UNITED STATES 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

	(Mark One)
	[X]	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

 

OR

	[ ]	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the transition period from _________________________ to

 

Commission file number: 001-36246

 

Civeo Corporation

_______________

 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

British Columbia, Canada	98-1253716
(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)
Three Allen Center, 333 Clay Street, Suite 4980,
Houston, Texas	77002
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

 

(713) 510-2400

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of Each Class	Name of Exchange on Which Registered
Common Shares, no par value	New York Stock Exchange

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

YES [ ]

NO [X ]

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

YES [ ]

NO [X ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES [X]

NO [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

YES [X]

NO [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this form 10-K. [ ]

  

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "accelerated filer," "large accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

(Check one):

 

Large Accelerated Filer [ ]	Accelerated Filer [X ]
Non-Accelerated Filer [ ] (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller Reporting Company [ ]

                

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

YES [ ]

NO [X ]

 

The aggregate market value of common shares held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2015, was $326,471,266.

 

The Registrant had 107,899,238 common shares outstanding as of February 22, 2016.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the registrant's Definitive Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual General and Special Meeting of Shareholders, which the registrant intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

CIVEO CORPORATION

 

INDEX

 

	Page No.
PART I
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements	1
Item 1.Business	2
Item 1A.Risk Factors	23
Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments	44
Item 2. Properties	44
Item 3.Legal Proceedings	45
Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures	45
PART II
Item 5.Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	46
Item 6.Selected Financial Data	46
Item 7.Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	48
Item 7A.Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	72
Item 8.Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	72
Item 9.Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	72
Item 9A.Controls and Procedures	72
Item 9B.Other Information	73
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	74
Item 11. Executive Compensation	74
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	74
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	74
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services	74
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	75
SIGNATURES	79
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	80

  

 

PART I

 

This annual report on Form 10-K contains certain “forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of important factors. For a discussion of known material factors that could affect our results, please refer to “Part I, Item 1. Business,” “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors,” “Part II, Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Part II, Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” below.

 

In addition, in certain places in this annual report, we refer to reports published by third parties that purport to describe trends or developments in the energy industry. We do so for the convenience of our shareholders and in an effort to provide information available in the market that will assist our investors in a better understanding of the market environment in which we operate. However, we specifically disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such information and undertake no obligation to update such information.

 

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

 

We include the following cautionary statement to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for any "forward-looking statement" made by us, or on our behalf. All statements other than statements of historical facts included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology including “may,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “continue,” “believe” or other similar words. Such statements may include statements regarding our future financial position, budgets, capital expenditures, projected costs, plans and objectives of management for future operations and possible future strategic transactions. Where any such forward-looking statement includes a statement of the assumptions or bases underlying such forward-looking statement, we caution that, while we believe such assumptions or bases to be reasonable and make them in good faith, assumed facts or bases almost always vary from actual results. The differences between assumed facts or bases and actual results can be material, depending upon the circumstances. The factors identified in this cautionary statement are important factors (but not necessarily all of the important factors) that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement made by us, or on our behalf.

 

In any forward-looking statement where we, or our management, express an expectation or belief as to future results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, there can be no assurance that the statement of expectation or belief will result or be achieved or accomplished. Taking this into account, the following are identified as important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement made by, or on behalf of, the Company:

 

●

the level of supply and demand for oil, coal, natural gas, iron ore and other minerals;

 

●

the level of activity, spending and developments in the Canadian oil sands;

 

●

the level of demand for coal and other natural resources from Australia;

 

●

the availability of attractive oil and natural gas field assets, which may be affected by governmental actions or environmental activists which may restrict drilling;

 

●

fluctuations in the current and future prices of oil, coal and natural gas;

 

●

fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;

 

●

general global economic conditions and the pace of global economic growth;

 

●

changes in tax laws, tax treaties or tax regulations or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, including taxing authorities not agreeing with our assessment of the effects of such laws, treaties and regulations;

 

●

global weather conditions and natural disasters;

 

●

our ability to find and retain skilled personnel;

 

●

the availability and cost of capital;

 

●

the inability to realize expected benefits from our recent redomicile to Canada; and

 

●

other factors identified in Item 1A, "Risk Factors."

  

 

Such risks and uncertainties are beyond our ability to control, and in many cases, we cannot predict the risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements.

 

All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or to persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by reference to these risks and uncertainties. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of the particular statement, and we do not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements except as required by law.

 

ITEM 1.

Business

 

Available Information

 

We maintain a website with the address of www.civeo.com. We are not including the information contained on our website as a part of, or incorporating it by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish such material to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission). The filings are also available through the Commission at the Commission's Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549 or by calling 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, these filings are available on the internet at www.sec.gov and free of charge upon written request to the corporate secretary at the address shown on the cover page of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

Spin-off

 

On May 5, 2014, the board of directors of Oil States International, Inc. (Oil States) approved the separation of its Accommodations Segment (Accommodations) into a standalone, publicly traded Delaware corporation, which we refer to herein as Civeo US. In accordance with the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the two companies were separated by Oil States distributing to its stockholders all 106,538,044 shares of common stock of Civeo US it held after the market closed on May 30, 2014 (the Spin-Off). Each Oil States stockholder received two shares of Civeo US common stock for every one share of Oil States stock held at the close of business on the record date of May 21, 2014. In conjunction with the Spin-Off, Oil States received a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to the effect that, based on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings set forth in the ruling, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Oil States’ distribution of Civeo US common stock was not taxable to Oil States or U.S. holders of Oil States common stock. Following the Spin-Off, Oil States retained no ownership interest in Civeo US, and each company now has separate public ownership, boards of directors and management. On June 2, 2014, Civeo US stock began trading the “regular-way” on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the “CVEO” stock symbol. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement with Oil States, on May 28, 2014, we made a special cash distribution to Oil States of $750 million.

  

 

Redomiciling to Canada

 

On July 17, 2015, we completed our change in place of incorporation from Delaware to British Columbia, Canada (the Redomicile Transaction). In the Redomicile Transaction, Civeo Corporation, a British Columbia, Canada limited company formerly named Civeo Canadian Holdings ULC (Civeo Canada), became the publicly traded parent company of the Civeo group of companies, and Civeo US, our former publicly traded Delaware parent, became a wholly owned subsidiary of Civeo Canada. Each issued share of Civeo US common stock, other than those shares of Civeo US common stock held by Civeo US in treasury, was effectively transferred to Civeo Canada and converted into one common share, no par value, of Civeo Canada. An aggregate of approximately 107.5 million Civeo Canada common shares were issued in the Redomicile Transaction. The Civeo Canada common shares are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “CVEO”, the same symbol under which the Civeo US common stock traded prior to the effective time.

 

The Redomicile Transaction qualified as a “self-directed redomiciling” of the Company as permitted under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. U.S. federal income tax laws permit a company to change its domicile to a foreign jurisdiction without corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes provided that such company has “substantial business activity” in the relevant jurisdiction. “Substantial business activity” is defined as foreign operations consisting of over 25% of the company’s total (i) revenues, (ii) assets, (iii) employees and (iv) employee compensation. With approximately 50% or more of our operations in Canada based on these metrics, we qualified for a self-directed redomiciling.

  

Our Company

 

We are one of the largest integrated providers of longer-term and temporary remote site accommodations, logistics and facility management services to the natural resource industry. We operate in some of the world’s most active oil, coal, natural gas and iron ore producing regions, including Canada, Australia and the U.S. We have established a leadership position in providing a fully integrated service offering to our customers, which include major and independent oil and natural gas companies, mining companies and oilfield and mining service companies. Our Develop, Own and Operate model allows our customers to focus their efforts and resources on their core development and production operations.

 

 

 

  

 

Using our Develop, Own, Operate business model, we provide accommodations solutions which span the lifecycle of customer projects from the initial exploration and resource delineation to long-term production. Initially, as customers assess the resource potential and determine how they will develop it, they typically need accommodations for a limited number of employees for an uncertain duration of time. Our fleet of temporary accommodation assets is well-suited to support this initial exploratory stage as customers evaluate their development and construction plans. As development of the resource begins, we are able to serve their needs through either our open camp model or through our scalable lodge or village model. As projects grow and headcount needs increase, we are able to scale our facility size to meet our customers’ growing needs. By providing infrastructure early in the project lifecycle, we are well positioned to continue to service our customers throughout the production phase, which typically lasts decades.

 

The initial component of our Develop, Own, Operate business model is site selection and permitting. We believe that there are benefits created by investing early in land in order to gain the strategic, early mover advantage in an emerging region or resource play. Our business development team actively assesses regions of potential future customer demand and pursues land acquisition and permitting, a process we describe as “land banking.” We believe that having the first available accommodations solution in a new market allows us to win contracts from customers and gives us an early mover advantage as competitors may be less willing to invest in undeveloped land in the expectation of future demand without firm customer commitments. The strength of our land banked locations allowed us to secure contract growth in our most recent Canadian lodge location, McClelland Lake in the Canadian oil sands region and our Sitka Lodge in the British Columbia liquefied natural gas (LNG) market. 

 

 Our scalable modular facilities provide workforce accommodations where, in many cases, traditional accommodations and related infrastructure is not accessible, sufficient or cost effective. Our services allow for efficient development and production of natural resources found in areas without sufficient housing, infrastructure or local labor. We believe that many of the more recently discovered mineral deposits and hydrocarbon reservoirs are in remote locations. We support the development of these natural resources by providing lodging, catering and food services, housekeeping, recreation facilities, laundry and facilities management, as well as water and wastewater treatment, power generation, communications and personnel logistics where required. Our accommodations services allow our customers to outsource their accommodations needs to a single supplier, maintaining employee welfare and satisfaction while focusing their investment on their core resource production efforts. Our primary focus is on providing accommodations to leading natural resource companies at our major properties, which we refer to as lodges in Canada and villages in Australia. We have nineteen lodges and villages in operation, with an aggregate of more than 23,000 rooms. Additionally, in the U.S. and Canada we have nine smaller open camp properties as well as a fleet of mobile accommodation assets. We have long-standing relationships with many of our customers, many of whom are, or are affiliates of, large, investment grade energy and mining companies.

 

Demand for our accommodations and related services is influenced by three primary factors: commodity prices, workforce requirements and competition. Our customers’ expectations for future commodity prices influence their spending on current productive assets, maintenance on current assets, expansion of existing assets and development of greenfield or new assets. In addition to commodity prices, different types of customer activity require varying workforce sizes, influencing the demand for accommodations. Lastly, competing locations and services will influence demand for our assets and services.

 

In the Canadian oil sands region, demand for our accommodations is influenced by oil prices. Spending on construction and the development of new projects has historically decreased as the outlook for oil prices decreases. However, spending on current operations and maintenance has historically reacted less quickly to changes in oil prices as customers consider their cash operating costs, rather than overall full cycle returns. Likewise, construction and expansion projects underway have also been less sensitive to commodity price decreases as customers focus on completion and incremental costs. Natural gas prices influence oil sands activity as an input cost; so as natural gas prices fall, our customers’ operating costs fall as well.

 

Another factor that influences demand for our rooms and services is the type of customer project we are supporting. Generally speaking, Canadian customers require larger workforces during construction and expansionary periods, and therefore have higher demand for accommodations. Operational and maintenance headcounts are typically a fraction, 20-25%, of the headcounts experienced during construction.

 

Lastly, proximity to customer activity and availability of customer-owned rooms influences occupancy. Typically, customers prefer to first utilize their own rooms on location, and if such customer-owned rooms are insufficient, customers prefer to avoid busing their workforces to housing more than 45 kilometers away.

 

 

A number of multinational energy companies believe there is a potential to export LNG from Canada to meet the increasing global demand, particularly in Asia, for LNG. Currently, Canada does not have any operational LNG export facilities. However, as of December 2015, seventeen proposed LNG export facilities in Canada have entered the regulatory review process – sixteen in British Columbia and one in Nova Scotia. We expect LNG customer spending habits to largely follow those seen in the Canadian oil sands region. LNG activity in Western Canada will be influenced by the global prices for LNG, which are largely tied to global oil prices, as well as wellhead prices for natural gas. Should our customers decide to invest in these LNG projects, demand for accommodations over the next three years will be driven by (i) the construction of the LNG facilities on the coast of British Columbia and (ii) the construction of the related pipeline infrastructure across British Columbia. Facility construction will create demand for permanent lodge accommodations, while pipeline construction activity will drive demand for mobile fleet accommodations.

  

Our Australian villages support similar activities for the natural resources industry. Our customers are typically developing and producing metallurgical (met) coal and other mines which have resource lives that are measured in decades. As such, their spending levels tend to react similarly to commodity prices as those of our Canadian customers. Spending on producing assets is less sensitive to commodity price decreases in the short and medium term, assuming the projects remain cash flow positive. However, new construction projects and expansionary projects are typically cancelled or deferred during periods of lower prices. During 2011 through 2013, roughly half of our occupancy was driven by construction or expansion activity, while the other half supported operation activities of resource production. Currently, our occupancy is primarily driven by production and operating activities. With the reduction in met coal prices over the past three years, much of the demand for rooms from construction activity has ceased, and our current and expected occupancy is primarily driven by production and operational activity. Workforce requirements and competition in the Australian market are comparable to those in the Canadian market. New project construction activity typically requires larger workforces than day-to-day operations, where proximity and availability of customer–owned rooms influences the demand for workforce accommodations.

 

Our U.S. operations are primarily tied to activity in the U.S. shale formations in the Bakken, the Rockies and West Texas. Given the shorter investment horizon and decision cycle of our U.S. customers, on a well-by-well basis, U.S. customers’ spending habits react more quickly to changes in oil and natural gas prices. These spending dynamics were clearly demonstrated over the past three years. With oil prices near $100 per barrel from 2012 to late 2014, drilling and completion activity levels grew; however, as oil prices fell beginning in August 2014 and throughout 2015 and 2016, activity in the U.S. reacted swiftly, with the U.S. rig count falling over 50% in six months from its peak in the third quarter of 2014. Unlike the Canadian and Australian markets, headcount requirements for drilling and completion activity are fairly uniform in the U.S. market. Given the U.S. market for accommodations is primarily supported by mobile assets, competition is primarily driven by the availability of assets and price.

  

 

For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we generated $518.0 million, $942.9 million and $1.0 billion in revenues and $(145.0) million, $(142.9) million and $259.5 million in operating income (loss), respectively. The majority of our operations, assets and income are derived from lodge and village facilities which have historically been contracted by our customers on a take-or-pay basis for periods ranging from several months to several years. These facilities generate more than 75% of our revenue. Important performance metrics include average available rooms, average rentable rooms, revenue related to our major properties, occupancy and average daily rate (in local currency). “Other Revenue,” shown below, consists of our revenue related to our open camp facilities and mobile fleet as well as third party sales related to our manufacturing division. The chart below summarizes these key statistics for the periods presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

		Year Ended December 31,
		2015				2014				2013
		(In millions, except for room counts and average daily rate)
Lodge/Village Revenue (1)
Canada		$	267.5			$	497.2			$	548.7
Australia			136.0				213.3				255.5
Total Lodge/Village Revenue		$	403.5			$	710.5			$	804.2
Mobile and Open Camp Revenue
Canada		$	76.8			$	164.2			$	161.8
Australia			—				—				—
United States			37.7				68.2				75.1
Total Mobile and Open Camp Revenue		$	114.5			$	232.4			$	236.9
Total Revenue		$	518.0			$	942.9			$	1,041.1
Average Available Lodge/Village Rooms (2)
Canada			13,435				12,557				11,541
Australia			9,180				9,271				8,925
Total Lodge/Village Rooms			22,615				21,828				20,466
Rentable Rooms for Lodges and Villages (3)
Canada			10,054				11,007				10,152
Australia			8,862				9,079				8,843
Total Rentable Rooms for Lodges and Villages			18,916				20,086				18,995
Average Daily Rates for Lodges and Villages (4)
Canada		$	121			$	146			$	156
Australia			74				94				95
Total Average Daily Rates for Lodges and Villages		$	100			$	125			$	130
Occupancy in Lodges and Villages (5)
Canada			60	%			85	%			92	%
Australia			56	%			68	%			83	%
Total Occupancy in Lodges and Villages			58	%			78	%			87	%
Average Exchange Rate
Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar		$	0.7832			$	0.9056			$	0.9711
Australian dollar to U.S. dollar			0.7523				0.9025				0.9650

__________

(1)	Includes revenue related to rooms as well as the fees associated with catering, laundry and other services including facilities management.

(2)	Average available rooms includes rooms that are utilized for our personnel.

(3)	Rentable rooms excludes rooms that are utilized for our personnel and out of service rooms.

(4)	Average daily rate is based on rentable rooms and lodge/village revenue.

(5)	Occupancy represents total billed days divided by rentable days. Rentable days excludes staff rooms and out of service rooms.

 

We have grown our average available room count by 19% since 2012 through a disciplined capital expenditure program.

  

  

Our History

 

Our Canadian operations, founded in 1977, began by providing modular rental housing to energy customers, primarily supporting drilling rig crews. Over the next decade, the business acquired a catering operation and a manufacturing facility, enabling it to provide a more integrated service offering. Through our experience with Syncrude’s Mildred Lake Village, a 2,100 bed facility that we built and sold to Syncrude in 1990 and operated and managed for them for nearly twenty years, we recognized a need for a premium, and more permanent, solution for workforce accommodations in the Canadian oil sands region. Pursuing this strategy, we opened PTI Lodge in 1998, one of the first independent lodging facilities in the region.

 

With an integrated business model, we are able to identify, solve and implement solutions and services that enhance the guests’ accommodations experience and reduce the customer’s total cost of housing a workforce in a remote operating location. Through our experiences and integrated model, our accommodation services have evolved to include fitness centers, water and wastewater treatment, laundry service and many other advancements. As our experience in the region grew, we were the first to introduce to the Canadian oil sands market suite-style accommodations for middle and upper level management working in the oil sands region with our Beaver River Executive Lodge in 2005. Since then, we have continued to innovate our service offering to meet our customers’ growing and evolving needs. From that entrepreneurial beginning, we have developed into Canada’s largest third-party provider of accommodations in the oil sands region.

 

Today, in addition to providing accommodations services, we endeavor to support customers’ logistical efforts in managing the movement of large numbers of personnel efficiently. At our Wapasu Creek location, we have introduced services that improve the customer’s efficiency in transporting personnel to the mine site on a daily basis as well as efficiency in rotating personnel when crews change. These logistical services have generated cost efficiencies for our customer.

 

During 2015, we entered the Canadian LNG market with our latest lodge location, Sitka Lodge. Most of the Sitka Lodge’s 436 rooms are under contract to LNG Canada, a large LNG export project proposed by a joint venture between Shell Canada Energy, an affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell plc – (50 percent), and affiliates of PetroChina (20 percent), Korea Gas Corporation (15 percent) and Mitsubishi Corporation (15 percent).

 

With the acquisition of our Australian business in December 2010, we began to support the Australian natural resources industry through ten villages located in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. Like Canada, our Australian business has a long-history of accommodating customers in remote regions beginning with its initial Moranbah Village in 1996, and has grown to become Australia’s largest integrated provider of accommodations services for people working in remote locations.  Our Australian business was the first to introduce resort style accommodations to the mining sector, adding landscaping, outdoor kitchens, pools, fitness centers and, in some cases, taverns. In all our operating regions, our business is built on a culture of continual service improvement to enhance the guest experience and reduce customer remote housing costs.

