FORM 6-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Report of Foreign Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For the month of March, 2014
Commission File Number: 001-12102
YPF Sociedad Anónima
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Macacha Güemes 515
C1106BKK Buenos Aires, Argentina
(Address of principal executive office)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F x Form 40-F ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Yes ¨ No x
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Yes ¨ No x
YPF Sociedád Anonima
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| ITEM |
| 1 | Translation of Webcast Presentation dated March 18, 2014. |
2
|
|
Vaca Muerta Update
March 17th, 2014.
|
|
Safe harbor statement under the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
This document contains statements that YPF believes constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
These forward-looking statements may include statements regarding the intent, belief, plans, current expectations or objectives of YPF and its management, including statements with respect to YPF’s future financial condition, financial, operating, reserve replacement and other ratios, results of operations, business strategy, geographic concentration, business concentration, production and marketed volumes and reserves, as well as YPF’s plans, expectations or objectives with respect to future capital expenditures, investments, expansion and other projects, exploration activities, ownership interests, divestments, cost savings and dividend payout policies. These forward-looking statements may also include assumptions regarding future economic and other conditions, such as future crude oil and other prices, refining and marketing margins and exchange rates. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, prices, margins, exchange rates or other events and are subject to material risks, uncertainties, changes and other factors which may be beyond YPF’s control or may be difficult to predict.
YPF’s actual future financial condition, financial, operating, reserve replacement and other ratios, results of operations, business strategy, geographic concentration, business concentration, production and marketed volumes, reserves, capital expenditures, investments, expansion and other projects, exploration activities, ownership interests, divestments, cost savings and dividend payout policies, as well as actual future economic and other conditions, such as future crude oil and other prices, refining margins and exchange rates, could differ materially from those expressed or implied in any such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause such differences include, but are not limited to, oil, gas and other price fluctuations, supply and demand levels, currency fluctuations, exploration, drilling and production results, changes in reserves estimates, success in partnering with third parties, loss of market share, industry competition, environmental risks, physical risks, the risks of doing business in developing countries, legislative, tax, legal and regulatory developments, economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions, political risks, wars and acts of terrorism, natural disasters, project delays or advancements and lack of approvals, as well as those factors described in the filings made by YPF and its affiliates with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in particular, those described in “Item 3. Key Information—Risk Factors” and “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” in YPF’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. In light of the foregoing, the forward-looking statements included in this document may not occur.
Except as required by law, YPF does not undertake to publicly update or revise these forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes make it clear that the projected performance, conditions or events expressed or implied therein will not be realized.
These materials do not constitute an offer for sale of YPF S.A. bonds, shares or ADRs in the United States or otherwise.
