Hub: 8,200 ft. w.d. Engineering began: July 2004 First gas: July Bcf/d 5,000 bopd condensate 3 Additional Anchor Producers: Devon Dominion StatoilHydro Owned: 80% Enterprise / 20% Helix Operator: Anadarko 35 of 55 69

36 Out of Sight Independents produce 14 locations, 10 fields If you know Houston, an area from Galveston to The Woodlands 36 of Pioneering in 8,200 ft. of water: Huge subsea spread created engineering and construction challenges

37 FSOG Concept: Regional Storage Developed by Devon in 2004 to capitalize on economic potential of shuttle tankers Capacity 300, ,000 bopd Separate fields using Devon operated FSOG with shuttle tankers to Gulf Coast refineries: typically use a standard VLCC with 2,000,000 bbl storage capacity Field 1 Operator 1 FSOG US patent pending, inventors: Dave Bozeman & Steve Seat Field 3 Operator 3 Field 2 Operator 2 37 of 55 69

38 Features of the FSOG New business opportunity in regional marketing of oil and gas Common infrastructure for storage and transportation of crude; Provides for collection, processing & compression of commercial gas volumes in low GOR region; Provides marketing hub for tie in of future fields; Devon has a patent pending for the FSOG: Method and System for Gathering, Transporting and Marketing of Offshore Oil and Gas ; Practically: FSOG is an assembly of proven components: double hull VLCC, low pressure risers, disconnectable turret mooring; Could work with any non disconnectable option (e.g. spar etc.); Would mean an extra tariff to add to the shuttle tanker tariff. 38 of 55

39 GoM Export: Factors to be Weighed Influence of pipe or tanker on facility choice 1 Quality Bank Can exist in pipelines on shorter term and be of similar magintude as transportation tariff.. Unknown is its potential for the Lower Tertiary grades of crude in entering common carrier pipeline segments over the life of field. Objective: determine a $/bbl indication for QB over LOF 2 Optionality Weighing of risks of "2005 all over again" and what to do about it so major loss of revenue risk is mitigated, e.g. six (6) or more months loss of production. Determination of optionality necessary to achieve an accceptable risk, e.g. is 2 pipeline destinations from SS 332 adequate? What consequent costs may be involved in assuring this? 3 Upside on marketing to a wider range of destinations 4 Guaranteed future access throughout field life A determination of the possible enhanced margin from being able to deliver to many more destinations via tankers over the life of the field, e.g. a projection of probable increase in margin, $/bbl Determination that it is feasible to have a pipeline contract for the life of field with no risk of curtailment of capacity by pipeline owner or any regulator at some future date. 5 Determining the preferred development solution for LT Establishing the practical need in field development solutions for storage or not, weighing viability of a regional storage hub, i.e. influence of the development option on export system. Attempts are underway to isolate the Transportation choice from the field development choice. 39 of 55

40 More on GoM Export Factors Gets complicated and controversial! 6 Making a start on discussions with pipeline and tanker providers Experience indicates the cycle time from expression of interest to firm contract may be long and arduous for a remote ultra deepwater export system for a precedent breaking system like this. Desirable to shorten this to fit probable development plans for Devon to "accelerate through the value chain". 7 Reconcile conflicting pipeline indications 8 Make production profiles practical 9 Sensitivities to changes in volumes as production proceeds 10 Other key risks, commercial considerations identifed by contractors Available documents from contractor inputs indicate a larger range on economics. Are volumes, terms, commitments comparable? Is one more willing to absorb more risk upfront than the other? Drillling may take five years so the production profile may be spread out more than the ideal from our reservoir calculations: how does this affect our economics, plans and risks for export? Oilfields rarely produce exactly as the production profiles here predict! Changes are likely, up or down, and forward or backward in time. Means of dealing with this are desired. Examples may be delivery schedules for tankers, long lead item commitments, other risks Devon had not thought of. 40 of 55