 

We take an active role in minimizing our environmental impact of our operations through a number of sustainable initiatives. Our off-site building manufacturing process in Canada allows us to minimize waste that arises from the construction process. We also have a focus on water conservation and utilize alternative water supply options such as recycling and rainwater collection and use. By building infrastructure such as waste-water treatment and water treatment facilities to recycle grey and black water on some of our sites, we are able to gain cost efficiencies as well as reduce the use of trucks related to water and wastewater hauling, which in turn, reduces our carbon footprint. In our Australian villages, we utilize passive solar design principles and smart switching systems to reduce the need for electricity related to heating and cooling.

  

 

Our Industry

 

We provide services for the oil and gas and mining industries. Our scalable modular facilities provide long-term and temporary work force accommodations where traditional accommodations and related infrastructure is often not accessible, sufficient or cost effective.  Once facilities are deployed in the field, we also provide catering and food services, housekeeping, laundry, facility management, water and wastewater treatment, power generation, communications and personnel logistics. Demand for our services is cyclical and substantially dependent upon activity levels, particularly our customers’ willingness to spend capital on the exploration for, development and production of oil, coal, natural gas and other resource reserves.  Our customers’ spending plans are generally based on their view of commodity supply and demand dynamics as well as the outlook for near-term and long-term commodity prices.  As a result, the demand for our services is highly sensitive to current and expected commodity prices.

 

We serve multiple projects and multiple customers at most of our sites, which allows those customers to share the costs associated with their peak construction accommodations needs. Our facilities provide customers with cost efficiencies as they are able to share the costs of accommodations related infrastructure (power, water, sewer and IT) and central dining and recreation facilities with other customers operating projects in the same vicinity.

 

Our business is significantly influenced by the level of production of oil sands deposits in Alberta, Canada, activity levels in support of natural resources production in Australia and oil and gas production in Canada and the U.S. Our two primary activity drivers are development and production activity in the Canadian oil sands region in Western Canada and the met coal region of Australia’s Bowen Basin. During 2015, we entered into a new market with our Sitka Lodge, which currently serves LNG Canada’s potential project on the west coast of British Columbia. Should our customer’s project ultimately move forward, British Columbia LNG activity could become a material driver of future activity for our Sitka Lodge, as well as for our mobile fleet assets which are well suited for the related pipeline construction activity. However, should the project, and other potential projects in the area, not move forward, the resulting impact may negatively affect our future results of operations, value of long-lived assets and cash flows.

 

Historically, oil sands developers and Australian mining companies built, owned and in some cases operated the accommodations necessary to house their personnel in these remote regions because local labor and third-party owned rooms were not available. Over the past 20 years and increasingly over the past 10 years, some customers have moved away from the insourcing business model for some of their accommodations as they recognize that accommodations are non-core investments for their business.

 

Civeo is one of the few accommodations providers that service the entire value chain from site identification to long-term facility management. We believe that our existing industry divides accommodations into three primary types: lodges and villages, open camps and mobile assets. Civeo is principally focused on lodges and villages. Lodges and villages typically contain a larger number of rooms and require more time and capital to develop. These facilities typically have dining areas, meeting rooms, recreational facilities, pubs and landscaped grounds where weather permits. Lodges and villages are generally built supported by multi-year, take-or-pay contracts. These facilities are designed to serve the long-term needs of customers in constructing and operating their resource developments. Open camps are usually smaller in number of rooms and typically serve customers on a spot or short-term basis. They are “open” for any customer who needs lodging services. Finally, mobile camps are designed to follow customers and can be deployed rapidly to scale. They are often used to support conventional and in-situ drilling crews as well as pipeline and seismic crews and are contracted on a project-by-project, well-by-well or short term basis. Oftentimes, customers will initially require mobile accommodations as they evaluate or initially develop a field or mine. Open camps may best serve smaller operations or the needs of customers as they expand in a region. These open camps can also serve as an initial, small foothold in a region until the demand for a full-scale lodge or village is required.

 

The accommodations market is segmented into competitors that serve components of the overall value chain, but has very few integrated providers. We estimate that customer-owned rooms represent over 50% of the market. Engineering firms such as Bechtel, Fluor and ColtAmec often design accommodations facilities. Many public and private firms, such as ATCO Structures & Logistics Ltd. (ATCO), WesternOne Inc.’s modular building division (Britco), Horizon North Logistics Inc. (Horizon North), Alta-Fab Structures Ltd. (Alta-Fab) and Northgate Industries Ltd. (Northgate) will build the modular accommodations for sale. Horizon North, Black Diamond Group Limited (Black Diamond), ATCO, Royal Camp Services Ltd. and Algeco Scotsman will primarily own and lease the units to customers and in some cases provide facility management services, usually on a shorter-term basis with a more limited number of rooms, similar to our open camp and mobile fleet business. Facility service companies, such as Aramark Corporation (Aramark), Sodexo Inc. (Sodexo) or Compass Group PLC (Compass Group), typically do not invest in and own the accommodations assets, but will manage third-party or customer-owned facilities. We believe the integrated model provides value to our customers by reducing project timing and counterparty risks. In addition, with our holistic approach to accommodations, we are able to identify efficiency opportunities for the customers and execute them. With our focus on large-scale lodges and villages, our business model is most similar to a developer of multi-family properties, such as Camden or Post, or a developer of lodging properties who is also an owner operator, such as Hyatt Hotels Corporation or Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

 

 

Canada

 

Overview

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, we generated approximately 66% of our revenue from our Canadian operations.  We are Canada’s largest integrated provider of accommodations services for people working in remote locations.  We provide our accommodation services through lodges, open camps and mobile assets. Our accommodations support workforces in the Canadian oil sands and in a variety of oil and natural gas drilling, mining and related natural resource applications as well as disaster relief efforts.

  

Canadian Market

 

Demand for our oil sands accommodations is primarily influenced by the longer-term outlook for crude oil prices rather than current energy prices, given the multi-year production phase of oil sands projects and the costs associated with development of such large scale projects.  Utilization of our existing Canadian capacity and our future expansions will largely depend on continued oil sands spending related to existing production efforts, maintenance thereon and potential future expansion of existing projects.

 

The Athabasca oil sands are located in northern Alberta, an area that is very remote with a limited local labor supply. Of Canada’s 33.5 million residents, nearly half of the population lives in ten cities, only 10% of the population lives in Alberta and less than 1% live within 100 kilometers of the oil sands. The local municipalities, of which Fort McMurray is the largest, have grown rapidly over the last decade stressing their infrastructure and are challenged to respond to large-scale changes in demand. As such, the workforce accommodations market provides a cost effective solution to the problem of staffing large oil sands projects by sourcing labor throughout Canada to work on a rotational basis.

 

A number of multinational energy companies believe there is the potential to export LNG from Canada to meet the increasing global demand, particularly in Asia, for LNG. Currently, Canada does not have any operational LNG export facilities. However, as of December 2015, seventeen proposed LNG export facilities in Canada have entered the regulatory review process – sixteen in British Columbia and one in Nova Scotia. We expect customer spending habits to largely follow those seen in the oil sands region. LNG activity in Western Canada will be influenced by the global prices for LNG, which are largely tied to global oil prices, as well as wellhead prices for natural gas. Should our customers decide to invest in these LNG projects, demand for accommodations over the next three years will be driven by (i) the construction of the LNG facilities on the coast of British Columbia and (ii) the construction of the related pipeline infrastructure across British Columbia. Facility construction will create demand for permanent lodge accommodations while pipeline construction activity will drive demand for temporary mobile workforce accommodations. However, should the project, and other potential projects in the area, not move forward, the resulting impact may negatively affect our future results of operations, value of long-lived assets and cash flows.

 

 

Canadian Oil Sands Lodges

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, activity in the Athabasca oil sands region generated over three-fourths of our Canadian revenue. The oil sands region of northern Alberta, Canada continues to represent one of the world’s largest reserves for heavy oil. Our McClelland Lake, Wapasu, Athabasca, Henday and Beaver River Lodges are focused on the northern region of the Athabasca oil sands, where customers primarily utilize surface mining to extract the bitumen, or oil sands. Oil sands mining operations are characterized by large capital requirements, large reserves, large personnel requirements, very low exploration or reserve risk and relatively lower cash operating costs per barrel of bitumen produced. Our Conklin and Anzac lodges as well as a portion of our mobile fleet of assets are focused in the southern portion of the region where we primarily serve in situ operations and pipeline expansion activity. In situ methods are used on reserves that are too deep for traditional mining methods. In situ technology typically injects steam to the deep oil sands in place to separate the bitumen from the sand and pumps it to the surface where it undergoes the same upgrading treatment as the mined bitumen. Reserves requiring in situ techniques of extraction represent 80% of the established recoverable reserves in Alberta. In situ operations generally require less capital and personnel and produce lower volumes of bitumen per development, with higher ongoing operating expense per barrel of bitumen produced.

 

Most recently, we opened our McClelland Lake Lodge in the summer of 2014 at an initial capacity of 1,561 rooms and reached our full initial capacity of 1,997 rooms in the first quarter of 2015. McClelland Lake Lodge currently supports a new oil sands mining project in the region under a three-year contract for the majority of the rentable rooms. During the third quarter of 2015, we also redeveloped our Mariana Lake location and reclassified the location as an oil sands lodge. The Mariana Lake Lodge has 526 rooms and is focused on the southern portion of the region.

 

Our oil sands lodges support construction and operating personnel for maintenance and expansionary projects as well as ongoing operations associated with surface mining and in situ oil sands projects generally under short and medium-term contracts.   All of our oil sands lodge properties are located on land with leases obtained from the province of Alberta with initial terms of ten years. Our leases have expiration dates that range from 2016 to 2026. Currently, only 9% of our Canadian lodge rooms are on land with leases expiring prior to December 31, 2017. Thus far, we have successfully renewed or extended all expiring land leases, with the exception of the Lakeside lease, and expect we will be able to in the future. We provide a full service hospitality function at our lodges including reservation management, check in and check out, catering, housekeeping and facilities management. Our lodge guests receive the amenity level of a full-service hotel plus three meals a day. Since mid-year 2006, we have installed over 13,700 rooms in our oil sands lodge properties supporting oil sands activities in northern Alberta.  Our growth plan for this part of our business includes the expansion of these properties where we believe there is durable long-term demand.   During 2015, we added 635 rooms (net of retirements) to our major oil sands lodges.  Our Wapasu Creek Lodge is equivalent in size to the largest hotels in North America.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, over 75% of our Canadian revenue was generated by our eight major lodges. We provide our lodge services on a day rate or monthly rental basis and our customers typically commit for short to medium term contracts (from several months up to 10 years). Customers make a minimum nightly or monthly room commitment for the term of the contract, and the multi-year contracts typically provide for inflationary escalations in rates for increased food, labor and utilities costs.

 

Canadian LNG Lodge

 

During the fourth quarter of 2015, in Kitimat, British Columbia, we built 436 rooms during the initial development of our Sitka Lodge. Most of these rooms are under contract to LNG Canada, a large LNG export project proposed by a joint venture between Shell Canada Energy, an affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell plc (50 percent), and affiliates of PetroChina (20 percent), Korea Gas Corporation (15 percent) and Mitsubishi Corporation (15 percent). The initial phase of this location features catering services and recreational facilities and the ability to expand should demand for rooms in the region warrant.

  

 

Canadian Lodge Locations

 

 

 

 

Rooms in our Canadian Lodges

 

				Extraction		As of December 31,
Lodges		Region		Technique		2015				2014				2013
Wapasu		N. Athabasca		mining			5,174				5,174				5,174
Athabasca (1)		N. Athabasca		mining			2,005				2,005				1,557
McClelland Lake		N. Athabasca		mining			1,997				1,888				---
Henday (1)		N. Athabasca		mining/in situ			1,698				1,698				1,698
Beaver River		N. Athabasca		mining			1,094				1,094				1,094
Conklin		S. Athabasca		mining/in situ			700				700				1,036
Anzac		S. Athabasca		in situ			526				526				526
Mariana Lake (2)		S. Athabasca		mining			526				---				---
Lakeside (3)		N. Athabasca		mining			---				---				510
Subtotal – Oil Sands							13,720				13,085				11,595
Sitka Lodge		Kitimat, BC		LNG			436				---				---
Total Rooms							14,156				13,085				11,595

 

---

(1)	Currently closed due to low activity level in the region.

(2)	During the third quarter of 2015, we redeveloped our Mariana Lake location and reclassified the location as an oil sands lodge.

(3)	In late 2014, we received notice from our landlord to move off the site. The lodge was permanently closed during the fourth quarter of 2014.

  

 

Open Camps

 

In addition to our lodges, we have five open camps in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The major differentiator between lodges and open camps is the size of the facility. Open camps are generally smaller facilities that provide a level of amenity similar to that of one of our larger lodges including quality accommodation and food services, satellite television, fitness facilities and on-site laundry. We own the land where all of our open camp assets are located except for Geetla Lodge, which is on leased land. In early 2015, we renewed our Mariana Lake Lodge lease for a term through 2025, and this location was reclassified as an oil sands lodge in the third quarter of 2015. In March 2015, we vacated the Redvers Lodge lease due to the negative outlook for future occupancy. Open camps are typically utilized for exploratory, seasonal or short-term projects. Therefore, customer commitments for open camps tend to be shorter in initial duration (six to eighteen months). Open camps may be operational for twelve months or several years or transition into lodges depending on customer demand. Over time, room counts may fluctuate up or down depending on demand in the region. If the demand in a region decreases, open camps can be relocated to areas of greater activity. We provide accommodation services at our open camps on a day rate basis. Open camp revenue comprises a portion of “Other Revenue” in our Canadian segment.

 

Our Alberta open camps service the Athabasca and Peace River oil sands as well as conventional and shale play oil and gas developments and infrastructure expansions. Geetla Lodge services the Horn River Basin in British Columbia.

 

Rooms in our Canadian Open Camps

 

				As of December 31,
Open Camps		Province		2015				2014				2013
Mariana Lake (1)		Alberta			---				435				486
Boundary (2)		Saskatchewan			346				346				346
Waskada		Manitoba			---				---				196
Antler River (2)		Manitoba			254				212				---
Red Earth		Alberta			114				114				114
Redvers		Saskatchewan			---				102				102
Geetla (2)		British Columbia			81				81				81
Christina Lake		Alberta			35				35				65
Total Rooms					830				1,325				1,390

 

---

(1)	During the third quarter of 2015, we redeveloped our Mariana Lake location and reclassified the location as an oil sands lodge.

(2)	Currently closed due to low activity level in the region.

 

Mobile Fleet

 

Our mobile fleet consists of modular, skid-mounted accommodations and central facilities that can be configured to quickly serve a multitude of short to medium term accommodation needs. The dormitory, kitchen and ancillary assets can be rapidly mobilized and demobilized and are scalable to support 200 to 800 people in a single location. In addition to asset rental, we provide catering, cleaning and housekeeping as well as camp management services, including fresh water and sewage hauling services. Our mobile fleet services the traditional oil and gas sector in Alberta and British Columbia and in situ oil sands drilling and development operations in Alberta as well as pipeline construction crews throughout Western Canada. The assets have also been used in the past in disaster relief efforts, the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games and a variety of other non-energy related projects.

 

Our mobile fleet assets are rented on a per unit basis based on the number of days that a customer utilizes the asset. In cases where we provide catering or ancillary services, the contract can provide for per unit pricing or cost-plus pricing. Customers are also typically responsible for mobilization and demobilization costs. Our focus on ancillary service contracts has allowed us to successfully pursue catering only opportunities. Due to the business nature of servicing client-owned facilities, this business easily fits into our overall business. Aside from the traditional workforce accommodations, we are expanding our target markets to areas such as institutional, educational and entertainment facilities. Mobile fleet revenue comprises a portion of “Other Revenue” in our Canadian segment.

  

 

Australia

 

Overview

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, we generated 26% of our revenue from our Australian operations.  As of December 31, 2015, we had 9,296 rooms across ten villages, of which 7,392 rooms service the Bowen Basin region of Queensland, one of the premier metallurgical (met) coal basins in the world. We provide accommodation services on a day rate basis to mining and related service companies (including construction contractors) typically under medium-term contracts (three to five years) with minimum nightly room commitments. During 2015, no further rooms were added (net of retirements) to our Australian villages.

 

Australian Market

 

As the largest contributor to exports and a major contributor to the country’s gross domestic product, employment and government revenue, the Australian natural resources sector plays a vital role in the Australian economy.  Australia has broad natural resources, including met and thermal coal, conventional and coal seam gas, base metals, iron ore and precious metals such as gold. The growth of Australian natural resource commodity exports over the last decade has been largely driven by strong Asian demand for coal, iron ore and LNG. Australia’s resources are primarily located in remote regions of the country that lack infrastructure and resident labor forces to develop these resources. Approximately 60% of the Australian population is located in five cities, which are all located on the coast of Australia, and over 90% of the population lives in the southern half of the country. Sufficient local labor is lacking near the major natural resources developments, which are primarily inland and in the central and northern parts of the country. As a result, much of the natural resources labor force works on a rotational basis, which often requires a commute from a major city or the coast and a living arrangement near the resource projects. Consequently, there is substantial need for workforce accommodations to support resource production in the country. Workforce accommodations have historically been built by the resource developer/owner, typical of an insourcing business model.

 

Since 1996, our Australian business has sought to change the insourcing business model through its integrated service offering, allowing customers to outsource their accommodations needs and focus their investment on resource production operations. Our Australian accommodations villages are strategically located in proximity to long-lived, low-cost mines operated by large mining companies.  The current activities of our Australian segment are primarily related to supplying accommodations in support of met coal mining in the Bowen Basin region of Queensland.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, our five villages in the Bowen Basin of central Queensland generated 81% of our Australian revenue. The Bowen Basin contains one of the largest coal deposits in Australia and is renowned for its premium met coal. Met coal is used in the steel making process and demand has largely been driven by global demand for steel finished goods and steel construction materials. More recently, growth in construction demand for steel products in emerging economies, particularly China, has slowed significantly, negatively impacting demand for the commodity. Australia is the largest exporter of met coal in the world, in addition to being in close proximity to the largest steel producing country in the world. Our villages are focused on the mines in the central portion of the basin and are well positioned for the active mines in the region.

 

Beyond the Bowen Basin, we serve several emerging markets with our four additional villages. At the end of 2015, we had two villages with over 1,000 combined rooms in the Gunnedah Basin, an emerging thermal and met coal as well as coal seam gas region of New South Wales. In Western Australia, we serve workforces related to iron ore port expansions and LNG facilities operations on the Northwest Shelf through our Karratha villages.

 

 

Australian Village Locations

 

 

Rooms in our Australian Villages

 

							As of December 31,
Villages		Resource Basin			Commodity		2015				2014				2013
Coppabella		Bowen			met coal			3,048				3,048				3,048
Dysart		Bowen			met coal			1,798				1,798				1,912
Moranbah		Bowen			met coal			1,240				1,240				1,240
Middlemount		Bowen			met coal			816				816				816
Boggabri		Gunnedah			met/thermal coal			662				662				508
Narrabri		Gunnedah			met/thermal coal			502				502				502
Nebo		Bowen			met coal			490				490				490
Calliope (1)		---			LNG			300				300				300
Kambalda (2)		---			Gold			232				232				238
Karratha		Pilbara			LNG, iron ore			208				208				208
Total Rooms								9,296				9,296				9,262

 

---

(1)	Currently closed due to low activity level in the region.

(2)	Closed in June 2015 due to lack of contract renewals.

 

Our Australian segment operated ten villages with 9,296 rooms as of December 31, 2015 and has a significant development portfolio in Australia.  Our Australian business provides accommodation services to mining and related service companies under short- and medium-term contracts.  Our Australian accommodations villages are strategically located near long-lived, low-cost mines operated by large mining companies.   Our growth plan for this part of our business continues to include the expansion of these properties where we believe there is durable long-term demand.

