XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.7.0.1
Basis Of Presentation Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements (Policies)
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]  
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. In preparing the Company’s financial statements, a number of estimates and assumptions are made by management that affect the accounting for and recognition of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any other quarter of 2017 or for the year ending December 31, 2017. The condensed consolidated balance sheet of the Company as of December 31, 2016 has been derived from the audited balance sheet of the Company as of that date. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
Use of Estimates and Assumptions
In preparing the Company’s financial statements, a number of estimates and assumptions are made by management that affect the accounting for and recognition of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue from Data Acquisition
The Company generates revenue when it creates a new seismic survey that is initially licensed by one or more of its customers to use the resulting data. The payments for the initial licenses are sometimes referred to as acquisition underwriting or prefunding. Customers make periodic payments throughout the creation period, which generally correspond to costs incurred and work performed. These payments are non-refundable. Contracts which are signed up to the time the Company makes a firm commitment to create the new seismic survey are considered acquisition underwriting. Any subsequent licensing of the data while the survey is in progress or once it is completed is considered a resale license (see “Revenue from Non-Exclusive Data Licenses”).
Acquisition underwriting revenue is recognized throughout the creation period using the proportional performance method based upon costs incurred and work performed to date as a percentage of total estimated costs and work required. Management believes that this method is the most reliable and representative measure of progress for its data creation projects. On average, the duration of the data creation process is approximately twelve to eighteen months. Under these contracts, the Company creates new seismic data designed in conjunction with its customers and specifically suited to the geology of the area using the most appropriate technology available.
The Company outsources the substantial majority of the work required to complete data acquisition projects to third party contractors. The Company’s payments to these third party contractors comprise the substantial majority of the total estimated costs of the projects and are paid throughout the creation period. A typical survey includes specific activities required to complete the survey, each of which has value to the customers. Typical activities, that often occur concurrently, include:

•
permitting for land access, mineral rights, and regulatory approval;
•
surveying;
•
drilling for the placement of energy sources;
•
recording the data in the field; and
•
processing the data.
The customers paying for the initial licenses receive legally enforceable rights to any resulting product of each activity described above. The customers also receive access to and use of the newly acquired, processed data.
The customers’ access to and use of the results of the work performed and of the newly acquired, processed data is governed by a master license agreement, which is a separate agreement from the acquisition contract. The Company’s acquisition contracts require the customer either to have a master license agreement in place or to execute one at the time the acquisition contract is signed. The Company typically maintains sole ownership of the newly acquired data, which is added to its library, and is free to license the data to other customers.
Revenue from Non-Exclusive Data Licenses
The Company recognizes a substantial portion of its revenue from licensing of data once it is available for delivery. This revenue is sometimes referred to as resale licensing revenue, late sales or shelf sales.
These sales fall under the following four basic forms of non-exclusive license contracts, each of which is subject to the terms and conditions contained in a customer’s master license agreement.
•
Specific license contract—The customer licenses and selects specific data from the data library, including data currently in progress, at the time the contract is entered into and holds this license for a long-term period.

•
Library card license contract—The customer initially receives only the right to access a certain amount of data. The customer selects which data to access and hold long-term under its license agreement. The length of the selection periods under the library card contracts is limited in time and varies from customer to customer.

•
Review and possession license contract—The customer receives the right to review a certain quantity of data for a limited period of time. During the review period, the customer may select specific data from that available for review to hold long-term under its license agreement. Any data not selected for long-term licensing must be returned to the Company at the end of the review period.