41 Arriving at Economic Projections for Both Export Modes: Needs Care! Serious devils in these details... Key factors in weighing transportation economics: the fuzzy components can easily add up to be as large or larger than the the firm component! Factor Transportation Tariff Quality Bank Reliability Optionality Economic Projection Firm: generally set at transportation contract time Fuzzy: may change with time over LOF Fuzzy: management's best calculation Explanation Total transportation cost from production flange on platform cellar deck to the refinery's storage tank. Needs to allow for ALL export system components, e.g. multiple segments (new and existing) for pipeline delivery, export pumps and riser or hose system costs on the producing platform, platform space and services contributions Loss of value when one grade of crude is commingled with a common stream in a pipeline. A poorer grade means a deduct and then the higher quality stream leaving the pipeline means an adder. However the deduct is usually seriously more than the adder, meaning a net cost element in the overall transportation economics! The value of being able to redirect production from one destination to another in the event of hurricane or other damage. Well known examples would be the BP Texas City Refinery explosion - or the damage suffered in various pipelines and shore stations after the Katrina and Rita hurricanes in 2005 Market Optionality Fuzzy: can vary with time The value to a producer of being able to play the market in selling its production, whether by pipelines to multiple sales points or via tankers that can be redirected at will to different ports for sale. 41 of 55

42 Indicative Economics Pipeline v. Shuttle Tanker Apples & apples Estimate of Export System Economics - Approximate for "Large Reservoir" First 16 years 703 mmbbl recovery, maximum rate of about 170,000 bopd Factor Pipeline Tariff, $/bbl Tanker Tariff, $/bbl Low High Low High Sources, Comments 1 New construction tariffs. Tanker figures include time charter as applicable, fuel & port costs: 2 Tariff on existing pipelines on shelf, SS 332 to beach: 3 Equivalent of export system CAPEX in facility: CAPEX on dedicated new segment pipeline, may vary according to location of the LT prospects(!!!) Assume 24 in. line, $700million, 16 yrs, 13.5% on capital, pipeline operation, pigging and inspection (no repair) for about 6% of CAPEX Estimates from various sources Allowances for export pumps, prime mover and space contribution, SCRs or hoses as appropriate (slide 13) 4 Quality bank in existing pipelines: Appears significant for life of field, but not proven. Guess made of range for pipeline! 5 Optionality, no. of destinations: Minimum 2, from SS 10 or more May include multiple sales point terminals at each destination. Minimum 332 only optionality to counter "2005 all over again" 6 Upside on marketing to wider range of destinations 7 Guaranteed future access throughout field life TBD TBD No reliable basis yet for quantifying a projection for GOM TBD TBD Not applicable Ability to use full capacity of each pipeline segment, i.e. no possibility of cutbacks from future operator or regulator intervention 8 Other factors not yet identified???????? Ongoing studies by multiple operators, difficult to indicate outcome TOTALS: Ranges 1.59 An indication only: average ratio, pipeline v. shuttle tanker tarriff 42 of 55

43 A Sound Business Case Does Exist for FPSOs & Shuttle Tankers If field production conditions allow it! Shuttle tankers may indeed offer an economic benefit over pipelines for a large field in the Lower Tertiary: could amount to about a $Billion saving over field life; Aggregation of large enough volumes to enable an economic pipeline is more difficult in Lower Tertiary than closer to shore. Very difficult indeed for early production. Risks and economics can favor tankers; Tankers offer future flexibility in changing destinations for maximum margin from production - and in event of hurricane damage can be directed to alternate delivery points; In the event of a field being a bust, tankers being redeployable mitigate risk on export service commitments. Pipelines are not good at being reeled up and redeployed! 43 of 55

44 6. Projecting what May Lie Ahead for FPSOs in UDW GoM Compared to a year ago, it s starting to come into focus 44 of 55