 

Our Coppabella, Dysart, Moranbah, Middlemount and Nebo villages are located in the Bowen Basin. Coppabella, at over 3,000 rooms, is our largest village and provides accommodation to a variety of customers. The village supports both operational workforce needs and contractor needs with resort style amenities, including swimming pools, gyms, a walking track and a tavern. Our Nebo, Dysart, Moranbah and Middlemount Villages have a long history of providing service in the region.

  

 

In 2011, we opened Narrabri Village, the first village of its kind in New South Wales, to service met and thermal coal mines and coal seam gas in the Gunnedah Basin. Our newest village, Boggabri, opened in the third quarter of 2013. Boggabri Village, whose first stage, consisting of 508 rooms, opened in 2013, services the operating workforce of two customers with approved mines in the Gunnedah Basin. Karratha, in Western Australia, services workforces related to iron ore port expansions and LNG facilities operations on the Northwest Shelf.

 

U.S.

 

Overview

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, our U.S. business generated 7% of our revenue. Our U.S. business has operational exposure to the Rocky Mountain corridor, the Bakken Shale region, the Permian Basin region of Texas and offshore locations in the Gulf of Mexico. The business provides open camp facilities and highly mobile smaller camps that follow drilling rigs and completion crews as well as accommodations, office and storage modules that are placed on offshore drilling rigs and production platforms.

 

U.S. Market

 

Onshore oil and natural gas development has historically been supported by local workforces traveling short to moderate distances to the worksites. With the development of substantial resources in regions such as the Bakken, Rockies and Permian Basin, labor demand has exceeded the local labor supply and accommodations infrastructure to support the demand. Consequently, demand for remote, scalable accommodations has developed in the U.S. over the past five years. Demand for accommodations in the U.S. has historically been tied to the level of oil and natural gas exploration and production activity, which is primary driven by oil and natural gas prices. Activity levels have been, and we expect will continue to be, highly correlated with hydrocarbon commodity prices.

 

U.S. Locations

 

 

 

Mobile Fleet

 

Our business in the U.S. consists primarily of mobile fleet assets, both in the lower 48 states, including the Rocky Mountain corridor, the Bakken Shale region, the Permian Basin region of Texas and in the Gulf of Mexico. We provide a variety of sizes and configurations to meet the needs of drilling contractors, completion companies, infrastructure construction projects and offshore drilling and completion activity. We provide quality catering and housekeeping services as well.

 

Our mobile fleet is rented on a per unit basis based on the number of days that a customer utilizes the asset. In cases where we provide catering or ancillary services, the contract can provide for per unit pricing or cost-plus pricing. Customers are also typically responsible for mobilization and demobilization costs.

 

Open Camps

			As of December 31,
	State		2015				2014				2013
West Permian	TX			310				310				166
Three Rivers (1)	TX			274				274				274
Killdeer	ND			235				235				126
Stanley House	ND			157				157				199
Total Rooms				976				976				765

 

---

(1)	Sold in January 2016.

 

We had four open camps in the U.S. comprised of 976 rooms as of December 31, 2015. We sold one of our camps in January 2016. Our Stanley House and Killdeer Lodge, which we opened in October 2013, provide accommodations support to the Bakken Shale region in North Dakota. Our West Permian Lodge supports the Permian Basin in West Texas.

 

Modular Construction and Manufacturing

 

As part of our integrated business model in North America, we utilize a flexible modular construction and manufacturing strategy that combines internal manufacturing capabilities and outsourced manufacturing partners to allow us to respond quickly to changing customer needs and timing.  As of December 31, 2015, we own one modular construction and manufacturing plant near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Our U.S. modular construction facility in Johnstown, Colorado was closed during the first quarter of 2015 and sold in the fourth quarter of 2015. In Australia, accommodation rooms are sourced from third-party manufacturers.  Our Canadian facility specializes in the design, engineering, production, transportation and installation of a variety of modular buildings, predominately for our own use.  In Canada, we have a staff of engineers and architects who have designed and delivered large and small projects. We are capable of taking highly replicable and well-designed manufactured buildings and our expertise in site layout combined with site-built components including landscaping, recreational facilities and certain common facilities to create a comfortable community within a community. We design accommodations facilities to suit the climate, terrain and population of a specific project site.

 

While we have traditionally focused our manufacturing efforts on our internal needs, from time to time we sell units to third parties. Revenues from the sale of accommodation units to third parties has been a small portion of our revenue and is included in “Other Revenue” in our Canadian and U.S. segments. We have not historically sold units to third parties in Australia.

 

Community Relations

 

Partnering with local and aboriginal communities is part of our long term strategy. In our Canadian operations, we have worked proactively with local aboriginal communities to develop mutually beneficial and long-term partnerships focused on employment, training, business development and community investments. For over a decade, our Canadian operations have supported two joint ventures, Buffalo Metis Catering and Metis Catering JV, with five Metis communities in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, to provide catering and housekeeping services at our lodges. Our efforts in this area were recognized in 2011 and 2012 through Alberta Chamber of Commerce industry awards of recognition for excellence in aboriginal relations business practices. During 2015, Civeo entered into partnerships with two First Nations in the northern Athabasca oil sands region and one in the southern Athabasca oil sands region.

 

  

In Australia, our community relations program also aims to build and maintain a social license to operate in regional communities by delivering consultation and engagement from project inception, through development, construction and operations. This is a major advantage for our business model as it ensures consistent communication, engenders trust and builds relationships to last throughout the resource lifecycle. There is an emphasis on developing partnerships that create a long-term sustainable outcome to address specific community needs. To that end, we partner with local municipalities to improve and expand municipal infrastructure. These improvements provide necessary infrastructure, allowing the local communities an opportunity to expand and improve.

 

Customers and Competitors

 

Our customers primarily operate in oil sands mining and development, drilling, exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas and coal and other extractive industries. To a lesser extent, we also support other activities, including pipeline construction, forestry, humanitarian aid and disaster relief, and support for military operations.  Our largest customers in 2015 were Imperial Oil Limited (a company controlled by ExxonMobil Corporation), Fort Hills Energy LP (a partnership between Suncor Energy Inc., Total E&P Canada Ltd and Teck Resources Limited) and BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd (an alliance between BHP Billiton and Mitsubishi), who each accounted for more than 10% of our 2015 revenues.

 

Our primary competitors in Canada in the open and mobile camp accommodations include ATCO, Black Diamond, Horizon North, Noralta Lodge and Clean Harbors, Inc. Some of these competitors have one or two locations similar to our oil sands lodges; however, based on our estimates, these competitors do not have the breadth or scale of our lodge operations. In Canada, we also compete against Aramark and Compass Group for facility management services.

 

Our primary competitors in Australia to our village accommodations are Ausco Modular (a subsidiary of Algeco Scotsman) and Fleetwood Corporation.  We also compete against Aramark, Sodexo and Compass Group for facility management services.

 

In the U.S., we primarily offer our open camp and mobile camps accommodations and compete against Stallion Oilfield Holdings, Inc., Target Logistics Management LLC (a subsidiary of Algeco Scotsman Global S.a.r.l.), HB Rentals (a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services) and Black Diamond.

 

Historically, many customers have invested in their own accommodations.  Management estimates that our existing and potential customers own approximately 50% of the rooms available in the Canadian oil sands and 60% of the rooms in the Australian coal mining regions.

 

Our Lodge and Village Contracts

 

During the year ended December 31, 2015, revenues from our lodges and villages represented over 75% of our consolidated revenues. Our customers typically contract for accommodations services under take-or-pay contracts with terms that most often range from several months to five years. Our contract terms generally provide for a rental rate for a reserved room and an occupied room rate that compensates us for services, including meals, utilities and maintenance for workers staying in the lodges and villages. In multi-year contracts, our rates typically have annual contractual escalation provisions to cover expected increases in labor and consumables costs over the contract term. Over the term of the contract, the customer commits to a minimum number of rooms over a determined period. In some contracts, customers have a contractual right to terminate rooms, for reasons other than a breach, in exchange for a termination fee. As of December 31, 2015, we had 36% of our rentable rooms committed for 2016 and 19% of our rentable rooms committed for 2017, respectively.

  

 

 

As of December 31, 2015, we had 7,019 rooms under contract, or 38% of our rentable rooms, respectively. The table below details the expiration of those contracts:

 

		Contracted Room Expiration
2016			1,749
2017			2,665
2018			600
2019			—
2020			—
Thereafter			2,005
Total			7,019

 

The contracts expire throughout the year, and for many of the near term expirations, we are in the process of negotiating extensions or new commitments. We cannot assure that we can renew existing contracts or obtain new business on the same or better terms, if at all.

 

Seasonality of Operations

 

Our operations are directly affected by seasonal weather. A portion of our Canadian operations is conducted during the winter months when the winter freeze in remote regions is required for customers’ activity to occur. The spring thaw in these frontier regions restricts operations in the second quarter and adversely affects our operations and our ability to provide services. Our Canadian operations have also been impacted by forest fires and flooding in the past five years. During the Australian rainy season between November and April, our operations in Queensland and the northern parts of Western Australia can be affected by cyclones, monsoons and resultant flooding.  In the U.S., winter weather in the first quarter and the resulting spring break up in the second quarter have historically negatively impacted our Bakken and Rocky Mountain operations. Our U.S. offshore operations have historically been impacted by the Gulf of Mexico hurricane season from July through November.   

 

Employees

 

As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 1,900 full-time employees on a consolidated basis, 72% of whom are in Canada, 21% of whom are in Australia and 7% of whom are in the U.S.  We were party to collective bargaining agreements covering approximately 900 employees located in Canada and 140 employees located in Australia as of December 31, 2015.

 

Government Regulation

 

Our business is significantly affected by foreign and U.S. laws and regulations at the federal, provincial, state and local levels relating to the oil, natural gas and mining industries, worker safety and environmental protection. Changes in these laws, including more stringent regulations and increased levels of enforcement of these laws and regulations, and the development of new laws and regulations could significantly affect our business and result in:

 

●

increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions associated with our operations or our customers’ operations;

 

●

other increased costs to our business or our customers’ business;

 

●

reduced demand for oil, natural gas, and other natural resources that our customers produce; and

 

●

reduced demand for our services.

 

To the extent that these laws and regulations impose more stringent requirements or increased costs or delays upon our customers in the performance of their operations, the resulting demand for our services by those customers may be adversely affected, which impact could be significant and long-lasting. Moreover, climate change laws or regulations could increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for, oil and natural gas, which could reduce our customers’ demand for our services. We cannot predict changes in the level of enforcement of existing laws and regulations, how these laws and regulations may be interpreted or the effect changes in these laws and regulations may have on us or our customers or on our future operations or earnings. We also are not able to predict the extent to which new laws and regulations will be adopted or whether such new laws and regulations may impose more stringent or costly restrictions on our customers or our operations.

 

 

Our operations and the operations of our customers are subject to numerous stringent and comprehensive foreign, federal, provincial, state and local environmental laws and regulations governing the release or discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Numerous governmental agencies issue regulations to implement and enforce these laws, for which compliance is often costly yet critical. The violation of these laws and regulations may result in the denial or revocation of permits, issuance of corrective action orders, modification or cessation of operations, assessment of administrative and civil penalties, and even criminal prosecution. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations and we do not anticipate that future compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations will have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.  However, there can be no assurance that substantial costs for compliance or penalties for non-compliance with these existing requirements will not be incurred in the future by us or our customers. Moreover, it is possible that other developments, such as the adoption of stricter environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies or more stringent enforcement of existing environmental laws and regulations, could result in additional costs or liabilities upon us or our customers that we cannot currently quantify.

 

Canadian Environmental Regulations

 

In Canada, the Federal Government in September 2010 appointed an Oil Sands Advisory Panel to review and comment upon existing scientific studies and literature regarding water monitoring in the Lower Athabasca region and provide recommendations for improving such monitoring.  The Oil Sands Advisory Panel presented its final report to the Minister of the Environment in December 2010.  In response to this report, Environment Canada, with input from the government of Alberta through Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, developed an environmental monitoring plan specific to the oil sands with respect to water, air quality and biodiversity.  Further, in January 2011, the Province of Alberta established a Provincial Environmental Monitoring Panel with a mandate to recommend a world class environmental evaluation, monitoring and reporting system, generally for the Province and specifically for the lower Athabasca Region where oil sands are produced.  This panel issued its recommendations to the Alberta Minister of the Environment in July 2011.  In February 2012, the governments of Canada and Alberta released the Joint Canada-Alberta Implementation Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring. Implementation of the plan commenced in 2012 and will be completed in 2015.  The costs of implementing this plan are funded by industry members to a maximum of $50 million annually, some of whom are our customers. The Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Program Regulation came into force in 2013, enabling the collection of monitoring fees from certain of our customers for the plan. In 2013-2014, enhancements to the environmental monitoring system were made and processes and governance structures and funding mechanisms to support oil sands monitoring were successfully established. As this monitoring regime continues to be implemented, the increased levels of monitoring and enforcement may increase costs for us and our customers and could reduce activity and demand for our services.

 

Further, the Province of Alberta released its new Renewed Clean Air Strategy in October 2012, which it is in the process of implementing for, at minimum, a 10-year period, beginning in 2013. The implementation of this strategy along with Alberta’s continued implementation of its regulatory changes to oil and oil sands regulation may result in additional costs or liabilities for our customers’ operations.

 

In June 2014, the Canadian government announced proposed new regulations to impose mandatory emissions standards for industry. The proposed standards will impact nitrous oxide (NOx) and Sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from regulated boilers and stationary engines. These regulations have not yet been passed but if passed, could affect the oil and gas sector as they will impact emission performance standards for compressors and boilers used in conventional and steam assisted gravity operations in the oil sands.

 

Scientific studies have suggested that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), including carbon dioxide and methane, may be contributing to warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes.  On January 29, 2010, Canada affirmed its desire to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord that was negotiated in December 2009 as part of the international meetings on climate change regulation in Copenhagen.  The Copenhagen Accord, which is not legally binding, allows countries to commit to specific efforts to reduce GHG emissions, although how and when the commitments may be converted into binding emission reduction obligations, if ever, is currently uncertain.  Pursuant to the Copenhagen Accord process, Canada has indicated an economy-wide GHG emissions target that equates to a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, and the former Canadian Conservative federal government indicated an objective of reducing overall Canadian GHG emissions by 60% to 70% from 2006 levels by 2050.  However, with current climate change measures in place, Canada’s GHG emissions are forecast to be almost exactly at 2005 levels by 2020 and federal regulations for the oil and gas sector have yet to be introduced.

  

 

In December 2015, 195 nations, including Canada, Australia, and the U.S., adopted the Paris Agreement at the 21st “Conference of the Parties” (COP 21). The Paris Agreement does not set legally binding emission reduction targets but does set a goal of limiting global temperature increases to less than 2° Celsius. Canada announced that it is in favor of the decision of the COP 21 to endeavor to take action to further limit global temperature increases to less than 1.5° Celsius. The Paris Agreement also requires parties to submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which set out their emission reduction targets and to renew these INDCs, with the goal of increasing the reductions, every five years. The Paris Agreement does not legally bind the parties to reach their INDCs, nor does it prescribe the measures it must take to achieve them. These measures are left to each participating nation. However, participating nations must submit their INDCs every five years. Canada has not implemented any new regulations to achieve its INDC and is scheduled to meet with representatives of the provincial governments by mid-March 2016 to determine an agreed upon approach for Canada to obtain its INDC. It is expected that the new liberal federal government may commit to a more ambitious INDC than the preceding conservative federal government. Without new regulation from the federal government yet in place, it is not possible to determine the impact that implementation of new federal or provincial regulatory changes could have, but they may result in additional costs or liabilities for our customers’ operations.

 

Additionally, GHG regulation can take place at the provincial and municipal level. For example, Alberta’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Act provides a framework for managing GHG emissions by reducing specified gas emissions, relative to total production from facilities that emit over 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. The accompanying regulation, the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, requires mandatory emissions reductions through the use of emissions intensity targets, and a company can meet the applicable emissions limits by making emissions intensity improvements at regulated facilities, offsetting GHG emissions by purchasing offset credits or emission performance credits in the open market or acquiring “fund credits” (akin to allowances) by making payments for each ton of GHG emissions over the required reduction target to the Alberta Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund.  In June, 2015, the government of Alberta amended the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation to increase the price per fund credit from $15 to $20 per credit in 2016 and to $30 per credit in 2017. In addition, the amended Specified Gas Emitter Regulation also increased the required emission reductions for regulated facilities from 12% below an established baseline in 2015 to 15% in 2016 and 20% in 2017. These amendments are likely to significantly increase the cost of compliance for our customers. There are financial penalties for non-compliance for every ton of carbon dioxide equivalent over a facility’s net emission intensity limit as well as for contraventions of other provisions contained in the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Further, the Specified Gas Reporting Regulation imposes GHG emissions reporting requirements on a company that has GHG emissions of 50,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent from a facility in a calendar year.  In addition, Alberta facilities must currently report emissions of industrial air pollutants and comply with obligations in approvals and under other environmental regulations.

 

In addition to the amendments to the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation discussed above, the government of Alberta announced a new Climate Leadership Plan (the CLP) in November 2015 that is intended to replace the current Specified Gas Emitter Regulation in 2018. It has broader application than the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation and is intended to cover 78-90% of emissions, largely by putting a levy on emissions from the combustion of all fossil fuels, with limited exceptions. This is expected to be implemented at the fuel distributor level, so that it will add to the cost of most fossil based fuels. The CLP also targets the phasing out of coal generated electricity (or the emissions therefrom) by 2030. It also targets a 45% reduction in methane emissions from oil and gas operations by 2025. It is not certain how this will be achieved, but it is contemplated that new performance standards emissions from equipment will be incentivized and potentially mandated. Lastly, the CLP contemplates a cap on oil sands emissions at 100 million tonnes a year. The regulations to implement the CLP are anticipated in late 2016 and expected to be effective in 2017. The combination of the announced carbon levy and coal phase out is expected to increase fuel and electricity prices, which could have an impact on our operating costs. The direct and indirect costs of these regulatory changes may adversely affect our operations and financial results as well as those of our customers with whom we conduct business.

 

In July 2008, the province of British Columbia implemented a revenue neutral carbon tax of $10 per tonne, which graduated to the final scheduled increase to $30 per tonne in July 2012. The carbon tax is imposed at the fuel distributor level to encourage fuel consumers to use less fossil fuel and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The government of British Columbia has not announced any intentions to increase the carbon tax, but could do so in the future.

  

 

To ensure that it meets its INDC commitments under the Paris Agreement, the Canadian federal government may elect to impose further regulation on GHG emissions and may wish to enter into equivalency agreements with provinces to establish a consistent regulatory regime for GHGs. However, the federal government’s determination is currently uncertain and could possibly result in overlapping levels of regulation. The direct and indirect costs of these regulations may adversely affect our operations and financial results as well as those of our customers.

 

Finally, it should be noted that some scientists have concluded that increasing concentrations of GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere may produce climate changes that have significant physical effects, such as higher sea levels, increased frequency and severity of storms, droughts, floods and other climatic events. If any such effects were to occur, they could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

The Canadian Species at Risk Act is intended to prevent wildlife species in Canada from disappearing and to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that no longer exist in the wild in Canada, or that are endangered or threatened as a result of human activity, and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. The designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas of Canada where our customers’ oil and natural gas exploration and production operations are conducted could cause them to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in limitations on their exploration and production activities, which could have an adverse impact on demand for our services.