Disclaimer
| 2 |
|
|
|
Contents
| 1 |
|
Unconventional Development: General Overview |
| 2 |
|
Increased Productivity: Sweet Spot Identification |
| 3 |
|
Increased Productivity: Horizontal Well |
| 4 |
|
Well Construction Cost Reduction |
| 5 |
|
Principal Challenges for a large development |
| 3 |
|
|
|
Shale concept
|
|
Opportunities in Shale / Tight Formations
Tested & Producing
Vaca Muerta (shale oil / gas) NOROESTE
Area 30,000 km2
CHACO PARANAENSE
Lajas (tight gas)
Mulichinco (tight oil / gas) CUYANA
NEUQUINA D-129 (shale oil / tight oil)
GOLFO SAN JORGE
AUSTRAL
Notes:
K: thousand; M: million; B: billion (109)
Other Opportunities Noroeste—Cretaceous
Yacoraite
(shale / tight oil & gas)
Noroeste—Tarija
Los Monos (shale gas)
Neuquina
Los Molles (shale / tight gas) Agrio (shale oil)
Golfo San Jorge
Neocomiano (shale oil / gas)
Chaco Paranaense
Devonian – Permian (shale oil)
Cuyana
Cacheuta (shale oil)
Potrerillos (tight oil)
Austral
Inoceramus 5
|
|
Argentina has the resources to increase production
NOROESTE
CHACO PARANAENSE
CUYANA
NEUQUINA
GOLFO SAN JORGE
AUSTRAL
Source: Secretaria de Energia / U.S. Energy Information Administration (DOE) / Advanced Resources International (ARI), 2013
Oil Potential
(Bbls)
4.4
27
Conventional
(Oil 3P + Resources)
Unconventional
(resources)
4th in UC oil recoverable resources
Gas Potential
(Tcf)
29
802
Conventional
(Gas 3P + Resources)
Unconventional
(resources
2nd in UC gas recoverable resources 6
|
|
Similiaraty to the US case
Gas Production (Tcf)
Source: EIA 2012 Energy Outlook
Gas Imports (Tcf)
| 7 |
|
|
|
Vaca Muerta vs. other unconventional resource plays
Desired
Vaca Muerta
Barnett
Haynesville
Marcellus
Eagle Ford
Wolfcamp
TOC (%)
> 2
3-10
| 4—5 |
|
0.5—4
| 2 |
|
-
12
| 3—5 |
|
| 3 |
|
Thickness (m)
> 30
30-450
60—90
60—90
10
-
60
30—100
200—300
Reservoir pressure (psi)
High
4,500-9,500
3,000 – 4,000
7,000 – 12,000
2,000 – 5,500
4,500 – 8,500
4,600
| 8 |
|
|
|
High Quality Oil & Gas
M3/mm3 Bbl/mcft
Plant C2 445.25 79.29
products—gas C3 366.07 65.19
C4 199.58 35.54 C5 64.92 11.56 C6 16.79 2.99 C7+ 11.63 2.07 C5+ 93.34 16.62
Characteristics
Pres.= 550 – 650 kg/cm3 at 2,800 m API: 35 – 50 Pb: 120 – 200 kg/cm3 GOR: 100 – 500 m3/m3 Bo @ Pb: 1.5 – 1.9 Viscosity @ Pb: 0.3 – 0.8 cP No H2S, Minor CO2
9
|
|
Continuing exploration focused in Vaca Muerta
Drilling or in Completion
2014 Drilling Campaign
Drilled as of 31/01/2014
Oil
Wet gas
Dry gas
Progress in extended basin-wide delineation
Hold the shale acreage
Increase the value of shale acreage
Delineation of new development clusters
10
|
|
The next development clusters
Loma Campana Unconventional Development (395 km2)
The Vaca Muerta Shale Exploratory delineation has enabled
YPF to define three additional core areas with short to medium term feasibility of development:
Bajada de Añelo—Bandurria—La Amarga Chica (850 km2) Narambuena—Bajo del Toro (250 km2) El Orejano—Pampa de las Yeguas I
(105 km2)
These three oil and gas core areas have been highlighted by the convergence of different aspects: Vertical Well performance Nearby facilities Hydrocarbon in place YPF opperated areas Vaca Muerta rock quality
11
|
|
Bajada de Añelo—Bandurria—La Amarga Chica Area
Summary
850 km2 defined by the YPF operated areas 5 oil producing vertical wells 1 well in completion Light oil production (33 to 49 API) Wet gas is expected towards the west (80 km2) 130 to 250 m thick (Vaca Muerta high TOC interval)
Oil In Place
Bajada de Añelo, YPF 85% (200 km2): 13.8 Billion Bbl Bandurria, YPF 54.5% (463 km2): 41.6 Billion Bbl La Amarga Chica, YPF 90% (187 km2): 14.7 Billion Bbl
LCav.x-4 (5 fracs)
Pi 334 kg/cm2 (Ene 13)
Peak 346 bbl/d oil (41 API)(10 days period) 9,788 m3/d gasX3 mm Qo 22.9m3/d; Cum 15,032 m3 (Febr 14)
LACh.x-3 (4 fracs)
Pi 254 kg/cm2 (Oct 11)
Peak 182 bbl/d oil (33 API) (10 days period) 2,300 m3/d gas X4 mm Qo 7.6m3/d; Cum 4,779 m3 (Febr14)
LCav.e-6 (5 fracs)
Pi 349 kg/cm2 (Abr 13)
Peak 126 bbl/d oil (45 API)(10 days period) 6,450 m3/d gas X3 mm Qo 6.9m3/d; Cum 4,107 m3 ( Febr 14)
LACh.x-4 (4 fracs)
Pi 307 kg/cm2 (Ene 13)
Peak 296 bbl/d oil (40 API)((10 days period) 5,300 m3/d gas X3 mm Qo 13.3m3/d; Cum 6,985 m3 (Febr14)