•
Review only license contract—The customer obtains rights to review a certain quantity of data for a limited period of time, but does not obtain the right to select specific data to hold long-term.
The Company’s non-exclusive license contracts specify the following:

•
that all customers must also have in place or execute a master license agreement that governs the use of all data received under the Company’s non-exclusive license contracts;
•
the specific payment terms, generally ranging from 30 days to 12 months, and that such payments are non-cancelable and non-refundable;
•
the actual data that is accessible to the customer; and
•
that the data is licensed in its present form, as is, where is, and that the Company is under no obligation to make any enhancements, modifications or additions to the data unless specific terms to the contrary are included.
Revenue from the non-exclusive licensing of seismic data is recognized when the following criteria are met:

•
the Company has an agreement with the customer that is validated by a signed contract;
•
the sales price is fixed and determinable;
•
collection is reasonably assured;
•
the customer has selected the specific data or the contract has expired without full selection;
•
the data is currently available for delivery; and
•
the license term has begun.
Copies of the licensed data are available to the customer immediately upon request.
For licenses that have been invoiced for which payment is due or has been received, but that have not met the aforementioned criteria, revenue is deferred along with the related direct costs (primarily consisting of sales commissions). This normally occurs under the library card, review and possession or review only license contracts because the data selection may occur over time. Additionally, if the contract allows licensing of data that is not currently available or enhancements, modifications or additions to the data are required per the contract, revenue is deferred until such time that the data is available.

Revenue from Non-Monetary Exchanges
In certain cases, the Company will take ownership of a customer’s seismic data or revenue interest (collectively referred to as “data”) in exchange for a non-exclusive license to selected seismic data from the Company’s library or, in some cases, reproduction or data processing services. In connection with specific data acquisition contracts, the Company may choose to receive both cash and ownership of seismic data from the customer as consideration for the underwriting of new data acquisition. In addition, the Company may receive advanced data processing services on selected existing data in exchange for a non-exclusive license to selected data from the Company’s library. These exchanges are referred to as non-monetary exchanges. A non-monetary exchange for data always complies with the following criteria:

•
the data licensed to a customer is always distinct from the data received from that customer;
•
the customer forfeits ownership of the data received by the Company; and
•
the Company retains ownership in the data licensed.
In non-monetary exchange transactions, the Company records a data library asset for the seismic data received or processed at the time the contract is entered into or the data is completed, as applicable, and recognizes revenue on the transaction in equal value in accordance with its policy on revenue from data licenses or data acquisition, or as services are provided by our Seitel Solutions business unit (“Solutions”), as applicable. The data license to the customer is in the form of one of the four basic forms of contracts discussed above. These transactions are valued at the fair value of the data received or the fair value of the license granted or services provided, whichever is more readily determinable.
Fair value of the data exchanged is determined using a multi-step process as follows:

•
First, the Company considers the value of the data or services received from the customer. In determining the value of the data received, the Company considers the age, quality, current demand and future marketability of the data and, in the case of 3D seismic data, the cost that would be required to create the data. In addition, the Company applies a limitation on the value it assigns per square mile on the data received. In determining the value of the services received, the Company considers the cost of such similar services that it could obtain from a third party provider.

•
Second, the Company determines the value of the license granted to the customer. Typically, the range of cash transactions by the Company for licenses of similar data during the prior six months are evaluated. In evaluating the range of cash transactions, the Company does not consider transactions that are disproportionately high or low.
Due to the Company’s revenue recognition policies, revenue recognized on non-monetary exchange transactions may not occur at the same time the seismic data acquired is recorded as an asset. The activity related to non-monetary exchanges was as follows (in thousands): 
 
Three Months Ended
March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Seismic data library additions
$
250