 

Other Canadian Regulations 

 

In June 2015, the government of Alberta announced that it would strike a panel to review and recommend changes to Alberta’s oil and gas royalty framework. The government  released the panel’s report on January 29, 2016. The four overarching recommendations made by the panel were to (1) establish guiding principles and design criteria for Alberta’s royalty framework; (2) modernize the royalty framework for crude oil, liquids and natural gas; (3) enhance the royalty process for oil sands; and (4) seize opportunities for value-added processing.  It is expected that the government will implement legislation and regulatory changes in the coming months to give effect to the panel’s recommendations. Until these legislative and regulatory changes are implemented, the panel’s recommendations will not have the effect of law. Until the legislative and regulatory changes are announced, it is difficult to say what the impact on our customers will be and how it will affect our business.

 

On July 1, 2015, the government of Alberta increased Alberta’s corporate tax rate from 10% to 12%. This increase is expected to have a commensurate impact on our financial results and that of our customers in relation to previous years.

 

Australian Environmental Regulations

 

Our Australian segment is regulated by general statutory environmental controls at both the state and federal level which may result in land use approval and compliance risk. These controls include: land use and urban design controls; the regulation of hard and liquid waste, including the requirement for tradewaste and/or wastewater permits or licenses; the regulation of water, noise, heat, and atmospheric gases emissions; the regulation of the production, transport and storage of dangerous and hazardous materials (including asbestos); and the regulation of pollution and site contamination. Some specified activities, for example, sewage treatment works, may require regulation at a state level by way of environmental protection licenses which also impose monitoring and reporting obligations on the holder. There is an increasing emphasis from state and federal regulators on sustainability and energy efficiency in business operations.  Federal requirements are now in place for the mandatory disclosure of energy performance under building rating schemes. These schemes require the tracking of specific environmental performance factors. Carbon reporting requirements currently exist for corporations which meet a reporting threshold for greenhouse gases or energy use or production for a reporting (financial) year under national legislation. 

 

U.S. Environmental Regulations

 

The Clean Water Act, as amended, and analogous state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of pollutants into state waters or waters of the U.S. The discharge of pollutants into jurisdictional waters is prohibited unless the discharge is permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or authorized state agencies.  Many of our U.S. properties and operations require permits for discharges of wastewater and/or storm water, and we have developed a system for securing and maintaining these permits. In addition, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as amended (OPA), imposes a variety of requirements on responsible parties related to the prevention of oil spills and liability for damages, including natural resource damages, resulting from such spills in waters of the U.S.  A responsible party under OPA includes the owner or operator of an onshore facility or vessel, or the lessee or permittee of the area in which an offshore facility is located.  The Clean Water Act and analogous state laws provide for administrative, civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized discharges and, together with the OPA, require the development and implementation of spill prevention and response plans and impose liability for the remedial costs and associated damages arising out of any unauthorized discharges.

  

 

The EPA has adopted rules requiring the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from specified large GHG emission sources in the U.S., including, offshore and onshore oil and natural gas production facilities, on an annual basis. In addition, the EPA has proposed new regulations that would further restrict GHG emissions, such as new standards for methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil and gas sources, which the EPA proposed in September 2015. In February 2016, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed new regulations to reduce “waste” of natural gas—of which methane is a primary constituent—from venting, flaring and leaks during oil and natural gas production activities on onshore federal and Indian lands. In October 2015, the EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan, which imposes additional obligations on the power generation sector to reduce GHG emissions. However, on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending resolution of legal challenges to the rule. While our operations are not directly affected by these actions, their impact on our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers could result in a decreased demand for the services that we provide.

 

While the U.S. Congress has from time to time considered legislation to reduce emissions of GHGs, there has not been significant activity in the form of adopted legislation to reduce GHG emissions at the federal level in recent years.  In the absence of federal climate legislation in the U.S., a number of state and regional efforts have emerged that are aimed at tracking and/or reducing GHG emissions by means of cap and trade programs that typically require major sources of GHG emissions, such as electric power plants, to acquire and surrender emission allowances in return for emitting those GHGs.  Although it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address GHG emissions would impact our business, any such future laws and regulations could require us or our customers to incur increased operating costs, such as costs to purchase and operate emissions control systems, to acquire emission allowances or comply with new regulatory or reporting requirements.  Any such legislation or regulatory programs could also increase the cost of consuming, and thereby reduce demand for oil and natural gas, which could reduce our customers’ demand for our services.  Consequently, legislation and regulatory programs to reduce GHG emissions could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our operations as well as the operations of our customers are also subject to various laws and regulations addressing the management, disposal and releases of regulated substances. For example, in the U.S., the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA) and comparable state statutes regulate the generation, storage, treatment, transportation, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, most states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Federal and state regulatory agencies can seek to impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for alleged non-compliance with RCRA and analogous state requirements. In the course of our operations, we generate some amounts of ordinary industrial wastes, such as paint wastes, waste solvents and waste oils that may be regulated as hazardous wastes. Moreover, the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund law, and comparable state laws impose liability, without regard to fault or legality of conduct, on classes of persons considered to be responsible for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the current and past owner or operator of the site where the release occurred and anyone who disposed or arranged for the disposal of a hazardous substance released at the site. Under CERCLA, such persons may be subject to joint and several strict liability for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some instances, third parties to act in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover from the responsible classes of persons the costs they incur. In addition, neighboring landowners and other third parties may file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment. We generate materials in the course of our operations that may be regulated as hazardous substances. In the event of mismanagement or release of regulated substances upon properties where we conduct operations, we could become subject to liability and/or obligations under CERCLA, RCRA and/or analogous state laws. Under such laws, we could be required to undertake response or corrective measures, which could include removal of previously disposed substances and wastes, cleanup of contaminated property or performance of remedial operations to prevent future contamination.

  

 

The federal Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), restricts activities in the U.S. that may affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. If endangered species are located in areas of the U.S. where our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers operate, such operations could be prohibited or delayed or expensive mitigation may be required.  Moreover, as a result of a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to make a determination on listings of more than 250 species as endangered or threatened under the ESA before the end of the agency’s 2017 fiscal year.

 

The designation of previously unprotected species as threatened or endangered in areas of the U.S. where our customers’ oil and natural gas exploration and production operations are conducted could cause them to incur increased costs arising from species protection measures or could result in limitations on their exploration and production activities, which could have an adverse impact on demand for our services.

 

Hydraulic fracturing is a process sometimes used to stimulate production of hydrocarbons from tight formations. The process involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production. Hydraulic fracturing is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas regulators, but EPA has asserted federal regulatory authority pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) over, and issued permitting guidance in February 2014 for, certain hydraulic fracturing activities involving the use of diesel fuels. In May 2014, EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on the development of regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require companies to disclose information regarding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. In March 2015, BLM issued a final rule that imposes requirements on hydraulic fracturing activities on federal and Indian lands, including new requirements relating to public disclosure, wellbore integrity and handling of flowback water; similar rules have been proposed for hydraulic fracturing activities on National Park and National Wildlife Refuge System lands. However, in September 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming issued a preliminary injunction staying effectiveness of the BLM rule pending resolution of legal challenges to the rule. In addition, Congress has from time to time considered legislation to provide for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the SDWA and to require disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Some states and local governments also have adopted or are considering adopting regulations to restrict or ban hydraulic fracturing in certain circumstances. Moreover, ongoing governmental reviews of the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing by EPA and other agencies could lead to further regulation of hydraulic fracturing. While our operations are not directly affected by these actions, their impact on our oil and natural gas exploration and production customers could result in a decreased demand for the services that we provide.

 

ITEM 1A.

Risk Factors

 

We are subject to certain risks and hazards due to the nature of the business activities we conduct. The risks discussed below, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations and the price of our shares, are not the only risks we face. We may experience additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or, as a result of developments occurring in the future, conditions that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. 

 

Risks Related to Our Business

 

Decreased customer expenditure levels have adversely affected and may continue to adversely affect our results of operations.

 

Demand for our services is sensitive to the level of exploration, development and production activity of, and the corresponding capital spending by, oil and gas and mining companies. Throughout 2015 and continuing into 2016, our customers’ expenditures have declined significantly due to the long-term decline in commodity prices. If our customers’ expenditures continue to decline in regions where our facilities are located, our business will be further adversely impacted. The oil and gas and mining industries’ willingness to explore, develop and produce depends largely upon the availability of attractive resource prospects and the prevailing view of future commodity prices, which over the past year, has not been positive. Prices for oil, coal, natural gas, and other minerals are subject to large fluctuations in response to changes in the supply of and demand for these commodities, market uncertainty, and a variety of other factors that are beyond our control. Accordingly, a sudden or long-term decline in commodity pricing, or a continuation of the current depressed commodity price environment, would have material adverse effects on our results of operations.

 

In the fourth quarter 2015 and continuing into 2016, global oil prices have dropped to their lowest levels in over 10 years due to concerns over global oil demand, the economic growth rate in China, the overall economic health of Europe and price cutting by major oil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Increasing global supply and higher than normal inventory levels have also negatively impacted pricing. With falling Brent Crude and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices, Western Canadian Select (WCS) has also fallen. WCS prices in the fourth quarter of 2015 averaged $27.82 per barrel compared to $57.75 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2014 and $73.48 per barrel in 2013. As of February 19, 2016, the WTI price was $29.64, and the WCS price was $19.20. In addition, met coal prices have decreased materially from approximately $119/metric ton as of December 31, 2014 to approximately $89/metric ton as of December 31, 2015 due to a declining demand for steel and the impact of a stronger U.S. dollar. As of February 19, 2016, met coal prices were $81/metric ton. Commodity prices, particularly with respect to the oil sands and Australian met coal production, could continue to deteriorate. The existing commodity price environment has significantly depressed exploration, development, and production activity. A sustained continuation of these prices or further deterioration is likely to continue to depress activity levels, often reflected as reductions in employees or resource production, and have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

 

Additionally, significant new regulatory requirements, including climate change legislation, could have an impact on the demand for and the cost of producing oil, coal and natural gas in the regions where we operate. Many factors affect the supply of and demand for oil, coal, natural gas and other minerals and, therefore, influence product prices, including:

 

●

the level of activity and developments in the Canadian oil sands;

 

●

the global level of demand, particularly from China, for coal and other natural resources produced in Australia;

 

●

the availability of economically attractive oil and natural gas field prospects, which may be affected by governmental actions or environmental activists which may restrict development;

 

●

the availability of transportation infrastructure for oil, natural gas, LNG and coal, refining capacity and shifts in end-customer preferences toward fuel efficiency and the use of natural gas;

 

●

global weather conditions and natural disasters;

 

●

worldwide economic activity including growth in developing countries, such as China and India;

 

●

national government political requirements, including the ability of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC) to set and maintain production levels and prices for oil and government policies which could nationalize or expropriate oil and natural gas exploration, production, refining or transportation assets;

 

●

the level of oil and gas production by non-OPEC countries;

 

●

rapid technological change and the timing and extent of energy resource development, including LNG or other alternative fuels;

 

●

environmental regulation; and

 

●

U.S. and foreign tax policies.

 

Our failure to retain our current customers, renew our existing customer contracts and obtain new customer contracts, or the termination of existing contracts, could adversely affect our business.

 

Our success depends on our ability to retain our current customers, renew or replace our existing customer contracts and obtain new business. Our ability to do so generally depends on a variety of factors, including overall customer expenditure levels and the quality, price and responsiveness of our services, as well as our ability to market these services effectively and differentiate ourselves from our competitors. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain new business, renew existing customer contracts at the same or higher levels of pricing, or at all, or that our current customers will not turn to competitors, cease operations, elect to self-operate or terminate contracts with us. Because global oil prices dropped to their lowest level in over 10 years in the first quarter of 2016 and met coal prices have continued to decline, our customers may not renew contracts on terms favorable to us or, in some cases, at all, and we may have difficulty obtaining new business. Additionally, several contracts have clauses that allow termination upon the payment of a termination fee. As a result, our customers may choose to terminate their contracts. The likelihood that a customer may seek to terminate a contract is increased during periods of market weakness like those we are currently experiencing. Further, certain of our customers may not reach positive final investment decisions on projects with respect to which we have been awarded contracts to provide related accommodation, which may cause those customers to terminate the contracts. Customer contract cancellations, the failure to renew a significant number of our existing contracts or the failure to obtain new business would have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

 

 

Due to the cyclical nature of the natural resources industry, our business may be adversely affected by extended periods of low oil, coal or natural gas prices or unsuccessful exploration results may decrease our customers’ spending and therefore our results.

 

Commodity prices have been and are expected to remain volatile. This volatility causes oil and gas and mining companies to change their strategies and expenditure levels. Prices of oil, coal and natural gas can be influenced by many factors, including reduced demand due to lower global economic growth, surplus inventory, improved technology such as the hydraulic fracturing of horizontally drilled wells in shale discoveries, access to potential productive regions and availability of required infrastructure to deliver production to the marketplace. In particular, global demand for both oil and metallurgical coal is, at least partially, dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy. Should gross domestic product growth in China slow further or contract, demand for oil and metallurgical coal and, correspondingly, our accommodations would fall, which would negatively impact our financial results.

 

Our business typically supports projects that are capital intensive and require several years to generate first production. The economic analyses conducted by our customers in oil sands, Australian mining and LNG investment areas have historically assumed a relatively conservative longer-term price outlook for production from such projects to determine economic viability. Because global oil prices dropped to their lowest level in over 10 years in the first quarter of 2016 and met coal prices have continued to decline, our customers have reduced or deferred, and may continue to reduce or defer, major expenditures, particularly in Canada and Australia, given the long-term nature of many large scale development projects, adversely affecting our revenues and profitability. In Canada, WCS crude is the benchmark price for our oil sands accommodations’ customers. Historically, WCS has traded at a discount to WTI. Should the price of WTI decline or the WCS discount to WTI widen further, our oil sands customers may delay or eliminate additional investments, further reduce their spending in the oil sands region or curtail or shut-down additional existing operations. Similarly, the volumes and prices of the mineral products of our customers, including coal and gold, have historically varied significantly and are difficult to predict. The demand for, and price of, these minerals and commodities is highly dependent on a variety of factors, including international supply and demand, the price and availability of alternative fuels, actions taken by governments and global economic and political developments. Mineral and commodity prices have fluctuated in recent years and may continue to fluctuate significantly in the future. No assurance can be given regarding future volumes or prices relating to the activities of our customers. We have experienced in the past, and expect to experience in the future, significant fluctuations in operating results based on these changes.

 

In addition, the carrying value of our lodges or villages could be reduced by extended periods of limited or no activity by our customers, which has required us to record impairment charges equal to the excess of the carrying value of the lodges or villages over fair value. We recorded impairments of our long-lived assets, including intangibles, of $79.7 million and $87.8 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. We also recorded goodwill impairments of $43.2 million and $202.7 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. We may incur additional asset impairment charges in the future, which charges will affect negatively our results of operations and financial condition.

 

Exchange rate fluctuations could adversely affect our U.S. dollar reported results of operations and financial position.

 

Currency exchange rate fluctuations can create volatility in our consolidated financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows. Because our consolidated financial results are reported in U.S. dollars, if we generate net revenues or earnings in countries whose currency is not the U.S. dollar, the translation of such amounts into U.S. dollars can result in an increase or decrease in our reported revenues, net income and cash flows depending upon exchange rate movements. For the year ended December 31, 2015, 93% of our revenues originated from subsidiaries outside of the U.S. and were denominated in either the Canadian dollar or the Australian dollar. As a result, a material decrease in the value of these currencies relative to the U.S. dollar has had, and may have in the future, a negative impact on our reported revenues, net income and cash flows. Any currency controls implemented by local monetary authorities in countries where we currently operate could also adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our functional currency is the U.S. dollar, and we are exposed to currency exchange risk primarily between the U.S. dollar and the Canadian and Australian dollars. We may attempt to limit the risks of currency fluctuation where possible by entering into financial instruments to protect against foreign currency exposure. Our efforts to limit exchange risks may be unsuccessful, thereby exposing us to foreign currency fluctuations that could cause our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows to deteriorate.

 

 

We do business in Canada and Australia, whose political and regulatory environments and compliance regimes differ from those in the United States.

 

A significant portion of our revenue is attributable to operations in Canada and Australia. These activities accounted for 93% of our consolidated revenue in the year ended December 31, 2015. Risks associated with our operations in Canada and Australia include, but are not limited to:

 

●

international currency fluctuations;

 

●

different taxing regimes;

 

●

changing political conditions;

 

●

changing international and U.S. monetary policies;

 

●

regional economic downturns;

 

●

expropriation, confiscation or nationalization of assets; and

 

●

foreign exchange limitations.

 

The regulatory regimes in these countries are substantially different than those in the United States, and are unfamiliar to U.S. investors. Violations of non-U.S. laws could result in monetary and criminal penalties against us or our subsidiaries and could damage our reputation and, therefore, our ability to do business. 

 

All but one of our major Canadian lodges are located on land subject to leases. If we are unable to renew a lease, we could be materially and adversely affected.

 

All but one of our major Canadian lodges are located on land subject to leases. Accordingly, while we own the accommodations assets, we only own a leasehold in those properties. If we are found to be in breach of a lease, we could lose the right to use the property. In addition, unless we can extend the terms of these leases before their expiration, as to which no assurance can be given, we will lose our right to operate our facilities located on these properties upon expiration of the leases. In that event, we would be required to remove our accommodations assets and remediate the site. Generally, our leases have an initial term of ten years and will expire between 2016 and 2026 unless extended. We can provide no assurances that we will be able to renew our leases upon expiration on similar terms, or at all. If we are unable to renew leases on similar terms, it may have an adverse effect on our business.

 

Due to the significant concentration of our business in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada and in the Bowen Basin coal region of Queensland, Australia, adverse events in these areas could negatively impact our business, and our geographic concentration could limit the number of customers seeking our services.

 

Because of the concentration of our business in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada and in the coal producing region of Queensland, Australia, two relatively small geographic areas, we have increased exposure to political, regulatory, environmental, labor, climate or natural disaster events or developments that could disproportionately impact our operations and financial results. For example, in 2011, major flooding caused by seasonal rain and a cyclone impacted areas near our villages in Australia. Also in 2011, forest fires in northern Alberta impacted areas near our Canadian oil sands lodges. Due to our geographic concentration, any adverse events or developments in our operating areas may disproportionately affect our financial results.

 

In addition, a limited number of companies operate in the areas in which our business is concentrated, and occupancy at each of our lodges may be constrained by the radius which potential customers are willing to transport their workers. Our geographic concentration could limit the number of customers seeking our services, and as to any single lodge or village, we may have few potential customers. Therefore, we are subject to volatility in occupancy in any location based on the capital spending plans of a limited number of customers, based on their changing decisions as to whether to outsource or use their own company-owned accommodations and whether other potential customers move into that lodge’s radius.

  

 

Development of permanent infrastructure in the Canadian oil sands region, the west coast of British Columbia, regions of Australia or various U.S. locations where we locate our assets could negatively impact our business.

 

We specialize in providing housing and personnel logistics for work forces in remote areas which often lack the infrastructure typically available in nearby towns and cities. If permanent towns, cities and municipal infrastructure develop, grow or otherwise become available in the oil sands region of northern Alberta, Canada, the west coast of British Columbia or regions of Australia where we locate villages, then demand for our accommodations could decrease as customer employees move to the region and choose to utilize permanent housing and food services.  

 

We depend on several significant customers. The loss of one or more such customers or the inability of one or more such customers to meet their obligations to us could adversely affect our results of operations.