12
|
|
Narambuena—Bajo del Toro Area
Summary
250 km2 defined by the YPF operated areas 2 oil producing vertical wells 1 well to be drilled (slant geometry) Light oil production (35 to 37 API) 230 to 320 m thick (Vaca Muerta high TOC interval)
Oil In Place
Narambuena, YPF 100% (125 km2): 11.2 Billion Bbl Bajo del Toro, YPF 46.8% (125 km2): 14.9 Billion Bbl
N.x-8 (7 fracs) Pi 318 kg/cm2 (May 13)
Peak 308 bbl/d oil (35 API)(10 days period) 4,800 m3/d g X3 mm Qo 9.9 m3/d; 5,141 m3 (Febr 14)
BdT.x-3 (6 fracs)
Pi 360 kg/cm2 (May 12)
Peak 459 bbl/d oil (37 API) (10 days period)
11,500 m3/d g X4 mm
Qo 3.6 m3/d; 6,542 m3 (Febr 14)
13
|
|
El Orejano—Pampa de las Yeguas I Area
Summary
105 km2 defined by the YPF operated areas 1 gas producing vertical well (connected to gas line) 1 gas/condensate vertical well (flowback test)
El Orejano block in the initial phase of a Development pilot project (16 wells, 4 wells already drilled) Gas and Condensate production 160 to 290 m thick (Vaca Muerta high TOC interval)
Gas In Place
Pampa de las Yeguas, YPF 45% (60 km2): 11.1 TCF El Orejano(*), YPF 50% (45 km2): 5.6 TCF
PdY.x-1 (7 fracs, above fish) Pi 409 kg/cm2 (Febr 14) Peak 16,380 m3/d g (3 days period) 4.5 m3/d cond (51-57 API)X3 mm In flowback test (last 38 days)
EOr.x-2(3 fracs)
Pi 337 kg/cm2 (Mar 12) Peak 117,930 m3/d g X6 mm (4 days period) Qg 11.9 km3/d; 9.7 Mm3 gas (Jan 14)
(* ) Joint Venture with DOW
14
|
|
Unconventional: Increase in Activity
Investment growth
Investments (MM USD)
1,124
380
2012 2013
Important Activity Increase
Drilling Rigs
19 17
9
| 4 |
|
Apr 2012 Dec 2012 Dec 2013 2014 YTD
Wells in Production
142 161
59 42
Apr 2012 Dec 2012 Dec 2013 2014 YTD
15
|
|
Unconventional: Increase in Production
Oil (bbls/d)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
01-2013 02-2013 03-2013
04-2013 05-2013
06-2013 07-2013
08-2013 09-2013 10-2013
11-2013 12-2013 01-2014 02-2014
Gas (km3/d)
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
01-2013 02-2013 03-2013
04-2013 05-2013
06-2013 07-2013
08-2013 09-2013 10-2013
11-2013 12-2013 01-2014 02-2014
Wells in production 161 Current production 20,000 boe/day
16
|
|
Project Economical Feasibility
| 2 |
|
Main Drivers to Reach an economical development |
Increased Productivity
| • |
|
Improve subsurface understanding |
| • |
|
Identify the Sweet Spots |
| • |
|
Optimize completions |
| • |
|
Successful horizontal development |
Well Construction Cost Reduction
| • |
|
Casing Drilling Techniques |
| • |
|
Local Sand Sourcing |
| • |
|
Operational efficiency optimization |
| • |
|
Contracts renegotiation |
17
|
|
Contents
| 1 |
|
Unconventional Development: General Overview |
| 2 |
|
Increased Productivity: Sweet Spot Identification |
| 3 |
|
Increased Productivity: Horizontal Well |
| 4 |
|
Well Construction Cost Reduction |
| 5 |
|
Principal Challenges for a large development |
18
|
|
Hydraulically fractured vertical well productivity
Cumulative oil
55000
production, bbl
50000
45000
40000
35000
3,000 bbl
30000
25000
20000
2011 Avg
(15 wells)
2012 Avg
(10 wells)
15000
2013 Avg
(103 wells)
10000
5000
0
0
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
6 |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
9 |
10
11
12
Production month
19
|
|
Identifying the sweet spots: Workflow for identification of sweet spots
High
(RQ)
Room for
Sweet
quality
improvement
spot
Reservoir
Very poor well
Poor well
(abandon area)
(marginal area)
Low
Inefficient
Completion quality (CQ)
Efficient
Reservoir Quality
| • |
|
Porosity |
| • |
|
Water saturation |
| • |
|
Permeability |
| • |
|
TOC |
| • |
|
Mineral content |
| • |
|
Maturation |
| • |
|
Pore pressure |
Completion Quality
| • |
|
Containment |
| • |
|
Fracturability |
| • |
|
Low solids production |
| • |
|
Low rock-fluid sensitivity |
20
|
|
2013 Results: Sweet Spot Economic View
Low Reservoir quality (RQ)
High
Room for improvement
Sweet spot
Very poor well
(abandon area)
Poor well
(marginal area)
Inefficient
Completion quality (CQ)
Efficient
Size of balloons refers to vertical well construction average cost in millions US dollars.