 
$
222

Revenue recognized on specific data licenses or selections of data
250

 
—

Revenue recognized related to acquisition contracts
39

 
1


Revenue from Solutions
Revenue from Solutions is recognized as the services for reproduction and delivery of seismic data are provided to customers.
Seismic Data Library
The Company’s seismic data library consists of seismic surveys that are offered for license to customers on a non-exclusive basis. Costs associated with creating, acquiring or purchasing the seismic data library are capitalized and amortized principally on the income forecast method subject to a straight-line amortization period of four years, applied on a quarterly basis at the individual survey level.
Costs of Seismic Data Library
For newly created data, the capitalized costs include costs paid to third parties for the acquisition of data and related permitting, surveying and other activities associated with the data creation activity. In addition, the Company capitalizes certain internal costs related to processing the created data and reprocessing existing data. Such costs include salaries and benefits of the Company’s processing personnel and certain other costs incurred for the benefit of the processing activity. The Company believes that the internal processing costs capitalized are not greater than, and generally are less than, those that would be incurred and capitalized if such activity were performed by a third party. Capitalized costs for internal data processing were $0.7 million and $0.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
For data received through a non-monetary exchange, the Company capitalizes an amount equal to the fair value of the data received by the Company or the fair value of the license granted or services provided to the customer, whichever is more readily determinable. See Note B – “Revenue Recognition – Revenue from Non-Monetary Exchanges” for discussion of the process used to determine fair value.
For purchased seismic data, the Company capitalizes the purchase price of the acquired data.
Data Library Amortization
The Company amortizes each survey in its seismic data library using the greater of the amortization that would result from the application of the income forecast method to each survey’s revenue, subject to a minimum amortization rate, or a straight-line basis over four years, commencing at the time such survey is completed and available for licensing to customers on a non-exclusive basis.
The Company applies the income forecast method by forecasting the ultimate revenue expected to be derived from a particular data library component over the estimated useful life of each survey comprising part of such component. This forecast is made by the Company annually and reviewed quarterly. If, during any such review, the Company determines that the ultimate revenue for a library component is expected to be significantly different than the most recent estimate of total revenue for such library component, the Company revises the amortization rate attributable to future revenue from each survey in such component. The Company applies a minimum amortization rate of 70%. In addition, in connection with the forecast reviews and updates, the Company evaluates the recoverability of its seismic data library investment, and if required, records an impairment charge with respect to such investment. See discussion on “Seismic Data Library Impairment” below.
The greater of the income forecast or straight-line amortization policy is applied quarterly on a cumulative basis at the individual survey level. Under this policy, the Company first records amortization using the income forecast method. The cumulative amortization recorded for each survey is then compared with the cumulative straight-line amortization. If the cumulative straight-line amortization is higher for any specific survey, additional amortization expense is recorded, resulting in accumulated amortization being equal to the cumulative straight-line amortization for such survey. This requirement is applied regardless of future-year revenue estimates for the library component of which the survey is a part and does not consider the existence of deferred revenue with respect to the library component or to any survey.
The actual aggregate rate of amortization depends on the specific seismic surveys licensed and selected by the Company’s customers during the period and the amount of straight-line amortization recorded. The income forecast amortization rates can vary by component and, as of April 1, 2017, is 70% for all components. For those seismic surveys which have been fully amortized, no amortization expense is required on revenue recorded.