 

We depend on several significant customers. The majority of our customers operate in the energy or mining industry. For a more detailed explanation of our customers, see “Business” in Item 1. The loss of any one of our largest customers in any of our business segments or a sustained decrease in demand by any of such customers could result in a substantial loss of revenues and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In addition, the concentration of customers in two industries may impact our overall exposure to credit risk, either positively or negatively, in that customers may be similarly affected by changes in economic and industry conditions. While we perform ongoing credit evaluations of our customers, we do not require collateral in support of our trade receivables.

 

As a result of our customer concentration, risks of nonpayment and nonperformance by our counterparties are a concern in our business. We are subject to risks of loss resulting from nonpayment or nonperformance by our customers. Many of our customers finance their activities through cash flow from operations, the incurrence of debt or the issuance of equity. Throughout 2015 and continuing into 2016, commodity prices have declined significantly, and the capital markets and availability of credit have been constrained. Additionally, many of our customers’ equity values have declined and could decline further. The combination of lower cash flow due to commodity prices, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of available debt or equity financing may continue to result in a significant reduction in our customers’ liquidity and could impair their ability to pay or otherwise perform on their obligations to us. Furthermore, some of our customers may be highly leveraged and subject to their own operating and regulatory risks, which increases the risk that they may default on their obligations to us. The inability or failure of our significant customers to meet their obligations to us or their insolvency or liquidation may adversely affect our financial results.

 

We are susceptible to seasonal earnings volatility due to adverse weather conditions in our regions of operations.

 

Our operations are directly affected by seasonal differences in weather in the areas in which we operate, most notably in Canada and Australia, and, to a lesser extent, the Rocky Mountain region and the Gulf of Mexico. A portion of our Canadian operations is conducted during the winter months when the winter freeze in remote regions is required for exploration and production activity to occur. The spring thaw in these frontier regions restricts operations in the spring months and, as a result, adversely affects our operations and our ability to provide services in the second and, to a lesser extent, third quarters. During the Australian rainy season, generally between the months of November and April, our operations in Queensland and the northern parts of Western Australia can be affected by cyclones, monsoons and resultant flooding. Severe winter weather conditions in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States can restrict access to work areas for our customers. Our operations in the Gulf of Mexico are also affected by weather patterns. Furthermore, the areas in which we operate are susceptible to forest fires, which could interrupt our operations and adversely impact our earnings.

  

 

Our customers are exposed to a number of unique operating risks and challenges which could also adversely affect us.

 

We could be materially adversely affected by disruptions to our clients’ operations caused by any one of or all of the following singularly or in combination:

 

●

U.S. and international pricing and demand for the natural resource being produced at a given project (or proposed project);

 

●

unexpected problems, higher costs and delays during the development, construction and project start-up which may delay the commencement of production;

 

●

unforeseen and adverse geological, geotechnical, seismic and mining conditions;

 

●

lack of availability of sufficient water or power to maintain their operations;

 

●

lack of availability or failure of the required infrastructure necessary to maintain or to expand their operations;

 

●

the breakdown or shortage of equipment and labor necessary to maintain their operations;

 

●

risks associated with the natural resources industry being subject to various regulatory approvals. Such risks may include a government agency failing to grant an approval or failing to renew an existing approval, or the approval or renewal not being provided by the government agency in a timely manner or the government agency granting or renewing an approval subject to materially onerous conditions;

 

●

risks to land titles, mining titles and use thereof as a result of native title claims;

 

●

claims by persons living in close proximity to mining projects, which may have an impact on the consents granted;

 

●

interruptions to the operations of our customers caused by industrial accidents or disputes; and

 

●

delays in or failure to commission new infrastructure in timeframes so as not to disrupt customer operations.

 

We may be adversely affected if customers reduce their accommodations outsourcing. 

 

Our business and growth strategies depend in large part on customers outsourcing some or all of the services that we provide. Many oil and gas and mining companies in our core markets own their own accommodations facilities, while others outsource all or part of their accommodations requirements. Customers have largely built their accommodations in the past but will outsource if they perceive that outsourcing may provide quality services at a lower overall cost or allow them to accelerate the timing of their projects. We cannot be certain that these customer preferences will continue or that customers that have outsourced accommodations will not decide to perform these functions themselves or only outsource accommodations during the development or construction phases of their projects. In addition, labor unions representing customer employees and contractors have, in the past, opposed outsourcing accommodations to the extent that the unions believe that third-party accommodations negatively impact union membership and recruiting. The reversal or reduction in customer outsourcing of accommodations could negatively impact our financial results and growth prospects. 

 

Increased operating costs and obstacles to cost recovery due to the pricing and cancellation terms of our accommodation services contracts may constrain our ability to make a profit. 

 

Our profitability can be adversely affected to the extent we are faced with cost increases for food, wages and other labor related expenses, insurance, fuel and utilities, especially to the extent we are unable to recover such increased costs through increases in the prices for our services, due to one or more of general economic conditions, competitive conditions or contractual provisions in our customer contracts. Substantial increases in the cost of fuel and utilities have historically resulted in cost increases in our lodges and villages. From time to time we have experienced increases in our food costs. While we believe a portion of these increases were attributable to fuel prices, we believe the increases also resulted from rising global food demand. In addition, food prices can fluctuate as a result of foreign exchange rates and temporary changes in supply, including as a result of incidences of severe weather such as droughts, heavy rains and late freezes. While our long term contracts often provide for annual escalation in our room rates for food, labor and utility inflation, we may be unable to fully recover costs and such increases would negatively impact our profitability on contracts that do not contain such inflation protections.

 

 

A failure to maintain food safety or comply with government regulations related to food and beverages or serving alcoholic beverages may subject us to liability.

 

Claims of illness or injury relating to food quality or food handling are common in the food service industry, and a number of these claims may exist at any given time. Because food safety issues could be experienced at the source or by food suppliers or distributors, food safety could, in part, be out of our control. Regardless of the source or cause, any report of food-borne illness or other food safety issues such as food tampering or contamination at one of our locations could adversely impact our reputation, hindering our ability to renew contracts on favorable terms or to obtain new business, and have a negative impact on our sales. Future food product recalls and health concerns associated with food contamination may also increase our raw materials costs and, from time to time, disrupt our business.

 

A variety of regulations at various governmental levels relating to the handling, preparation and serving of food (including, in some cases, requirements relating to the temperature of food), and the cleanliness of food production facilities and the hygiene of food-handling personnel are enforced primarily at the local public health department level. We cannot assure you that we are in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations at all times or that we will be able to comply with any future laws and regulations. Furthermore, legislation and regulatory attention to food safety is very high. Additional or amended regulations in this area may significantly increase the cost of compliance or expose us to liabilities.

 

We serve alcoholic beverages at some of our facilities, and must comply with applicable licensing laws, as well as local service laws. These laws generally prohibit serving alcoholic beverages to certain persons such as an individual who is intoxicated or a minor. If we violate these laws, we may be liable to the patron and/or third parties for the acts of the patron. We cannot guarantee that intoxicated or minor patrons will not be served or that liability for their acts will not be imposed on us. There can be no assurance that additional regulation in this area would not limit our activities in the future or significantly increase the cost of regulatory compliance. We must also obtain and comply with the terms of licenses in order to sell alcoholic beverages in the jurisdictions in which we serve alcoholic beverages. If we are unable to maintain food safety or comply with government regulations related to food, beverages or alcoholic beverages, the effect could be materially adverse to our business or results of operations.

 

Our land banking strategy may not be successful.

 

Our land banking strategy is focused on investing early in land in order to gain a strategic, early mover advantage in an emerging region or resource play. However, we cannot assure you that all land that we purchase or lease will be in a region in which our customers require our services in the future. We also cannot assure you that the property acquired by us will be profitably developed. Our land banking strategy involves significant risks that could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and the market price of our securities, which include the following risks:

 

●

the regions in which we invest may not develop or sustain adequate customer demand;

 

●

we may incur costs to acquire land and/or construct assets without securing a customer contract or prior to finalization of an accommodations contract with a customer and, if the contract is not obtained or delayed, the resulting impact could result in an impairment of the related investment;

 

●

during the time between acquisition and use, and depending on adjacent uses of the land, the property may become unusable or require costly remediation efforts due to environmental damage;

 

●

we may not be able to obtain financing for development projects on favorable terms or at all;

 

●

we may not be able to obtain, or may experience delays in obtaining, all necessary zoning, land-use, building, occupancy and other governmental permits and authorizations, and the issuance of permits is dependent upon a number of factors, including water and waste treatment alternatives available, road traffic volumes and fire conditions in forested areas;

 

●

development opportunities that we explore may be abandoned and the related investment impaired;

 

●

the properties may perform below anticipated levels, producing cash flow below budgeted amounts;

 

●

construction costs, total investment amounts and our share of remaining funding may exceed our estimates and projects may not be completed, delivered or stabilized as planned;

 

●

we may experience delays (temporary or permanent) if there is public, government or aboriginal opposition to our activities; and

 

●

substantial renovation, new development and redevelopment activities, regardless of their ultimate success, typically require a significant amount of management’s time and attention, diverting their attention from our day-to-day operations.

  

 

Our business is contract intensive and may lead to customer disputes or delays in receipt of payments.

 

Our business is contract intensive and we are party to many contracts with customers. We periodically review our compliance with contract terms and provisions. If customers were to dispute our contract determinations, the resolution of such disputes in a manner adverse to our interests could negatively affect sales and operating results. In the past, our customers have withheld payment due to contract or other disputes, which has delayed our receipt of payments. While we do not believe any reviews, audits, delayed payments or other such matters should result in material adjustments, if a large number of our customer arrangements were modified or payments withheld in response to any such matter, the effect could be materially adverse to our business or results of operations.

 

We are subject to extensive and costly environmental laws and regulations that may require us to take actions that will adversely affect our results of operations.

 

All of our operations are significantly affected by stringent and complex foreign, federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations governing the discharge of substances into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. We could be exposed to liabilities for cleanup costs, natural resource damages and other damages as a result of our conduct that was lawful at the time it occurred or the conduct of, or conditions caused by, prior operators or other third-parties. Environmental laws and regulations are subject to change in the future, possibly resulting in more stringent requirements. If existing regulatory requirements or enforcement policies change, we may be required to make significant unanticipated capital and operating expenditures.

 

Any failure by us to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations may result in governmental authorities taking actions against our business that could adversely impact our operations and financial condition, including the:

 

●

issuance of administrative, civil and criminal penalties;

 

●

denial or revocation of permits or other authorizations;

 

●

reduction or cessation of operations; and

 

●

performance of site investigatory, remedial or other corrective actions.

 

Construction risks exist which may adversely affect our results of operations.

 

There are a number of general risks that might impinge on companies involved in the development, construction, manufacture and installation of facilities as a prerequisite to the management of those assets in an operational sense. We might be exposed to these risks from time to time by relying on these corporations and/or other third parties which could include any and/or all of the following:

 

●

the construction activities of our accommodations are partially dependent on the supply of appropriate construction and development opportunities;

 

●

development approvals, slow decision making by counterparties, complex construction specifications, changes to design briefs, legal issues and other documentation changes may give rise to delays in completion, loss of revenue and cost over-runs which may, in turn, result in termination of accommodation supply contracts;

 

●

other time delays that may arise in relation to construction and development include supply of labor, scarcity of construction materials, lower than expected productivity levels, inclement weather conditions, land contamination, cultural heritage claims, difficult site access or industrial relations issues;

 

●

objections to our activities or those of our customers aired by aboriginal or community interests, environment and/or neighborhood groups which may cause delays in the granting or approvals and/or the overall progress of a project;

 

●

where we assume design responsibility, there is a risk that design problems or defects may result in rectification and/or costs or liabilities which we cannot readily recover; and

 

●

there is a risk that we may fail to fulfill our statutory and contractual obligations in relation to the quality of our materials and workmanship, including warranties and defect liability obligations.

  

 

The cyclical nature of our business and a severe prolonged downturn has and could in the future negatively affect the value of our long-lived assets.

 

We recorded impairments of our long-lived assets, including intangibles, of $79.7 million and $87.8 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. We also recorded goodwill impairments of $43.2 million and $202.7 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively.

 

Extended periods of limited or no activity by our customers at our lodges or villages could require us to record further impairment charges equal to the excess of the carrying value of the lodges or villages over fair value. Although our goodwill balance at December 31, 2015 was fully impaired, we may recognize additional impairment losses on our long-lived assets in the future if, among other factors:

 

●

global economic conditions remain depressed or further deteriorate, including a further decrease in the price of or demand for oil and natural gas;

 

●

the outlook for future profits and cash flow for our Canadian reporting unit deteriorates as the result of many possible factors, including, but not limited to, increased or unanticipated competition, technology becoming obsolete, need to satisfy changes in customers’ accommodations requirements, further reductions in customer capital spending plans, loss of key personnel, adverse legal or regulatory judgment(s), future operating losses at a reporting unit, downward forecast revisions or restructuring plans or if certain of our customers do not reach positive final investment decisions on projects with respect to which we have been awarded contracts to provide related accommodation, which may cause those customers to terminate the contracts;

 

●

costs of equity or debt capital increase; or

 

●

valuations for comparable public companies or comparable acquisition valuations deteriorate.

 

An accidental release of pollutants into the environment may cause us to incur significant costs and liabilities.

 

There is inherent risk of environmental costs and liabilities in our business as a result of our handling of petroleum hydrocarbons, because of air emissions and waste water discharges related to our operations, and due to historical industry operations and waste disposal practices. Certain environmental statutes impose joint and several strict liability for these costs. For example, an accidental release by us in the performance of services at one of our or our customers’ sites could subject us to substantial liabilities arising from environmental cleanup, restoration costs and natural resource damages, claims made by neighboring landowners and other third parties for personal injury and property damage and fines or penalties for related violations of environmental laws or regulations. We may not be able to recover some or any of these costs from insurance.

 

We may be exposed to certain regulatory and financial risks related to climate change.

 

Climate change is receiving increasing attention from scientists and legislators alike. The debate is ongoing as to the extent to which our climate is changing, the potential causes of any change and its potential impacts. Some attribute global warming to increased levels of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, which has led to significant legislative and regulatory efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Significant focus is being made on companies that are active producers of depleting natural resources.

  

 

There are a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to address greenhouse gas emissions, which are in various phases of discussion or implementation. The outcome of Canadian, Australian, U.S. federal, regional, provincial and state actions to address global climate change could result in a variety of regulatory programs including potential new regulations, additional charges to fund energy efficiency activities, or other regulatory actions. These actions could:

 

●

result in increased costs associated with our operations and our customers’ operations;

 

●

increase other costs to our business;

 

●

reduce the demand for carbon-based fuels; and

 

●

reduce the demand for our services.

 

Any adoption of these or similar proposals by Canadian, Australian, U.S. federal, regional, provincial or state governments mandating a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could have far-reaching and significant impacts on the energy industry. Although it is not possible at this time to predict how legislation or new regulations that may be adopted to address greenhouse gas emissions would impact our business, any such future laws and regulations could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions, and could have a material adverse effect on our business or demand for our services. See “Business—Government Regulation” in Item 1 for a more detailed description of our climate-change related risks.

 

Our inability to control the inherent risks of identifying, acquiring and integrating businesses that we may acquire, including any related increases in debt or issuances of equity securities, could adversely affect our operations.

 

Acquisitions have been, and our management believes acquisitions will continue to be, a key element of our growth strategy. We may not be able to identify and acquire acceptable acquisition candidates on favorable terms in the future. We may be required to incur substantial indebtedness to finance future acquisitions and also may issue equity securities in connection with such acquisitions. Such additional debt service requirements could impose a significant burden on our results of operations and financial condition. The issuance of additional equity securities could result in significant dilution to shareholders.

 

We expect to gain certain business, financial and strategic advantages as a result of business combinations we undertake, including synergies and operating efficiencies. Our forward-looking statements assume that we will successfully integrate our business acquisitions and realize these intended benefits. An inability to realize expected strategic advantages as a result of the acquisition would negatively affect the anticipated benefits of the acquisition. Additional risks we could face in connection with acquisitions include:

 

●

retaining key employees of acquired businesses;

 

●

retaining and attracting new customers of acquired businesses;

 

●

retaining supply and distribution relationships key to the supply chain;

 

●

increased administrative burden;

 

●

developing our sales and marketing capabilities;

 

●

managing our growth effectively;

 

●

potential impairment resulting from the overpayment for an acquisition;

 

●

integrating operations;

 

●

managing tax and foreign exchange exposure;

 

●

potentially operating a new line of business;

 

●

increased logistical problems common to large, expansive operations; and

 

●

inability to pursue and protect patents covering acquired technology.

  

 

Additionally, an acquisition may bring us into businesses we have not previously conducted and expose us to additional business risks that are different from those we have previously experienced. If we fail to manage any of these risks successfully, our business could be harmed. Our capitalization and results of operations may change significantly following an acquisition, and our shareholders may not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and other relevant information that we will consider in evaluating future acquisitions.

 

We may not have adequate insurance for potential liabilities and insurance may not cover certain liabilities, including litigation.

 

Our operations are subject to many hazards. In the ordinary course of business, we become the subject of various claims, lawsuits and administrative proceedings seeking damages or other remedies concerning our commercial operations, products, employees and other matters, including occasional claims by individuals alleging exposure to hazardous materials as a result of our products or operations. Some of these claims relate to the activities of businesses that we have acquired, even though these activities may have occurred prior to our acquisition of such businesses. We maintain insurance to cover many of our potential losses, and we are subject to various self-retentions and deductibles under our insurance policies. It is possible, however, that a judgment could be rendered against us in cases in which we could be uninsured and beyond the amounts that we currently have reserved or anticipate incurring for such matters. Even a partially uninsured or underinsured claim, if successful and of significant size, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or consolidated financial position. In addition, we are insured under Oil States’ insurance policies for occurrences prior to the completion of the Spin-off. The specifications and insured limits under those policies, however, may be insufficient for such claims. We also face the following other risks related to our insurance coverage:

 

●

we may not be able to continue to obtain insurance on commercially reasonable terms;

 

●

the counterparties to our insurance contracts may pose credit risks; and

 

●

we may incur losses from interruption of our business that exceed our insurance coverage.

 

Our operations may suffer due to increased industry-wide capacity of certain types of assets.

 

The demand for and/or pricing of rooms and accommodation service is subject to the overall availability of rooms in the marketplace. If demand for our assets were to decrease, or to the extent that we and our competitors increase our capacity in excess of current demand, we may encounter decreased pricing for or utilization of our assets and services, which could adversely impact our operations and profits.

 

In addition, we significantly increased our capacity in the Canadian oil sands region over the past eight years and in Australia over the past five years based on our previous expectations for customer demand for accommodations in these areas. However, due to the sustained decline in commodity prices throughout 2015 and continuing into 2016, customer demand for accommodations in those areas has decreased significantly, and we have experienced a corresponding significant decrease in our occupancy and profitability. Should our customers build their own facilities to meet their accommodations needs or our competitors likewise increase their available accommodations, or activity in the oil sands or natural resources regions declines further, demand and/or pricing for our accommodations could further decrease, negatively impacting our profitability.

 

Loss of key members of our management could adversely affect our business.

 

We depend on the continued employment and performance of key members of our management. If any of our key managers resign or become unable to continue in their present roles and are not adequately replaced, our business operations could be materially adversely affected. We do not maintain “key man” life insurance for any of our officers.

  

 

Employee and customer labor problems could adversely affect us.