Structurally Complex
LLL East
Sweet Spot NW
Loma Campana
21
|
|
Hydraulically fractured vertical well productivity at the sweet spot
Cumulative oil
55000
production, bbl
50000
45000
16,000 bbl
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
2011 Avg
(15 wells)
2012 Avg
(10 wells)
15000
2013 Avg
(103 wells)
10000
Avg West Sweet Spot (10 wells)
5000
Type well EUR 293 Kbbl
0
0
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
6 |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
9 |
10
11
12
Production month
22
|
|
Contents
| 1 |
|
Unconventional Development: General Overview |
| 2 |
|
Increased Productivity: Sweet Spot Identification |
| 3 |
|
Increased Productivity: Horizontal Well |
| 4 |
|
Well Construction Cost Reduction |
| 5 |
|
Principal Challenges for a large development |
23
|
|
Previous experiences with horizontal wells in Loma Campana
500
SOil.a-2h
LLL-514h
LLL-523h
400
LLL-534h
LLL-546h
bbl/d
300
Hztl P50
rate,
Hztl P90
Oil
200
100
0
-
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Months
24
|
|
New Approach for Horizontal development
Multidisciplinary team approach: YPF / SLB / Von Gonten
Microseismic monitoring to:
| • |
|
Observe frac growth |
| • |
|
Be prepared to take proactive actions |
Tackle ashbed/conductivity losses with increased pumped sand and frac conductivity
Perforation re-design: re-accommodate perforation clusters
Stimulation re-design: increase total proppant per stage
25
|
|
Microseismic monitoring from SOil-6: plan view
Stage 24
N
S
200
m
|
|
Horizontal well performance including SOil.-4h
600
500
bbl/d
SOil.a-2h
rate,
500
Oil
SOil-4h
400
LLL-514h
400
300
LLL-523h
200
LLL-534h
300
LLL-546h
100
bbl/d
Hztl P50
0
0
| 5 |
|
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Hztl P90
rate,
200
Days
Oil
100
0
-
| 1 |
|
2 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
5 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
9 |
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Months
|
|
Deliverability Comparison
SOIL 4H – 2300
Eagleford Well A (1.1 MMbbl EUR) – 6100 Eagleford Well B (0.27 MMbbl EUR) – 3300 Eagleford Well C (0.45 MMbbl EUR) – 8500 Infinite-acting linear flow (SOIL 4H)
Normalization on Stimulated Length
When normalized against the effectively-fractured length, SOil-4H displays a superior deliverability compared to 3 different black oil Eagle Ford wells
In conclusion, had SOil-4H been drilled and completed at its full length, it might be boasting the high production rates of the best Eagle Ford black oil horizontal wells
Source: WD Von Gonten, comparison study prepared for YPF.