Seismic Data Library Impairment
The Company evaluates its seismic data library investment by grouping individual surveys into components based on its operations and geological and geographical trends, resulting in the following data library segments for purposes of evaluating impairments: (I) North America 3D onshore comprised of the following components: (a) Texas Gulf Coast, (b) Eastern Texas, (c) Permian, (d) Anadarko Basin in North Texas/Oklahoma, (e) Southern Louisiana/Mississippi, (f) Northern Louisiana, (g) Rocky Mountains, (h) Utica/Marcellus in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, (i) other United States, (j) Montney in British Columbia and Alberta, (k) Horn River in British Columbia, (l) Duvernay in Alberta and (m) other Canada; (II) United States 2D; (III) Canada 2D; (IV) Mexico; (V) Gulf of Mexico offshore; and (VI) international data outside North America. The Company believes that these library components constitute the lowest levels of independently identifiable cash flows.
The Company evaluates its seismic data library investment for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amounts may not be recoverable. The Company considers the level of sales performance in each component compared to projected sales, as well as industry conditions, among others, to be key factors in determining when its seismic data investment should be evaluated for impairment. In evaluating sales performance of each component, the Company generally considers five consecutive quarters of actual performance below forecasted sales to be an indicator of potential impairment.
The impairment evaluation is based first on a comparison of the undiscounted future cash flows over each component’s remaining estimated useful life with the carrying value of each library component. If the undiscounted cash flows are equal to or greater than the carrying value of such component, no impairment is recorded. If undiscounted cash flows are less than the carrying value of any component, the forecast of future cash flows related to such component is discounted to fair value and compared with such component’s carrying amount. The difference between the library component’s carrying amount and the discounted future value of the expected revenue stream is recorded as an impairment charge.
For purposes of evaluating potential impairment losses, the Company estimates the future cash flows attributable to a library component by evaluating, among other factors, historical and recent revenue trends, oil and gas prospectivity in particular regions, general economic conditions affecting its customer base and expected changes in technology and other factors that the Company deems relevant. The cash flow estimates exclude expected future revenues attributable to non-monetary data exchanges and future data creation projects.
The estimation of future cash flows and fair value is highly subjective and inherently imprecise. Estimates can change materially from period to period based on many factors, including those described in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, if conditions change in the future, the Company may record impairment losses relative to its seismic data library investment, which could be material to any particular reporting period.
The Company did not have any impairment charges during the three months ended March 31, 2017 or 2016.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. The objective of the ASU is to establish a single comprehensive model of accounting for revenue arising from contracts with customers and will supersede most of the existing revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance. The core principle of the guidance is that an entity recognizes revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU also significantly expands disclosure requirements concerning revenues for most entities. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Deferral of the Effective Date” which deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)”, amending the principal-versus-agent implementation guidance set forth in ASU 2014-09. Among other things, ASU 2016-08 clarifies that an entity should evaluate whether it is the principal or the agent for each specified good or service promised in a contract with a customer. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”, which amends certain aspects of the guidance related to identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-12, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients” to address certain issues in the guidance on assessing collectibility, presentation of sales taxes, noncash consideration, and completed contracts and contract modifications at transition. The Company is required to adopt the guidance set forth by these ASUs on January 1, 2018. Entities have the option of using either a full retrospective or modified retrospective approach to adopt the new guidance. The Company anticipates utilizing the modified retrospective approach when adopting the new revenue recognition guidance effective January 1, 2018 which will result in the application of the new guidance retrospectively with the cumulative effect of adoption recognized at January 1, 2018, the date of initial application. The Company is in the process of reviewing its customer contracts and comparing its current revenue recognition policies to the provisions of the new standard for each of the Company’s revenue categories. While the Company has not identified any material differences in the amount and timing of revenue recognition for the categories the Company has reviewed to date, the Company’s evaluation is not complete and the Company has not concluded on the overall impacts of adopting the new guidance. The FASB has issued, and may issue in the future, interpretive guidance which may cause the Company’s evaluation to change. The Company believes it is following an appropriate timeline to allow for proper recognition, presentation and disclosure upon adoption.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” with the objective of increasing transparency and comparability among organizations by requiring lessees to recognize assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for the present value of the rights and obligations created by all leases with terms of more than 12 months. The ASU will also require disclosures designed to give financial statement users information on the amount, timing and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The amendments in this ASU are to be applied using a modified retrospective approach and will be effective for the Company as of January 1, 2019, but early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this new standard on its consolidated financial statements as of January 1, 2019 and believes that the most significant change will be to the Company's balance sheet as its asset and liability balances will increase for operating leases that are currently off-balance sheet.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment” in order to simplify the measurement of goodwill impairment by eliminating Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. Currently, Step 2 measures a goodwill impairment loss by comparing the implied fair value of a reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. In computing the implied fair value of goodwill under Step 2, an entity had to perform procedures to determine the fair value at the impairment testing date of its assets and liabilities following the same procedure that would be required for purchase price allocation in a business combination. Under the amendments in this ASU, a goodwill impairment loss will be measured using the difference between the carrying amount and the fair value of the reporting unit limited to the total carrying amount of that reporting unit’s goodwill. The guidance in this ASU also eliminates the requirements for any reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount to perform a qualitative assessment and, if it fails that qualitative test, to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. However, entities must disclose the amount of goodwill allocated to each reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount. The amendments in this ASU are to be applied on a prospective basis and will be effective for the Company as of January 1, 2020, but early adoption is permitted for any impairment tests performed after January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of adopting this new standard but does not expect that it will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.