 

As of December 31, 2015, we were party to collective bargaining agreements covering approximately 900 employees in Canada and 140 employees in Australia. In addition, our facilities serving oil sands development work in Northern Alberta, Canada and mining operations in Australia house both union and non-union customer employees. We have not experienced strikes, work stoppages or other slowdowns in the past, but we cannot guarantee that we will not experience such events in the future. A prolonged strike, work stoppage or other slowdown by our employees or by the employees of our customers could cause us to experience a disruption of our operations, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our current collective bargaining agreements in Canada expire between 2016 and 2019 and in Australia in 2015 and 2016.

 

The enforcement of civil liabilities against Civeo may be more difficult.

 

Civeo is a Canadian company and a substantial portion of its assets are located outside the U.S. As a result, investors could experience more difficulty enforcing judgments obtained against us in U.S. courts than would be the case for U.S. judgments obtained against a U.S. company. In addition, some claims may be more difficult to bring against Civeo in Canadian courts than it would be to bring similar claims against a U.S. company in a U.S. court.

 

Our historical combined financial information may not be representative of the results we would have achieved as a stand-alone public company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

 

The historical combined financial information for periods prior to the Spin-off that we have included in this annual report has been derived from Oil States’ accounting records and may not necessarily reflect what our financial position, results of operations or cash flows would have been had we been an independent, stand-alone entity during the periods presented or those that we will achieve in the future. Oil States did not account for us, and we were not operated, as a separate, stand-alone company for the historical periods prior to the Spin-off. The costs and expenses reflected in such financial information include an allocation for certain corporate functions historically provided by Oil States, including expense allocations for: (1) certain corporate functions historically provided by Oil States, including, but not limited to finance, legal, risk management, tax, treasury, information technology, human resources, and certain other shared services; (2) certain employee benefits and incentives; and (3) equity-based compensation, that may be different from the comparable expenses that we would have incurred had we operated as a stand-alone company. These expenses were allocated to us on the basis of direct usage when identifiable, with the remainder allocated based on estimated time spent by Oil States personnel, a pro-rata basis of headcount or other relevant measures of our business and Oil States and its subsidiaries. We have not adjusted our historical combined financial information for periods prior to the Spin-off to reflect changes that occurred in our cost structure and operations as a result of our transition to becoming a stand-alone public company, including increased costs associated with an independent board of directors, SEC reporting and the NYSE requirements. Therefore, our historical financial information for periods prior to the Spin-off may not necessarily be indicative of what our financial position, results of operations or cash flows will be in the future. For additional information, see “Selected Historical Financial Data” in Item 6 and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 and our consolidated financial statements and related notes in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

We may increase our debt or raise additional capital in the future, which could affect our financial condition, may decrease our profitability or could dilute our shareholders.

 

We may increase our debt or raise additional capital in the future, subject to restrictions in our debt agreements. If our cash flow from operations is less than we anticipate, or if our cash requirements are more than we expect, we may require more financing. However, debt or equity financing may not be available to us on terms acceptable to us, if at all. If we incur additional debt or raise equity through the issuance of our preferred shares, the terms of the debt or our preferred shares issued may give the holders rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of holders of our common shares, particularly in the event of liquidation. The terms of the debt may also impose additional and more stringent restrictions on our operations than we currently have. If we raise funds through the issuance of additional equity, your ownership in us would be diluted. If we are unable to raise additional capital when needed, it could affect our financial health, which could negatively affect your investment in us.

  

 

Our Amended Credit Facility contains operating and financial restrictions that may restrict our business and financing activities. 

 

Our Amended Credit Facility contains, and any future indebtedness we incur may contain, a number of restrictive covenants that will impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us. The Amended Credit Facility contains customary affirmative and negative covenants that, among other things, limit or restrict (i) subsidiary indebtedness, liens and fundamental changes, (ii) asset sales, (iii) margin stock, (iv) specified acquisitions, (v) restrictive agreements, (vi) transactions with affiliates and (vii) investments and other restricted payments, including dividends and other distributions. Specifically, we must maintain an interest coverage ratio, defined as the ratio of consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the Amended Credit Facility) to consolidated interest expense, of at least 3.0 to 1.0 and our maximum leverage ratio, defined as the ratio of total debt to consolidated EBITDA, of no greater than 4.0 to 1.0 (as of December 31, 2015).

 

The permitted level of the maximum leverage ratio changes over time, as illustrated in the table below.

 

Period Ended	Maximum Leverage Ratio
December 31, 2015	4.00 : 1.00
March 31, 2016	4.25 : 1.00
June 30, 2016	5.25 : 1.00
September 30, 2016	5.50 : 1.00
December 31, 2016	5.50 : 1.00
March 31, 2017	5.25 : 1.00
June 30, 2017	5.25 : 1.00
September 30, 2017	5.00 : 1.00
December 31, 2017	5.00 : 1.00
March 31, 2018	4.75 : 1.00
June 30, 2018	3.75 : 1.00
September 30, 2018 & thereafter	3.50 : 1.00

 

 

Each of the factors considered in the calculations of these ratios are defined in the Amended Credit Facility. EBITDA and consolidated interest, as defined, exclude goodwill and asset impairments, debt discount amortization and other non-cash charges.

 

As a result of these covenants, we will be limited in the manner in which we conduct our business, and we may be unable to engage in favorable business activities or finance future operations or capital needs. Our ability to comply with some of the covenants, ratios or tests contained in the Amended Credit Facility may be affected by events beyond our control. If market or other economic conditions remain depressed or further deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants, ratios or tests likely will be impaired. We may not be able to reduce our indebtedness to comply with these covenants. A failure to comply with these covenants, ratios or tests could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

 

Our indebtedness could restrict our operations and make us more vulnerable to adverse economic conditions.

 

We currently have a substantial amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately $349.5 million outstanding under the term loan portion of the Amended Credit Facility, $52.0 million outstanding under the revolving portion of the Amended Credit Facility, $5.1 million of outstanding letters of credit and capacity to borrow an additional $196.3 million under the revolving portion of the Amended Credit Facility. As of December 31, 2015, our borrowing capacity under the revolving portion of the Credit Facility was reduced by approximately $121.7 million due to the negative covenants. If market or other economic conditions remain depressed or further deteriorate, our borrowing capacity may be further reduced.

 

Our level of indebtedness may adversely affect our operations and limit our growth, and we may have difficulty making debt service payments on our indebtedness as such payments become due. Our level of indebtedness may affect our operations in several ways, including the following:

 

●

our indebtedness may increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions;

 

●

the covenants contained in the Amended Credit Facility limit our ability to borrow funds, dispose of assets, pay dividends and make certain investments;

 

●

our debt covenants also affect our flexibility in planning for, and reacting to, changes in the economy and in its industry; and

 

●

our indebtedness could impair our ability to obtain additional financing in the future for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other general corporate purposes.

  

 

Our ability to service our debt will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our business does not generate sufficient cash flows from operations to enable us to meet our obligations under our indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing or delaying business activities, acquisitions, investments and/or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness or seeking additional equity capital. We may not be able to effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. 

 

We previously identified a material weakness in our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal controls, which we believe has been fully remediated. If we have inadequately remediated this material weakness or if we otherwise fail to develop, implement and maintain appropriate internal controls in future periods, our ability to report our financial condition and results of operations accurately and on a timely basis could be adversely affected.

 

We previously identified a material weakness in our internal controls over the assignment of depreciable lives to asset amounts recorded for asset retirement obligations. Accordingly, based on our management’s assessment, we believe that, as of September 30, 2015, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at the reasonable assurance level. The specific material weakness and our remediation efforts are described in Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K in “Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.” A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal controls, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements would not be prevented or detected. We cannot assure you that additional material weaknesses in our internal controls will not be identified in the future. Any failure to maintain or implement required new or improved controls, or any difficulties we encounter in their implementation, could result in additional material weaknesses, or could result in material misstatements in our financial statements. These misstatements could result in restatements of our financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information.

 

We have developed certain remediation steps to address the material weakness discussed above and to improve our internal controls. We believe the material weakness discussed above has been fully remediated. If we have inadequately remediated this material weakness, there will continue to be an increased risk that our future financial statements could contain errors that will be undetected. Further and continued determinations that there are material weaknesses in the effectiveness of our internal controls could reduce our ability to obtain financing or could increase the cost of any financing we obtain and require additional expenditures of resources to comply with applicable requirements. For more information relating to our internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures, and the remediation plan undertaken by us, see Item 9A, “Controls and Procedures” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats, including cybersecurity threats and other disruptions.

 

We face various security threats, including cybersecurity threats to gain unauthorized access to sensitive information or to render data or systems unusable; threats to the safety of our employees; threats to the security of our facilities and infrastructure or third-party facilities and infrastructure; and threats from terrorist acts. Although we utilize various procedures and controls to monitor these threats and mitigate our exposure to such threats, there can be no assurance that these procedures and controls will be sufficient in preventing security threats from materializing. If any of these events were to materialize, they could lead to losses of sensitive information, critical infrastructure, personnel or capabilities essential to our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Cybersecurity attacks in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in critical systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data.

  

 

Risks Related to the Redomicile Transaction

 

The anticipated benefits of the Redomicile Transaction may not be realized.

 

We may not realize the benefits we anticipate from the Redomicile Transaction, particularly as the realization of those benefits are in many important respects subject to factors that we do not control. These factors would include such things as the reactions of third parties with whom we enter into contracts and do business and the reactions of investors, analysts and Canadian and U.S. taxing authorities, and other factors discussed in these risk factors. Our failure to realize those benefits could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

 

We are subject to various Canadian and other taxes as a result of the Redomicile Transaction.

 

While we expect the Redomicile Transaction will enable us to take advantage of lower Canadian tax rates in the years after the year of implementation to a greater extent than would likely have been available if the Redomicile Transaction was not completed, these benefits may not be achieved. In particular, tax authorities may challenge our application and/or interpretation of relevant tax laws, regulations or treaties, valuations and methodologies or other supporting documentation, and, if they are successful in doing so, we may not experience the level of benefits we anticipate or we may be subject to adverse tax consequences. Even if we are successful in maintaining our tax positions, we may incur significant expense in contesting these positions or other claims made by tax authorities. In addition, changes in tax laws or increased rates of tax could have the effect of negatively impacting our anticipated effective tax rates. Our effective tax rates and the benefits described herein are also subject to a variety of other factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control, such as changes in the rate of economic growth in Canada, the financial performance of our business in various jurisdictions, currency exchange rate fluctuations (especially as between Canadian and U.S. dollars), and significant changes in trade, monetary or fiscal policies of Canada, including changes in interest rates, withholding taxes and tax rates generally. The impact of these factors, individually and in the aggregate, is difficult to predict, in part because the occurrence of the events or circumstances described in such factors may be (and, in fact, often seem to be) interrelated, and the impact to us of the occurrence of any one of these events or circumstances could be compounded or, alternatively, reduced, offset, or more than offset, by the occurrence of one or more of the other events or circumstances described in such factors.

 

More specifically, Canada’s tax rules under the Canadian Tax Act allow for favorable tax treatment insofar as the repatriation of certain dividends from foreign affiliates. These tax rules are complicated and could change over time. Any such changes could have a material impact on our overall tax rate.

 

Canada has also introduced tax rules governing “foreign affiliate dumping” in the Canadian Tax Act that can have adverse tax consequences for Canadian corporations that are controlled by non-Canadian corporations in respect of non-Canadian business activities and investments. These rules would have a negative impact on us to the extent that we became controlled by a non-Canadian resident corporation.

 

The CRA may disagree with our conclusions on tax treatment and the CRA has not provided (and we have not requested) a ruling on the Canadian tax aspects of the Redomicile Transaction.

 

Based on the current provisions of the Canadian Tax Act, we expect that the Redomicile Transaction will not result in any material Canadian federal income tax liability to us. However, if the CRA disagrees with this view, it may take the position that material Canadian federal income tax liabilities or amounts on account thereof are payable by us as a result of the Redomicile Transaction, in which case, we expect that we would contest such assessment. To contest such assessment, we would be required to remit cash or provide security of the amount in dispute, or such lesser amount as permitted under the Canadian Tax Act and acceptable to the CRA, to prevent the CRA from seeking enforcement actions pending the dispute of such assessment. If we were unsuccessful in disputing the assessment, the implications could be materially adverse to us. The CRA has not provided (and we have not requested) a ruling on the Canadian tax aspects of the Redomicile Transaction. There can be no assurance that the CRA will agree with our interpretation of the tax aspects of the Redomicile Transaction or any related matters associated therewith.

  

 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may not agree with the conclusion that we should be treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal tax purposes, and no ruling has been sought from the IRS.

 

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a corporation generally is considered a tax resident in the jurisdiction of its organization or incorporation. Because we are a British Columbia incorporated entity, we generally will be classified as a foreign corporation (and, therefore, a non-U.S. tax resident) under U.S. federal income tax law. Even so, the IRS may assert that we should be treated as a U.S. corporation (and, therefore, a U.S. tax resident) for U.S. federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Under Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code, if the former stockholders of Civeo US hold 80% or more of the vote or value of our common shares by reason of holding stock in Civeo US (the “ownership test”), and our expanded affiliated group after the Redomicile Transaction does not have substantial business activities in Canada relative to its worldwide activities (the “substantial business activities test”), we would be treated as a U.S. corporation. For this purpose, “substantial business activities” generally requires at least 25% of the employees (by number and compensation), assets and gross income of our expanded affiliated group to be based, located and derived, respectively, in Canada (“25% test”).

 

We believe that we have satisfied this 25% test because Civeo US had significant operations in Canada prior to the Redomicile Transaction (with its remaining operations occurring in Australia and the United States), and we have continued these operations following the Redomicile Transaction. Therefore, under current U.S. federal income tax law, we believe that we will not be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If it were determined, however, that we should be taxed as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we could be liable for substantial additional U.S. federal income taxes.

 

Future potential changes to U.S. tax laws could result in Civeo being treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

 

Under current U.S. federal income tax law, Civeo is generally treated as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Changes to Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code or the U.S. Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder or official interpretations thereof, could adversely affect Civeo’s status as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For example, members of Congress have from time to time proposed changes to the Internal Revenue Code, and the U.S. Treasury has indicated (most recently in Notice 2015-79) that it is considering possible regulatory action, in connection with so-called inversion transactions. The timing and substance of any such change in law or regulatory action is presently uncertain. Any such change of law or regulatory action could adversely impact the treatment of Civeo as a foreign corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and could adversely impact its tax position and financial position and results in a material manner. The precise scope and application of any legislative or regulatory proposals will not be clear until they are actually issued, and, accordingly, until such legislation or regulations are issued and fully understood, we cannot be certain as to their potential impact. Any such changes could apply retroactively to a date prior to the date of the Redomicile Transaction. If Civeo were to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it could be subject to substantially greater U.S. federal income tax liability.

 

We remain subject to changes in tax law and other factors that may not allow us to achieve a lower effective corporate tax rate.

 

While we believe that the Redomicile Transaction should allow for a lower effective corporate tax rate, we cannot give any assurance as to what our effective tax rate will be after the Redomicile Transaction because of, among other things, the tax policies of the jurisdictions where we operate, primarily Canada and Australia. Also, the tax laws of Canada, Australia and other jurisdictions could change in the future, and such changes could cause a material change in our effective corporate tax rate. As a result, our actual effective tax rate may be materially different from our expectation. Our provision for income taxes will be based on certain estimates and assumptions made by management in consultation with our tax and other advisors. Our consolidated income tax rate will be affected by the amount of net income earned in Canada and our other operating jurisdictions, the availability of benefits under tax treaties, and the rates of taxes payable in respect of that income. We will enter into many transactions and arrangements in the ordinary course of business in respect of which the tax treatment is not entirely certain. We will therefore make estimates and judgments based on our knowledge and understanding of applicable tax laws and tax treaties, and the application of those tax laws and tax treaties to our business, in determining our consolidated tax provision. The final outcome of any audits by taxation authorities may differ from the estimates and assumptions we may use in determining our consolidated tax provisions and accruals. This could result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated income tax provision, financial condition and the net income for the period in which such determinations are made.

  

 

Our tax position may be adversely affected by changes in tax law relating to multinational corporations, or increased scrutiny by tax authorities.

 

Recent legislative proposals have aimed to expand the scope of U.S. corporate tax residence, to limit the ability of foreign-owned corporations to deduct interest expense, and to make other changes in the taxation of multinational corporations.

 

Additionally, the U.S. Congress, government agencies in non-U.S. jurisdictions where we and our affiliates do business, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have recently focused on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations. One example is found in the area of “base erosion and profit shifting”, where profits are claimed to be earned for tax purposes in low-tax jurisdictions, or payments are made between affiliates from a jurisdiction with high tax rates to a jurisdiction with lower tax rates. As a result, the tax laws in the U.S. and other countries in which we and our affiliates do business could change on a prospective or retroactive basis, and any such changes could materially adversely affect us.

 

Moreover, U.S. and international tax authorities may carefully scrutinize companies that have redomiciled, such as our company, which may lead such authorities to assert that we owe additional taxes.

 

We may be subject to Australian stamp duty as a result of the Redomicile Transaction.

 

Some states of the Commonwealth of Australia impose stamp duty, which is a tax payable on documents that affect interests in property and on transfers of marketable securities. If it were determined that Australian stamp duty applied to the Redomicile Transaction, Civeo Canada could be liable for substantial Australian stamp duty taxes.

 

 

Risks Related to the Spin-Off from Oil States

 

We potentially could have received better terms from unaffiliated third parties than the terms we receive in our agreements with Oil States.

 

The agreements we entered into with Oil States in connection with the Spin-off, including the separation and distribution agreement, tax sharing agreement, employee matters agreement, indemnification and release agreement and transition services agreement, were negotiated in the context of the separation while we were still a wholly owned subsidiary of Oil States. Accordingly, during the period in which the terms of those agreements were negotiated, we did not have an independent board of directors or a management team independent of Oil States. As a result, the terms of those agreements may not reflect terms that would have resulted from arm’s-length negotiations between unaffiliated third parties. The terms of the agreements negotiated in the context of the Spin-off relate to, among other things, the allocation of assets, liabilities, rights and other obligations between Oil States and us. Arm’s-length negotiations between Oil States and an unaffiliated third party in another form of transaction, such as a buyer in a sale of a business transaction, may have resulted in more favorable terms to the unaffiliated third party. See Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies and Note 17 – Related Party Transactions to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

Our tax sharing agreement with Oil States may limit our ability to take certain actions, including strategic transactions, and may require us to indemnify Oil States for significant tax liabilities.

 

Under the tax sharing agreement, we agreed to take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions to ensure that the Spin-Off qualifies for tax-free status under section 355 and section 368(a)(1)(D) of the Code. We also made various other covenants in the tax sharing agreement intended to ensure the tax-free status of the Spin-off. These covenants restrict our ability to sell assets outside the ordinary course of business, to issue or sell additional common shares or other securities (including securities convertible into our common shares), or to enter into certain other corporate transactions for a period of two years after the Spin-off. For example, we may not enter into any transaction that would cause us to undergo either a 50% or greater change in the ownership of our voting shares or a 50% or greater change in the ownership (measured by value) of all classes of our shares in transactions considered related to the Spin-off. See Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies and Note 17 – Related Party Transactions to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

  

 

Further, under the tax sharing agreement, we are required to indemnify Oil States against certain tax-related liabilities incurred by Oil States (including any of its subsidiaries) relating to the Spin-off, to the extent caused by our breach of any representations or covenants made in the tax sharing agreement or the separation and distribution agreement, or made in connection with the private letter ruling or the tax opinion obtained with respect to the Spin-off. These liabilities include the substantial tax-related liability (calculated without regard to any net operating loss or other tax attribute of Oil States) that would result if the Spin-off of our stock to Oil States stockholders failed to qualify as a tax-free transaction. In addition, we have agreed to pay 50% of any taxes arising from the Spin-off to the extent that the tax is not attributable to the fault of either party.

