Shale Oil Fraud Case Reveals Executives Ignore Their Own Engineers and Mislead Investors

By Justin Mikulka, a freelance investigative journalist. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University. Originally published at DeSmog Blog

In April, a judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by former investors in the shale oil company Alta Mesa could proceed. Their case alleges multiple instances of fraud and reveals that not only did engineers in the company warn executives that they were lying to investors about oil production estimates but that executives went on to ignore those warnings.

Alta Mesa is among a string of oil and gas companies that in recent years have either been accused or found guilty of fraud, including ExxonMobil and Miller Energy.

Many of these emerging fraud cases show a consistent pattern of employees warning leadership that they were misleading investors about how much oil the companies could reasonably produce in the future, but rather than changing course the employees were ignored or fired.

This scenario is repeatedly playing out in the shale oil and gas industry where the people who are paid to estimate how much oil is in the ground — the petroleum engineers — are told their estimates are not high enough, and executives then claim more optimistic numbers instead.

‘This is a Lie’

Most cases of oil industry fraud involve a simple concept. Oil companies are able to raise money based on how much oil they say is in the land they own — that’s known as oil reserves. The higher the value the company claims for its reserves, the more money it can borrow or attract from investors.

These fraud cases are very similar to housing appraisal fraud. What some of these oil companies are doing is the equivalent of owning a house worth $250,000, telling the bank it’s worth $500,000, and then borrowing money based on that inflated value. These oil executives then pay themselves high salaries and often cash in large amounts of stock options, until the investors’ money runs out and it’s revealed that the overly optimistic oil reserves predictions were not true.

ExxonMobil is currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for overvaluing assets despite reports that employees disagreed with the valuations. There are also two separate whistleblower filings with the SEC that accuse Exxon of intentionally overstating the value of its oil and gas–producing properties by tens of billions of dollars.

In January, the Wall Street Journal reported on the case that spurred the SEC investigation and reportedly resulted in the firing of at least one ExxonMobil employee, who later filed one of the whistleblower complaints. According to that complaint, an employee who was pressured to redo oil well production forecasts numbers to make management happy reportedly named a file with the inflated numbers, “This is a lie.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, this whistleblower noted the widespread internal pressure to support the CEO’s unrealistic claims for potential oil production from its acreage in the Permian region, a top U.S. oil field.

“No one I knew in the organization thought this was possible; the pressure to deliver on Woods’s promise to the market permeated the organization,” the whistleblower said, referring to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods’ goal at the time to produce one million barrels a day from the Permian by 2024.

In March, Exxon decreased its forecasts for Permian production and now expects to average 400,000 barrels per day in 2021 and potentially reach 700,000 barrels per day by 2025. A new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Finance (IEEFA) notes that Exxon has not made money on its Permian operations and that according to IEEFA analyst Clark Williams-Derry, “Investors should place the company’s Permian plans under a microscope and demand better disclosure of both its financial and operational results in the region.”

As DeSmog recently reported, the management of Fairmount Santrol (since renamed Covia) also was warned by its employees that it was lying to investors. At the time, in 2017, Fairmount was the largest frac sand company in the U.S. As Bloomberg reported in November 2020, Fairmount employees met with management in May 2017 to convey concerns about fraudulent product claims. Management not only ignored the concerns, they told the SEC in 2019 that they had “fully investigated issues that were raised by employees” and had found no fraud. The SEC has since settled charges against the company for misleading investors.

DeSmog also recently covered a case of fraud involving the now-defunct oil company Miller Energy Resources and major auditing and accounting firm KPMG. In 2017, both settled the charges of overvaluing oil assets with the SEC, which found that at least one engineering firm refused to put its “name on a report that implies value exists where it likely does not.”

Again and again, evidence is surfacing across the fracking industry that shows companies have been overstating oil reserves and making unrealistic claims to investors. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2019, “Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America’s four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic.” Indeed, the shale industry has lost hundreds of billions of dollars.

DeSmog has reported on this issue of oil reserves overestimates and the research that further highlights how pervasive it is in the U.S. To try to continue to lure investors, oil companies have been promising results that aren’t possible to deliver. While some refer to this as the industry being “optimistic,” when executives know that the optimism conflicts with their own employees’ assessments but tell investors otherwise, it’s fraud.

And the case of Alta Mesa is a prime example of how this happens.

‘Defendants Overstated the Value of the Assets’

In March 2020, DeSmog reported on apparently fraudulent behavior that led to the quick bankruptcy of oil and gas company Alta Mesa, less than two years after it started in the oil business.

A month later, investors filed a lawsuit against Alta Mesa executives alleging multiple instances of fraud over its oil reserves numbers. The main claim of the lawsuit is that “defendants overstated the value of the assets.”