45 Early Well Testing (EWT)? And/or Early Production Systems (EPS)? Gas cannot be flared in GoM makes shorter term operations more difficult than in countries where there is some regulatory latitude for trials in new areas; Desirable to test wells for longer durations but assembling the spread is difficult and costly ; Smaller shorter term EPS, possibly on DP, has been debated in GoM but true added value to a field development often not there - or not conclusive; Dilemma of equipment being built if several multi-month (or one or two year) long commitments were available. The trick is stitching together enough of these to enable vessel construction; In spite of much discussion, no definitive EWT solution for GoM yet selected! 45 of 55

46 Is There Really a Case for an FPSO for Full Field Development? Simultaneous with reserves that are deeper, higher pressured, more remote, requiring bigger CAPEX, the corporate need in these mega projects intensifies to maintain capital discipline and project management discipline; So we could study it to death to mitigate risks - or take some risks with future flexibility at a premium; How to forge ahead? How to apply Devon s mantra accelerate through the value chain? More GOM acceptance of FPSOs: the rise of the independents, plus arrival of serious non GoM experience (Petrobras, StatoilHydro); Conclusion: Circumstances now more favorable today for FPSOs in GoM than before, if they can be more flexible in capability & business basis; 46 of 55

47 Putting it Together... Devon s Perspective (1 of 3) a. For locations a long way out, over mountainous seabeds, pipeline routes much longer, more circuitous and more expensive than hitherto. Export economics thus may favor FPSOs; b. Pressure to cut the cycle time to improve economics is countered by risks of reservoirs performing differently from expectations; c. Corporate goals of large independents may favor FPSOs: proving as they go along, e.g. EPS morphing into FFD; d. Commitments on export pipelines are huge, tanker export easier to start quickly for remote areas and grow incrementally again export system selection may favor FPSOs; e. Drilling, well access, available technologies affect facility choice (e.g. dry trees and/or DVA, hence no FPSO); f. Not conclusive that there must be a future for FPSOs for FFD in ultra deep in GoM; 47 of 55

48 Putting it Together... Devon s Perspective (2 of 3) g. Logic of Real Option Value decision process expedites steering a course in uncertain waters (pun intended); h. Rigorous internal debate, little/no bias pro/con FPSOs; i. No export legacy of pipeline operation, shuttle tanker v. pipeline, relatively open competition; j. Concept selection process slow and deliberate with Devon and its partners; k. Projecting the future fleet size of FPSOs for US GoM would require truly remarkable use of crystal balls on a biblical scale!!! l. Would not expect a flood of FPSO orders for GoM. 48 of 55

49 Putting it Together... Devon s Perspective (3 of 3) m. For Devon s 2008 portfolio of Lower Tertiary prospects in the UDW GoM, we can confirm considering FPSOs along the lines of: Technically: + EPS expandable to FFD + Suezmax newbuild; + Disconnectable; Commercially: + Studies on FPSOs for GoM underway; + Early talks with contractors; + Firm commitment dependent on well results; + Premium on flexibility and speed; + Bid process could proceed or negotiation on hull under construction depending on progress; + Linked to availability of shuttle tankers. n. We do encourage exchange of ideas with contractors, expect them to make a reasonable profit, and understand paying for successful performance! 49 of 55

50 Thank You

51 Devon Core Values Hire the best people Always do the right thing Deliver results Be a team player Be a good neighbor 51 of 55

52 Devon History Founded as a private company in 1971 Became a public company in 1988 Currently listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol DVN Grown from 185 employees in 1981 to over 5,000 employees today Established a portfolio to provide stable production and a solid platform for future growth 52 of 55

53 Devon Today Proved reserves (12/31/07): 2.5 Billion BOE Current production (Q2 2008): 643 MBOED Oil & gas production (Q2 2008): 66% gas 34% oil & NGLs Production profile (Q2 2008): 94% North America Reserves / production ratio: 11 years Enterprise value: $35 Billion Largest U.S.-based independent oil and gas producer 53 of 55

54 Acknowledgements My thanks is due to Devon management for permission to freely discuss the issues here. Recognition is also due to colleagues for their ideas and assistance in reviewing and assembling the information in this presentation: Melany Boughman Dave Bozeman Scott Coody John Heg 54 of 55

55 Questions? office cell 55 of 55