 

We could have significant tax liabilities for periods during which our subsidiaries and operations were those of Oil States.

 

For any tax periods (or portion thereof) in which Oil States owned at least 80% of the total voting power and value of Civeo US’s common stock, our U.S. subsidiaries will be included in Oil States’ consolidated group for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In addition, one or more of our U.S. subsidiaries may be included in the combined, consolidated or unitary tax returns of Oil States or one or more of its subsidiaries for U.S. state or local income tax purposes. Under the tax sharing agreement, for each period in which we or any of our subsidiaries are consolidated or combined with Oil States for purposes of any tax return, and with respect to which such tax return has not yet been filed, Oil States will prepare a pro forma tax return for us as if we filed our own consolidated, combined or unitary return, except that such pro forma tax return will generally include current income, deductions, credits and losses from us (with certain exceptions), will not include any carryovers or carrybacks of losses or credits and will be calculated without regard to the federal Alternative Minimum Tax. We will reimburse Oil States for any taxes shown on the pro forma tax returns, and Oil States will reimburse us for any current losses or credits we recognize based on the pro forma tax returns. In addition, by virtue of Oil States’ controlling ownership and the tax sharing agreement, Oil States will effectively control all of our U.S. tax decisions in connection with any consolidated, combined or unitary income tax returns in which any of our subsidiaries are included. The tax sharing agreement provides that Oil States will have sole authority to respond to and conduct all tax proceedings (including tax audits) relating to us, to prepare and file all consolidated, combined or unitary income tax returns in which we are included on our behalf (including the making of any tax elections), and to determine the reimbursement amounts in connection with any pro forma tax returns. This arrangement may result in conflicts of interest between Oil States and us. For example, under the tax sharing agreement, Oil States will be able to choose to contest, compromise or settle any adjustment or deficiency proposed by the relevant taxing authority in a manner that may be beneficial to Oil States and detrimental to us; provided, however, that Oil States may not make any settlement that would materially increase our tax liability without our consent. See Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies and Note 17 – Related Party Transactions to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

Moreover, notwithstanding the tax sharing agreement, U.S. federal law provides that each member of a consolidated group is liable for the group’s entire tax obligation. Thus, to the extent Oil States or other members of Oil States’ consolidated group fail to make any U.S. federal income tax payments required by law, one or more of our U.S. subsidiaries could be liable for the shortfall with respect to periods in which such subsidiary was a member of Oil States’ consolidated group. Similar principles may apply for foreign, state or local income tax purposes where we file combined, consolidated or unitary returns with Oil States or its subsidiaries for federal, foreign, state or local income tax purposes.

 

If there is a determination that the Spin-off is taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes because the facts, assumptions, representations, or undertakings underlying the tax opinion are incorrect or for any other reason, then Oil States and its stockholders could incur significant income tax liabilities, and we could incur significant liabilities.

 

Oil States received a private letter ruling from the IRS and an opinion of its outside counsel regarding certain aspects of the Spin-off transaction. The private letter ruling and the opinion rely on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings from Oil States and us regarding the past and future conduct of the companies’ respective businesses and other matters. If any of these facts, assumptions, representations, or undertakings are, or become, incorrect or not otherwise satisfied, Oil States and its stockholders may not be able to rely on the private letter ruling or the opinion of its tax advisor and could be subject to significant tax liabilities. In addition, an opinion of counsel is not binding upon the IRS, so, notwithstanding the opinion of Oil States’ tax advisor, the IRS could conclude upon audit that the Spin-off is taxable in full or in part if it disagrees with the conclusions in the opinion, or for other reasons, including as a result of certain significant changes in the stock ownership of Oil States or us. If the Spin-off is determined to be taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes for any reason, Oil States and/or its stockholders could incur significant income tax liabilities, and we could incur significant liabilities. For a description of the sharing of such liabilities between Oil States and us, see Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies and Note 17 – Related Party Transactions to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

 

Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for liabilities of Oil States that we did not assume in our agreements.

 

Third parties may seek to hold us responsible for retained liabilities of Oil States. Under our agreements with Oil States, Oil States agreed to indemnify us for claims and losses relating to these retained liabilities. However, if those liabilities are significant and we are ultimately held liable for them, we cannot assure you that we will be able to recover the full amount of our losses from Oil States.

 

Our prior and continuing relationship with Oil States exposes us to risks attributable to businesses of Oil States.

 

Oil States is obligated to indemnify us for losses that a party may seek to impose upon us or our affiliates for liabilities relating to the business of Oil States that are incurred through a breach of the separation and distribution agreement or any ancillary agreement by Oil States or its affiliates other than us, or losses that are attributable to Oil States in connection with the Spin-off or are not expressly assumed by us under our agreements with Oil States. Any claims made against us that are properly attributable to Oil States in accordance with these arrangements would require us to exercise our rights under our agreements with Oil States to obtain payment from Oil States. We are exposed to the risk that, in these circumstances, Oil States cannot, or will not, make the required payment.

 

The Spin-Off may have exposed us to potential liabilities arising out of state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws and legal dividend requirements.

 

The Spin-off is subject to review under various state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws. Under these laws, if a court in a lawsuit by an unpaid creditor or an entity vested with the power of such creditor (including without limitation a trustee or debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy by us or Oil States or any of our respective subsidiaries) were to determine that Oil States or any of its subsidiaries did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value for distributing shares of our common stock or taking other action as part of the Spin-Off, or that we or any of our subsidiaries did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value for incurring indebtedness, including the debt incurred by us in connection with the Spin-off, transferring assets or taking other action as part of the Spin-off and, at the time of such action, we, Oil States or any of our respective subsidiaries (i) was insolvent or would be rendered insolvent, (ii) had reasonably small capital with which to carry on its business and all business in which it intended to engage or (iii) intended to incur, or believed it would incur, debts beyond its ability to repay such debts as they would mature, then such court could void the Spin-off as a constructive fraudulent transfer. If such court made this determination, the court could impose a number of different remedies, including without limitation, voiding our liens and claims against Oil States, or providing Oil States with a claim for money damages against us in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by Oil States and the fair market value of our company at the time of the Spin-Off.

 

The measure of insolvency for purposes of the fraudulent conveyance laws will vary depending on which jurisdiction’s law is applied. Generally, however, an entity would be considered insolvent if the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than (i) the amount of its liabilities (including contingent liabilities) or (ii) the amount that will be required to pay its probable liabilities on its existing debts as they become absolute and mature. No assurance can be given as to what standard a court would apply to determine insolvency or that a court would determine that we, Oil States or any of our respective subsidiaries were solvent at the time of or after giving effect to the Spin-Off, including the distribution of shares of our common stock.

 

Under the separation and distribution agreement, Oil States is and we are responsible for the debts, liabilities and other obligations related to the business or businesses which Oil States and we, respectively, own and operate following the Spin-Off. Although we do not expect to be liable for any such obligations not expressly assumed by us pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement, it is possible that a court would disregard the allocation agreed to between the parties, and require that we assume responsibility for obligations allocated to Oil States, particularly if Oil States were to refuse or were unable to pay or perform the subject allocated obligations. See Note 13 – “Commitments and Contingencies” and Note 17 – “Related Party Transactions” to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

 

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

 

If we cannot meet the NYSE continued listing requirements, the NYSE may delist our common shares.

 

Our common shares are currently listed on the NYSE, and the continued listing of our common shares is subject to our compliance with a number of listing standards. To maintain compliance with these continued listing standards, we are required to maintain an average closing price of $1.00 or more over a consecutive 30 trading-day period. On February 24, 2016, we received a notice from the NYSE that the average closing price of our common shares over a 30 consecutive trading day period was below $1.00 per share, and, as a result, the price per share of the common shares was below the minimum average closing price required to maintain listing on the NYSE.

 

We generally have six months from the receipt of the notice to regain compliance with the NYSE continued listing standards. Otherwise, the NYSE will initiate procedures to suspend and delist the common shares. During the cure period, our common shares would continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE, subject to compliance with the other listing standards. The delisting notice does not result in a default under out debt agreements.

 

A delisting of our common shares could negatively impact us by, among other things:

 

●

reducing the liquidity and market price of our common shares;

 

●

reducing the number of investors, including institutional investors, willing to hold or acquire our common shares, which could negatively impact our ability to raise equity;

 

●

decreasing the amount of news and analyst coverage of us;

 

●

limiting our ability to issue additional securities, obtain additional financing or pursue strategic restructuring, refinancing or other transactions; and

 

●

impacting our reputation and, as a consequence, our ability to attract new business.

 

The market price and trading volume of our common shares may be volatile.

 

The market price of our common shares may be influenced by many factors, some of which are beyond our control, including those described above and the following:

 

●

changes in financial estimates by analysts and our inability to meet those financial estimates;

 

●

strategic actions by us or our competitors;

 

●

announcements by us or our competitors of significant contracts, acquisitions, joint marketing relationships, joint ventures or capital commitments;

 

●

variations in our quarterly operating results and those of our competitors;

 

●

general economic and stock market conditions;

 

●

risks related to our business and our industry, including those discussed above;

 

●

changes in conditions or trends in our industry, markets or customers;

 

●

terrorist acts;

 

●

future sales of our common shares or other securities by us, members of our management team or our existing shareholders; and

 

●

investor perceptions of the investment opportunity associated with our common shares relative to other investment alternatives.

 

These broad market and industry factors may materially reduce the market price of our common shares, regardless of our operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our common shares is low.

 

 

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, if they adversely change their recommendations regarding our common shares or if our operating results do not meet their expectations, our share price could decline.

 

The trading market for our common shares is influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.

 

We cannot assure you that we will pay dividends in the future, and our indebtedness could limit our ability to pay dividends on our common shares.

 

We paid quarterly dividends in the amount of $0.13 per share during the third and fourth quarters of 2014. In late December 2014, we suspended our quarterly dividend in order to maintain our financial flexibility and best position our company for long-term success. The declaration and amount of all dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon many factors, including our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, prospects, industry conditions, capital requirements of our business, covenants associated with certain debt obligations, legal requirements, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. In addition, our ability to pay dividends on our common shares is limited by covenants in our credit facility. Future agreements may also limit our ability to pay dividends. If we elect to pay dividends in the future, the amount per share of our dividend payments may be changed, or dividends may again be suspended, without advance notice. The likelihood that dividends will be reduced or suspended is increased during periods of market weakness. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7. There can be no assurance that we will pay a dividend in the future.

 

Provisions contained in our articles and applicable Canadian law could discourage a takeover attempt, which may reduce or eliminate the likelihood of a change of control transaction and, therefore, the ability of our shareholders to sell their shares for a premium.

 

Provisions contained in our articles provide for a classified board of directors, limitations on the removal of directors, limitations on shareholder proposals at meetings of shareholders and limitations on shareholder action by written consent, which could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us. Our articles also authorize our board of directors to issue series of preferred shares without shareholder approval. If our board of directors elects to issue preferred shares, it could increase the difficulty for a third party to acquire us, which may reduce or eliminate our shareholders’ ability to sell their common shares at a premium. In addition, in Canada, we may become subject to Multilateral Instrument 62-104 Take-Over Bids and Issuer Bids of the Canadian Securities Administrators or Part XX of the Securities Act (Ontario) and Ontario Securities Commission Rule 62-504 Take-Over Bids and Issuer Bids (collectively, the Take-Over Bid Rules), which provide a heightened threshold for shareholder acceptance of third-party acquisition offers and could discourage takeover attempts that could result in a premium over the market price for our common shares. Further, there are proposed changes pending to the Take-Over Bid Rules which could provide further discouragement to takeover attempts.

 

Our business could be negatively affected as a result of the actions of activist shareholders.

 

Publicly traded companies have increasingly become subject to campaigns by investors seeking to increase shareholder value by advocating corporate actions such as financial restructuring, increased borrowing, special dividends, share repurchases or even sales of assets or the entire company. It is possible activist shareholders may attempt to effect such changes or acquire control over us. Responding to proxy contests and other actions by such activist shareholders or others in the future would be costly and time-consuming, disrupt our operations and divert the attention of our board of directors and senior management from the pursuit of business strategies, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, perceived uncertainties as to our future direction as a result of shareholder activism or changes to the composition of the board of directors may lead to the perception of a change in the direction of the business, instability or lack of continuity which may be exploited by our competitors, cause concern to our current or potential customers, and make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel. If customers choose to delay, defer or reduce transactions with us or transact with our competitors instead of us because of any such issues, then our revenue, earnings and operating cash flows could be adversely affected.

 

 

ITEM 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

 

None.

 

ITEM 2.

Properties

 

The following table presents information about our principal properties and facilities. Except as indicated below, we own all of the properties or facilities listed below. Each of the properties is encumbered by our secured credit facilities. See in Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 10 – Debt to the notes to consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 for additional information concerning our credit facilities. For a discussion about how each of our business segments utilizes its respective properties, please see Item 1, “Business”.

 

Location		Approximate Square Footage/Acreage			Description
Canada:
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		240 acres			Wapasu Creek and Henday Lodges
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		140 acres			Pebble Beach open camp
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		135 acres			Conklin Lodge
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		128 acres			Beaver River and Athabasca Lodges
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		80 acres			McClelland Lake Lodge
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		43 acres			Mariana Lake Lodge
Fort McMurray, Alberta		45 acres			Christina Lake Lodge
Kitimat, British Columbia		60 acres			Sitka Lodge
Acheson, Alberta		40 acres			Office and warehouse
Edmonton, Alberta		33 acres			Manufacturing facility
Grimshaw, Alberta (lease)		20 acres			Equipment yard
Fort McMurray, Alberta (leased land)		18 acres			Anzac Lodge
Edmonton, Alberta (lease)		86,376			Office and warehouse
Edmonton, Alberta (lease)		28,253			Office
Australia:
Coppabella, Queensland, Australia		198 acres			Coppabella Village
Calliope, Queensland, Australia		124 acres			Calliope Village
Narrabri, New South Wales, Australia		82 acres			Narrabri Village
Boggabri, New South Wales, Australia		52 acres			Boggabri Village
Dysart, Queensland, Australia		50 acres			Dysart Village
Middlemount, Queensland, Australia		37 acres			Middlemount Village
Karratha, Western Australia, Australia (own and lease)		34 acres			Karratha Village
Kambalda, Western Australia, Australia		27 acres			Kambalda Village
Nebo, Queensland, Australia		26 acres			Nebo Village
Moranbah, Queensland, Australia		17 acres			Moranbah Village
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (lease)		17,276			Office
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (lease)		7,115			Office

  

 

United States:
Houston, Texas (lease)		8,900			Principal executive offices
Killdeer, North Dakota		42 acres			Open camp
Pecos, Texas		35 acres			Open camp
Dickinson, North Dakota (lease)		26 acres			Mobile asset facility and yard
Vernal, Utah (lease)		21 acres			Mobile asset facility and yard
Casper, Wyoming (lease)		14 acres			Accommodations facility and yard
Belle Chasse, Louisiana		10 acres			Manufacturing facility and yard
Three Rivers, Texas (lease)		9 acres			Open camp (sold in January 2016)
Big Piney, Wyoming (lease)		7 acres			Mobile asset facility and yard
Stanley, North Dakota (lease)		7 acres			Open camp
Englewood, Colorado (lease)		10,816			Office

  

We own various undeveloped properties in British Columbia. We also have various offices supporting our business segments which are both owned and leased. We believe that our leases are at competitive or market rates and do not anticipate any difficulty in leasing additional suitable space upon expiration of our current lease terms.

 

Leased land for our lodge properties in Canada refers to land leased from the Alberta government. We also lease land for our Karratha Village from the provincial government in Australia. Generally, our leases have an initial term of ten years and will expire between 2016 and 2026.

 

 

ITEM 3.

Legal Proceedings

 

We are a party to various pending or threatened claims, lawsuits and administrative proceedings seeking damages or other remedies concerning our commercial operations, products, employees and other matters, including occasional claims by individuals alleging exposure to hazardous materials as a result of our products or operations. Some of these claims relate to matters occurring prior to our acquisition of businesses, and some relate to businesses we have sold. In certain cases, we are entitled to indemnification from the sellers of businesses, and in other cases, we have indemnified the buyers of businesses from us. Although we can give no assurance about the outcome of pending legal and administrative proceedings and the effect such outcomes may have on us, we believe that any ultimate liability resulting from the outcome of such proceedings, to the extent not otherwise provided for or covered by indemnity or insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

 

ITEM 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

 

Not applicable.

 

 

PART II

 

ITEM 5.

Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

Market for Our Common Shares

 

Our common shares trade on the NYSE under the trading symbol “CVEO.” A “when-issued” trading market for our common shares on the NYSE began on May 19, 2014, and “regular-way” trading of our common shares began on June 2, 2014. Prior to May 19, 2014, there was no public market for our common shares. Set forth in the table below for the periods presented are the high and low sale prices for our common shares. 

 

		2015												2014
		High				Low				Dividend Declared per Share				High				Low				Dividend Declared per Share
First Quarter		$	4.20			$	2.25				—				—				—				—
Second Quarter (1)		$	4.96			$	2.55				—			$	28.40			$	22.46				—
Third Quarter		$	3.12			$	1.17				—			$	28.19			$	11.60			$	0.13
Fourth Quarter		$	2.39			$	1.29				—			$	13.33			$	3.88			$	0.13

 

(1)	The high and low sale price for the second quarter of 2014 begins on June 2, 2014.

 

Holders of Record

 

As of February 22, 2016, there were 17 holders of record of Civeo common shares.

 

Dividend Information

 

We paid quarterly dividends in the amount of $0.13 per share during the third and fourth quarters of 2014. In late December 2014, we suspended our quarterly dividend in order to maintain our financial flexibility and best position our company for long-term success. Our management team and board of directors regularly evaluate our business, operations, cost structure, capital structure, capital return and capital allocation policies. The declaration and amount of all dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon many factors, including our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, prospects, industry conditions, capital requirements of our business, covenants associated with certain debt obligations, legal requirements, regulatory constraints, industry practice and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. We can give no assurances that we will pay a dividend in the future.

 

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

 

None.

 

Repurchases of Equity Securities by Registrant or its Affiliates in the Fourth Quarter

 

None.

 

ITEM 6.

Selected Financial Data

 

The following tables present the selected historical consolidated financial information of Civeo and combined financial information of the accommodations business. The term “accommodations business” refers to Oil States’ historical accommodations segment reflected in its historical combined financial statements discussed herein and included in Item 8 of this annual report. The balance sheet data as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and the statement of operations data for each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 are derived from our audited financial statements included in Item 8 of this annual report. The balance sheet data as of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and statement of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 are derived from our audited combined financial statements not included in this annual report.

 

All financial information presented after our Spin-off from Oil States represents the consolidated results of operation and financial position of Civeo. Accordingly,

  

●

Our consolidated statement of income data for the year ended December 31, 2015 consists entirely of the consolidated results of Civeo. Our consolidated statement of income data for the year ended December 31, 2014 consists of (i) the combined results of the Oil States accommodations business for the five months ended May 30, 2014 and (ii) the consolidated results of Civeo for the seven months ended December 31, 2014. Our consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 consist entirely of the combined results of the Oil States accommodations business.

 

●

Our consolidated balance sheet data at December 31, 2015 and 2014 consists entirely of the consolidated balances of Civeo, while at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, it consists entirely of the combined balances of the Oil States accommodations business.