The 125-page filing details the many apparently fraudulent claims that Alta Mesa made and cites company engineers who claim they specifically warned management that what they were telling investors was not true.

One common way for companies to overstate oil reserves (or the value of their assets) is to simply use models that overestimate average oil well production — a number commonly referred to as the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). According to the lawsuit, Alta Mesa management referred to inflated numbers from these models even after engineers refused to provide those numbers themselves.

A senior reservoir engineer at Alta Mesa initially provided management with internal EUR estimates, i.e., the estimated recoverable reserves of an average Company oil well over its lifetime. But, unhappy with these numbers, Alta Mesa management pressured the reservoir engineer to provide higher EUR estimates. After the engineer refused to do so, management removed them from the task of generating EUR estimates.

A second way to overstate reserves is to say the acreage will support far more wells than it can realistically. The lawsuit against Alta Mesa notes that by claiming its acreage could support a much higher number of wells than the data suggested, the fracking company could “claim purported reserves that were double the actual recoverable reserves.” (Emphasis in the original)

According to the lawsuit, a senior production engineer reported that upon hearing that Alta Mesa executives were telling investors the company had 4,200 drilling locations,  the team “fell out of our chairs laughing” and were “absolutely flabbergasted” and “astonished.”

The lawsuit details many other ways the management of Alta Mesa allegedly misled investors, and on May 17, 2019, Alta Mesa announced it was being investigated by the SEC for its financial reporting. According to the investor lawsuit, on that same day, Alta Mesa also announced “that the estimate of proved reserves it released on February 25, 2019 was overstated.”

Its updated reserves dropped from 158 million barrels to 69 million barrels — a more than 50 percent decrease. Facing this new reality,  Alta Mesa’s final announcement that day was that it was exploring bankruptcy. Without those inflated oil reserves, the company was apparently worthless.

‘Era of Non-Enforcement and Paltry Fines’

As DeSmog reported in March 2020, Alta Mesa’s management was some of the most seasoned in the industry and the company had the backing of a large private equity firm. Why would industry experts resort to fraud with a brand new company? One possible motivation is money. The way that Alta Mesa was formed included huge financial incentives for management if the stock price reached certain levels.

The investor lawsuit highlights the incredible payout for management that would occur if Alta Mesa’s stock reached certain price levels, as well as how little personal risk it involved. As the lawsuit stated, it was an “opportunity to unlawfully profit by over $301 million on investments that carried a mere cost basis of $25,000.” (Emphasis in original)

That is a lot of incentive to provide “optimistic” reserves estimates to boost the stock price — a reason why the SEC is investigating these types of corporate structures.

However, the penalties for this type of fraud are negligible. The SEC has settled with other companies guilty of oil reserves fraud which accepted small fines, in proportion to what investors lost, as punishment.

DeSmog asked attorney Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute for the Center for Biological Diversity to help explain why the SEC does so little in response to major fraud cases in the oil industry.

“The SEC is emblematic of an industry-wide problem: the agencies that are supposed to be regulating oil and gas and protecting people and the environment from the industry are protecting the polluters instead,” Seigel responded via email. “The Biden Administration should end the era of non-enforcement and paltry fines at SEC.”

If the past is any indication, Alta Mesa executives have little to fear from the SEC investigation. It remains to be seen what will result from this investor lawsuit.

As the judge in this case recently noted, “the enormity of the write-down over such a short period of time is enough for the case against these defendants to proceed.” In 2018, Alta Mesa was valued at $3.8 billion when it formed, a number based on its potential to produce oil profitably. Less than 12 months later, the company wrote off $3.1 billion in value.

Over a year after DeSmog first profiled Alta Mesa, and asked whether the shale industry is based on fraud, the evidence continues to pile up. The question that remains for Alta Mesa — as well as others like Exxon — is just how big the difference is between the amount of oil in the ground and how much executives promised.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. diptherio

    I wonder what percentage of our economy is composed of scams like this? (i.e. what I think of as ‘uber-scams’: money losing enterprises, premised on absurdist assumptions, that wreak social and environmental havoc, while making the executives ridiculous sums of money.)

    1. cnchal

      Why just money losing. Lots of money making businesses are scams.

      When one adds the money making and money losing scams together, my estimate is that 80% of businesses are scam related. The entire health care system in the US is a scam, bankster scams and frauds, tech monopoly scams, not being able to fix your own equipment scams, there are so many scams it’s impossible to keep up, and those that don’t scam fall further behind those that do.

      These oil criminals got away with it, crime paid. When the banksters crashed the market at the most opportune time, right in the time period before the 2008 election before a president was elected, the scam was in place, and those criminals were rewarded with trillions, and put back in charge to run ever moar bankster scams. Crime paid, big time.