28
|
|
Contents
| 1 |
|
Unconventional Development: General Overview |
| 2 |
|
Increased Productivity: Sweet Spot Identification |
| 3 |
|
Increased Productivity: Horizontal Well |
| 4 |
|
Well Construction Cost Reduction |
| 5 |
|
Principal Challenges for a large development |
29
|
|
WELL COST Drilling & Completion 27% 53% 20% COMPLETION COSTS FRAC PROPPANT OTHERS 46% 35%19% DRILLING COMPLETION EQ/SITE 48 52% DRILLING COSTS MATERIALS/ SERVICE VARIABLE SERVICES 11.00 10.20 8.10 7.60 USD 0 USD 1 USD 2 USD 3 USD 4 USD 5 USD 6 USD 7 USD 8 USD 9 USD 10 USD 11 USD 12 2011 2012 2013 2014 YTD Millions USD EQ/SITE COMPLETION DRILLING 3.1 stg/well 4.5 stg/well 4.8 stg/well5 stg/well
|
|
Drilling: Time Improvements
50
45
43.2
40.3
40
35
31.7
Days
30
24.6
25
Drilling
20
| 1 |
|
| 1 |
|
0
2011
2012
2013
2014 YTD
Implemented Initiatives:
| • |
|
MPD / UBD Operational Procedure |
| • |
|
Introduction of Casing Drilling |
| • |
|
Directional Drilling Optimization |
| • |
|
Multipad locations |
Future Opportunities:
| • |
|
Widespread use of Casing Drilling |
| • |
|
New automated rigs / skidding |
| • |
|
Use of 4” DP for entire well |
| • |
|
Mud Plant |
31
|
|
Completion: Costs Improvements
USD
1.60
stage
USD
1.40
per
USD
1.20
USD
USD
1.00
Millon
USD
0.80
USD
0.60
USD
0.40
USD
0.20
USD -
2011
2012
2013
2014 YTD
OTHERS
PROPPANT
FRAC
Implemented Initiatives:
| • |
|
Monthly “Bundle” contracts |
| • |
|
Multiple proppant providers |
| • |
|
Adoption of new technology |
| • |
|
Operational efficiency Optimization: |
| 3 |
|
stg/day, SIMOPS, Plug & Perf technology |
Future Opportunities:
| • |
|
Renegotiation of Bundle Contracts |
| • |
|
100 % local proppant utilization |
| • |
|
Bulk proppant logistics |
| • |
|
Water distribution Network |
32
|
|
Contents
| 1 |
|
Unconventional Development: General Overview |
| 2 |
|
Increased Productivity: Sweet Spot Identification |
| 3 |
|
Increased Productivity: Horizontal Well |
| 4 |
|
Well Construction Cost Reduction |
| 5 |
|
Principal Challenges for a large development |
33
|
|
Principal challenges for a large development
Enhance development economics
+ Increased Productivity
| • |
|
Improve subsurface understanding |
| • |
|
Identify the Sweet Spots |
| • |
|
Optimize completions |
| • |
|
Successful horizontal development |
+ Well Construction Cost Reduction
| • |
|
Casing Drilling Techniques |
| • |
|
Local Sand Sourcing |
| • |
|
Operational efficiency optimization (new rig fleet) |
| • |
|
Contracts renegotiation |
Reserves
+ Reserves Estimation Methodology
| • |
|
Traditional DCA methods do not apply |
| • |
|
It is necessary to consider Pressure decline rates (RTA, Simulation) |
34
|
|
Principal challenges for a large development
Design a sustainable development
+ Minimize the environmental impact
| • |
|
Multiwell Rig Pad (Rigs “fit for purpose”) |
| • |
|
Optimize Water and Sand logistics (Minimize truck transportation) |
| • |
|
Pipe network for water pumping to well location |
| • |
|
Railway to the site for sand storage |
| • |
|
Treatment and re-use of Flow back water |
Align objectives with all the stakeholders
+ Federal and Provincial Government + Labor Unions
| • |
|
Provide the right regulatory scheme Enhance labor contracts |
+ Communities focusing on productivity
| • |
|
Expand Social License to operate |
35
|
|
NUESTRA ENERGÍA
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| YPF Sociedad Anónima | ||||||
| Date: March 18, 2014 | By: | /s/ Alejandro Cherñacov | ||||
| Name: | Alejandro Cherñacov | |||||
| Title: | Market Relations Officer | |||||