   

 

The historical financial information presented below should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes in Item 8 and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of this annual report. The financial information may not be indicative of our future performance and does not necessarily reflect what the financial position and results of operations would have been had we operated as a separate, stand-alone entity during the periods presented, including changes that have occurred in our operations as a result of our Spin-off from Oil States.

 

		For the year ended December 31,
		2015				2014				2013				2012				2011
		(In thousands, except per share data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Revenues		$	517,963			$	942,891			$	1,041,104			$	1,108,875			$	864,701
Operating income (loss)			(145,003	)			(142,891	)			259,456				352,929				242,159
Net income (loss) attributable to Civeo or the Accommodations Business of Oil States International, Inc., as applicable			(131,759	)			(189,043	)			181,876				244,721				168,505
Diluted net income (loss) per share attributable to Civeo or the Accommodations Business of Oil States International, Inc., as applicable (1)			(1.24	)			(1.77	)			1.70				2.29				1.58

 

		As of December 31,
		2015				2014				2013				2012				2011
		(In thousands, except per share data)
Balance Sheet Data:
Total assets		$	1,071,212			$	1,829,161			$	2,123,237			$	2,132,925			$	1,799,894
Long-term debt to affiliates			—				—				335,171				358,316				350,530
Long-term debt to third-parties			383,862				755,625				—				123,497				126,972
Total Civeo shareholders’ equity or Oil States net investment, as applicable			563,245				858,001				1,591,034				1,410,397				1,122,189
Cash dividends per share			—				0.26				—				—				—

 

---

(1)

On May 30, 2014, 106,538,044 shares of our common stock were distributed to Oil States stockholders in connection with the Spin-Off. For comparative purposes, and to provide a more meaningful calculation of weighted-average shares outstanding in our diluted net income (loss) per share calculation, we have assumed these shares were outstanding as of the beginning of each period prior to the separation presented in the calculation of weighted-average shares. In addition, we have assumed the dilutive securities outstanding at May 30, 2014 were also outstanding for each of the periods presented prior to the Spin-Off.

 

 

ITEM 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 

“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act that are based on management’s current expectations, estimates and projections about our business operations. Please read “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward Looking Statements.” Our actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated and expressed in such forward-looking statements as a result of numerous factors, including the known material factors set forth in Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” You should read the following discussion and analysis together with our consolidated financial statements and the notes to those statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

Spin-Off

 

On May 5, 2014, the board of directors of Oil States International, Inc. (Oil States) approved the separation of its Accommodations Segment (Accommodations) into a standalone, publicly traded Delaware corporation, which we refer to herein as Civeo US. In accordance with the Separation and Distribution Agreement, the two companies were separated by Oil States distributing to its stockholders all 106,538,044 shares of common stock of Civeo US it held after the market closed on May 30, 2014 (the Spin-Off). Each Oil States stockholder received two shares of Civeo US common stock for every one share of Oil States stock held at the close of business on the record date of May 21, 2014. In conjunction with the Spin-Off, Oil States received a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that, based on certain facts, assumptions, representations and undertakings set forth in the ruling, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Oil States’ distribution of Civeo US common stock was not taxable to Oil States or U.S. holders of Oil States common stock. Following the Spin-Off, Oil States retained no ownership interest in Civeo US, and each company now has separate public ownership, boards of directors and management. On June 2, 2014, Civeo US stock began trading the “regular-way” on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the “CVEO” stock symbol. Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement with Oil States, on May 28, 2014, we made a special cash distribution to Oil States of $750 million.

 

Redomiciling to Canada

 

On July 17, 2015, we completed our change in place of incorporation from Delaware to British Columbia, Canada (the Redomicile Transaction). In the Redomicile Transaction, Civeo Corporation, a British Columbia, Canada limited company formerly named Civeo Canadian Holdings ULC (Civeo Canada), became the publicly traded parent company of the Civeo group of companies, and Civeo US, our former publicly traded Delaware parent became a wholly owned subsidiary of Civeo Canada. Each issued share of Civeo US common stock, other than those shares of Civeo US common stock held by Civeo US in treasury, was effectively transferred to Civeo Canada and converted into one common share, no par value, of Civeo Canada. An aggregate of approximately 107.5 million Civeo Canada common shares were issued in the Redomicile Transaction. The Civeo Canada common shares are listed on the NYSE under the symbol “CVEO”, the same symbol under which the Civeo US common stock traded prior to the effective time.

 

The Redomicile Transaction qualified as a “self-directed redomiciling” of the Company as permitted under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. U.S. federal income tax laws permit a company to change its domicile to a foreign jurisdiction without corporate-level U.S. federal income taxes provided that such company has “substantial business activity” in the relevant jurisdiction. “Substantial business activity” is defined as foreign operations consisting of over 25% of the company’s total (i) revenues, (ii) assets, (iii) employees and (iv) employee compensation. With approximately 50% or more of our operations in Canada based on these metrics, we qualified for a self-directed redomiciling.

 

We incurred costs related to the Redomicile Transaction totaling $7.0 million and $2.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. In addition, we incurred costs related to the Amended Credit Facility totaling $5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2015, of which $4.8 million has been capitalized as debt issuance costs and the remaining $0.7 million is included in interest expense.

 

 

Description of the Business

 

We are one of the largest integrated providers of longer-term and temporary remote site accommodations, logistics and facility management services to the natural resource industry. Our scalable modular facilities provide long-term and temporary workforce accommodations where traditional accommodations and related infrastructure is insufficient, inaccessible or not cost effective. Once facilities are deployed in the field, we also provide catering and food services, housekeeping, laundry, facility management, water and wastewater treatment, power generation, communications and redeployment logistics. Our accommodations support workforces in the Canadian oil sands and in a variety of oil and natural gas drilling, mining and related natural resource applications as well as disaster relief efforts, primarily in Canada, Australia and the United States. We operate in three principal reportable business segments – Canadian, Australian and U.S.

 

Basis of Presentation

 

Unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise indicates, all references in these consolidated financial statements to “Civeo,” “the Company,” “us,” “our” or “we” for the time period prior to the Spin-Off mean the Accommodations business of Oil States. For time periods after the Spin-Off, but prior to July 17, 2015, these terms refer to Civeo US and its consolidated subsidiaries. For time periods after July 17, 2015, these terms refer to Civeo Canada and its consolidated subsidiaries.

 

Prior to the Spin-Off, our financial position, results of operations and cash flows consisted of the Oil States’ Accommodations business and an allocable portion of its corporate costs, which represented a combined reporting entity. The combined financial statements for periods prior to the Spin-Off have been prepared on a stand-alone basis and are derived from the consolidated financial statements and accounting records of Oil States. The combined financial statements reflect our historical financial position, results of operations and cash flows as we were historically managed, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (U.S. GAAP). The combined financial statements include certain assets and liabilities that have historically been held at the Oil States corporate level, but are specifically identifiable or otherwise attributable to us.

 

All financial information presented after the Spin-Off represents the consolidated results of operations, financial position and cash flows of Civeo. Accordingly:

  

●

Our consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and changes in shareholders’ equity / net investment for the year ended December 31, 2015 consist entirely of the consolidated results of Civeo.

 

●

Our consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and changes in shareholders’ equity / net investment for the year ended December 31, 2014 consist of (i) the combined results of the Oil States’ Accommodations business for the five months ended May 30, 2014 and (ii) the consolidated results of Civeo for the seven months ended December 31, 2014.

 

●

Our consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and changes in shareholders’ equity / net investment for the year ended December 31, 2013 consist entirely of the combined results of the Oil States’ Accommodations business.

 

●

Our consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 consist entirely of the consolidated balances of Civeo.

  

The assets and liabilities in our consolidated financial statements have been reflected on a historical basis, as immediately prior to the Spin-Off all of the assets and liabilities presented were wholly owned by Oil States and were transferred within the Oil States consolidated group. All intercompany transactions and accounts have been eliminated. All affiliate transactions between Civeo and Oil States have been included in these consolidated financial statements.

  

 

The consolidated financial statements for periods prior to the Spin-Off included expense allocations for: (1) certain corporate functions historically provided by Oil States, including, but not limited to finance, legal, risk management, tax, treasury, information technology, human resources, and certain other shared services, (2) certain employee benefits and incentives and (3) equity-based compensation. These expenses were allocated to us on the basis of direct usage when identifiable, with the remainder allocated based on estimated time spent by Oil States personnel, a pro-rata basis of headcount or other relevant measures of Oil States and its subsidiaries. We consider the basis on which the expenses were allocated to be a reasonable reflection of the utilization of services provided to or the benefit received by us during the periods presented. The allocations may not, however, reflect the expense we would have incurred as an independent, publicly traded company for the periods presented. Actual costs that may have been incurred if we had been a stand-alone company would depend on a number of factors, including the chosen organizational structure, which functions were outsourced or performed by employees and strategic decisions made in areas such as information technology and infrastructure. Following the Spin-Off, we perform these functions using our own resources or purchase services. Until February 28, 2015, however, some of these functions were provided by Oil States under a transition services agreement. Please see Note 17 – Related Party Transactions to the notes to consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this annual report.

 

Macroeconomic Environment

 

We provide workforce accommodations to the natural resource industry in Canada, Australia and the United States. Demand for our services can be attributed to two phases of our customers’ projects: (1) the development or construction phase and (2) the operations or production phase. Initial demand for our services is driven by our customers’ capital spending programs related to the construction and development of oil sands and coal mines and associated infrastructure as well as the exploration for oil and natural gas. Long-term demand for our services is driven by continued development and expansion of natural resource production and operation of oil sands and mining facilities. Industry capital spending programs are generally based on the outlook for commodity prices, economic growth and estimates of resource production. As a result, demand for our products and services is largely sensitive to expected commodity prices, principally related to crude oil, metallurgical (met) coal and natural gas.

 

In Canada, Western Canadian Select (WCS) crude is the benchmark price for our oil sands accommodations customers. Pricing for WCS is driven by several factors, including the underlying price for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude and the availability of transportation infrastructure. Historically, WCS has traded at a discount to WTI, creating a “WCS Differential,” due to transportation costs and limited capacity to move Canadian heavy oil production to refineries, primarily in the U.S. Gulf Coast. Depending on the extent of pipeline capacity availability, the WCS Differential has varied.

 

In the fourth quarter of 2015 and continuing into 2016, global oil prices dropped to their lowest level in over ten years due to concerns over global oil demand, the economic growth rate in China, the overall economic health of Europe and price cutting by major oil producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia. Increasing global supply, including increased U.S. shale oil production, has also negatively impacted pricing. With falling Brent Crude and WTI oil prices, WCS has also fallen. WCS prices in the fourth quarter of 2015 averaged $27.82 per barrel compared to $57.75 in the fourth quarter of 2014. The WCS Differential narrowed from $16.00 per barrel at the end of the fourth quarter of 2014 to $13.25 per barrel by the end of the fourth quarter of 2015. As of February 19, 2016, the WTI price was $29.64 and the WCS price was $19.20 resulting in a WCS Differential of $10.44.

 

There remains a significant risk that prices in the oil sands could continue to deteriorate or remain at current depressed levels for an extended period of time, and the discount between WCS crude prices and WTI crude prices could widen. The continuation of these depressed price levels has negatively impacted exploration, development and production activity by Canadian operators and, therefore, demand for our services in 2016. Our Canadian oil sands customers could continue to delay additional investments in their oil sands assets as well.

 

 

In Australia, we have 9,296 total rooms in our ten villages, of which 7,392 rooms in five villages serve the Bowen Basin. Our Australian villages in the Bowen Basin primarily serve met coal mines in that region. Met coal pricing and growth in production in the Bowen Basin region is influenced by levels of global steel production. Global steel production has decreased 2.8% during 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. Furthermore, Chinese steel production decreased 2.3% during 2015, and accordingly, Chinese demand for imported steel inputs, such as met coal and iron ore, has continued to decrease during 2015 compared to prior periods. Because of this, coupled with the fact that Australian met coal output has decreased 1% during 2015 compared to 2014, met coal prices have decreased materially from over $160 per metric tonne at the beginning of 2013 to approximately $89.00 per metric ton for the fourth quarter of 2015. As of February 19, 2016, contract met coal prices were approximately $81.00 per metric ton. We expect the lower first quarter 2016 contract price to continue to negatively impact occupancy at our Bowen Basin villages into 2016. Depressed met coal prices have led to the implementation of cost control measures by our customers, some coal mine closures and delays in the start-up of new coal mining projects in Australia. A continued depressed met coal price will impact our customers’ future capital spending programs. Long-term demand for steel will be driven by increased steel consumption per capita in developing economies, such as China and India, whose current consumption per capita is a fraction of developed countries.

 

Natural gas and WTI crude oil prices, discussed above, have an impact on the demand for our U.S. accommodations. Prices for natural gas in the U.S. averaged $2.63 per mcf in 2015, a 38% decrease over the average price in 2014. U.S. natural gas production has continued to outpace demand recently, which has caused prices to continue to be weak relative to historical prices. These weaker prices are expected to continue. At these levels, it is uneconomic to increase development in several domestic, gas-focused basins. If natural gas production growth continues to surpass demand in the U.S. and/or the supply of natural gas were to increase, whether the supply comes from conventional or unconventional production or associated natural gas production from oil wells, prices for natural gas could be constrained for an extended period and result in fewer rigs drilling for natural gas in the near-term.

 

Recent WTI crude, WCS crude, met coal and natural gas pricing trends are as follows:

 

		Average Price (1)
														Henry
		WTI				WCS				Hard				Hub
										Coking Coal				Natural
Quarter		Crude				Crude				(Met Coal)				Gas
ended		(per bbl)				(per bbl)				(per tonne)				(per mcf)
First Quarter through 2/19/16		$	30.81			$	17.14			$	81.00			$	2.13
12/31/2015			42.02				27.82				89.00				2.23
9/30/2015			46.48				31.54				93.00				2.73
6/30/2015			57.64				48.09				109.50				2.73
3/31/2015			48.49				35.03				117.00				2.81
12/31/2014			73.21				57.75				119.00				3.83
9/30/2014			97.60				78.69				120.00				3.95
6/30/2014			103.06				83.78				120.00				4.58
3/31/2014			98.68				77.76				143.00				5.18
12/31/2013			97.50				66.34				152.00				3.85
9/30/2013			105.83				83.10				145.00				3.55
6/30/2013			94.05				77.48				172.00				4.02
3/31/2013			94.33				66.86				165.00				3.49
12/31/2012			88.01				61.34				170.00				3.40

__________

(1)	Source: WTI crude and natural gas prices from U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and WCS crude prices and Seaborne hard coking coal contract price from Bloomberg.

 

Overview

 

As noted above, demand for our services is primarily tied to the outlook for crude oil and met coal prices. Other factors that can affect our business and financial results include the general global economic environment and regulatory changes in the U.S., Canada, Australia and other markets.

 

Our business is predominantly located in northern Alberta, Canada and Queensland, Australia, and we derive most of our business from resource companies who are developing and producing oil sands and met coal resources and, to a lesser extent, other hydrocarbon and mineral resources. More than three-fourths of our revenue is generated by our large-scale lodge and village facilities. Where traditional accommodations and infrastructure are insufficient, inaccessible or not cost effective, our lodge and village facilities provide comprehensive accommodations services similar to those found in an urban hotel. We typically contract our facilities to our customers on a fee per day basis covering lodging and meals that is based on the duration of their needs which can range from several weeks to several years.

  

 

Generally, our customers are making multi-billion dollar investments to develop their prospects, which have estimated reserve lives of ten years to in excess of thirty years. Consequently, these investments are dependent on those customers’ longer-term view of commodity demand and prices. Announcements of certain new and expanded oil sands projects can create the opportunity to extend existing accommodations contracts and incremental contracts for us in Canada. There have been few new or expanded projects announced in recent months.

 

With the current commodity price environment and expected demand, concerns about take-away capacity out of the oil sands region and continued high costs including labor costs, the current outlook for oil sands activity has continued to deteriorate throughout 2015. Further, project delays and cancellations have continued throughout 2015. Although we are currently the primary third-party accommodations provider for the two major construction projects in the oil sands region, the Fort Hills project and the Kearl Project, outlook for additional major oil sands construction projects is limited. Oil sands operators are looking to reduce their costs and capital spending, limiting the demand for accommodations like we provide. As a result, we experienced materially lower revenues and earnings from our Canadian operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 and expect this trend to continue into 2016.

 

We began expansion of our room count in Kitimat, British Columbia during the second half of 2015 to support potential LNG projects on the west coast of British Columbia. We were recently awarded a contract with LNG Canada for the provision of open lodge rooms and associated services. To support this new contract, we have developed a new accommodations facility, named Sitka Lodge, which includes private washrooms, recreational facilities and other amenities. This new lodge initially has 436 rooms with the potential to expand to serve future accommodations demand in the region.

 

We expanded our Australian room capacity in 2012 and 2013 to meet increasing demand, notably in the Bowen Basin in Queensland and in the Gunnedah Basin in New South Wales to support coal production, and in Western Australia to support LNG and other energy-related projects. In early 2013, a confluence of low met coal pricing, additional carbon and mining taxes on our Australian accommodations customers and several years of cost inflation caused several of our customers to curtail or cease production from higher cost mines and delay or materially reduce their growth plans. This has negatively affected our ability to expand our room count and has led to a decrease in occupancy levels. Despite the repeal of carbon and mining taxes, continued concerns about China’s economy, which significantly influences the global demand for steel, and therefore, met coal, the outlook for met coal demand continues to be negative. As a result, our Australian business has continued to experience lower occupancy levels throughout 2015, and this trend should continue into 2016.

 

If oil and coal prices remain at current levels, or continue to decline, the resulting impact has and may continue to negatively affect the value of our long-lived assets.  Impairment expense of $122.9 million was recorded in 2015, of which $79.7 million was associated with long-lived assets and the remaining $43.2 million was associated with goodwill. Impairment expense of $290.5 million was recorded in 2014, of which $87.8 million was associated with long-lived assets and the remaining $202.7 million was associated with goodwill.

 

Exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar and between the U.S. dollar and the Australian dollar influence our U.S. dollar reported financial results. Our business has historically derived the vast majority of its revenues and operating income in Canada and Australia. These revenues and profits are translated into U.S. dollars for U.S. GAAP financial reporting purposes. The Canadian dollar was valued at an average exchange rate of U.S. $0.78 for 2015 compared to U.S. $0.91 for 2014, a decrease of approximately 14%. The Canadian dollar was valued at an exchange rate of $0.72 on December 31, 2015 and $0.86 on December 31, 2014. The Australian dollar was valued at an average exchange rate of U.S. $0.75 for 2015 compared to U.S. $0.90 for 2014, a decrease of approximately 17%. The Australian dollar was valued at an exchange rate of $0.73 on December 31, 2015 and $0.82 on December 31, 2014. This weakening of the Canadian and Australian dollars has and may continue to have a proportionately negative impact on the translation of earnings generated from our Canadian and Australian subsidiaries and, therefore, our financial results.

 

We continue to monitor the global economy, the demand for crude oil, met coal and natural gas and the resultant impact on the capital spending plans of our customers in order to plan our business. We currently expect that our 2016 capital expenditures will total approximately $30 million, compared to 2015 capital expenditures of $62 million. Please see Liquidity and Capital Resources below for further discussion of 2016 and 2015 capital expenditures.

 

 

Results of Operations

 

Unless otherwise indicated, discussion of results for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 is based on a comparison with the corresponding period of 2014 and 2013, respectively.

 

Results of Operations – Year Ended December 31, 2015 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2014

 

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,

2015

2014

Change

($ in thousands)

Revenues

Canada