      I also consider the FED buying corporate bonds to be a scam. Why should Apple or Amazon bonds be bought by the FED, at all? It is a scam that Jerome is Jeff Bezos’ sugar daddy, pumping up stawk prices so Jeff can sell his stawk confetti he awarded himself at zero cost for thousands of dollars each (he lightened up by $5 billion a few weeks ago by selling his confetti to the next gaggle of suckers) while his warehouse workers go for their daily torture. A greater than 100% yearly warehouse employee turnover rate is a scam, if not a scandal, polluting the social fabric with broken people, just like the frackers pollute the ground, ground water and whatever else they touch.

  2. PlutoniumKun

    I’m surprised how many people – and I include people who professionally deal with oil and gas – don’t realise that there is a fundamental difference in the economics of oil/gas exploration and oil/gas production. Some companies do both of course, but there are a huge number of companies whose sole business is to develop oil/gas claims for sale to production companies. They’ve been operating the same as silicon valley unicorns for decades. One well known company in Ireland has been operating profitably (for its owners and management) for nearly 50 years now without ever having found a single barrel of recoverable oil. Its entirely funded by ‘hope’ value for its various exploration projects.

    Once upon a time this was efficient as nobody would buy a claim without investing serious money into ensuring that the recoverable assets were as the exploration company claimed. So there was little to no incentive for the company to lie (although of course they would always hype the potential of a particular region when fundraising). But it seems in a world of massive liquidity, those rules don’t apply. So there is a huge incentive to, at the very least, massage figures.

    1. topcat

      I worked in seismic survey for a few years back in the 80’s and at that time there were quite a lot of companies working in that space and a lot of smaller oil companies like marathon oil (still in business ) . The seismic companies only looked for geological formations that could be oil bearing, they didn’t do forecasting as such. The oil producers would hire a company to survey an area and produce geological data and then they would drill some test holes if the data looked promising. The lying starts once a field is identified.

    2. drumlin woodchuckles

      Is this simply a way of moving money from sucker-investors to hustler-operators? If an exploration/drilling company can keep getting paid in other peoples’ money borrowed from yet other people, then as long as the company can take in 2X dollars and pay 1X of that over to its own highest management and owners, then the management and owners can make their own personal 1X dollars every year while destroying or vaporizing another 1X dollars every year . . . . . and leaving with their own personal take of 1X dollars per year times however many years the company stayed in business . . . . while all the suckervestors get to eat the 1X dollars times however many years they were investing as their own life-lessons-learned loss.

      Is that what we are looking at here? I ask as an ignorant layman.

  3. hemeantwell

    What is the clawback potential here? Does the pattern of weak SEC enforcement make it less likely that ripped-off investors can recoup some of their losses in the courts? Are their chances so poor that they try to hang on, or wait for a sucker to come along?

    1. ChrisFromGeorgia

      Usual disclaimer – I am not a lawyer so take with a modicum of salt.

      If the suit succeeds then judgements against the former officers of the company could potentially claw back a lot of money for the investors. Of course, this presumes that the defendants haven’t all squirreled the money away to the Cayman Islands, or blown it on things that can’t be repossessed. Like fancy vacations or high-end escorts.

      It is sad to say the least that the SEC won’t do its’ job. It takes some deep pockets to file a civil lawsuit but I don’t think the weakness and ineffectiveness of the SEC can help the defense very much.

      1. Mildred Montana

        “things that can’t be repossessed”

        Many of the rich aren’t lawyers either but they sure can afford to hire one. So the threat of repossession is a mere inconvenience to them, easily skirted with the right legal advice.

        In November 2008, disgraced Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld sold his $13-million Florida mansion to his wife for $100(!). Good move, Dick. Wouldn’t want to lose it in a civil lawsuit.

        1. tegnost

          I’m sure that price included all the gold bricks the house needed for door stops…

          1. drumlin woodchuckles

            And toilet-tank space-taker water-conservation bricks. And paperweights.

  4. Mildred Montana

    “…regulatory bodies, like the people who comprise them, have a marked life cycle. In youth they are vigorous, aggressive, evangelistic, and even intolerant. Later they mellow, and in old age – after a matter of 10 or 15 years – they become, with some exceptions, either an arm of the industry they are regulating, or senile.”—John Kenneth Galbraith

    The SEC: Arm of the financial industry or senile? Hmm…that’s a puzzler. Maybe 64-year-old chairman Gary Gensler can answer that question.

      1. Yves Smith

        Please bone up on this topic. FDR’s choice of Kennedy was seen as controversial but is universally regarded as an astute pick. Kennedy had been a stock operator and knew all the tricks. He was at a point in life where FDR correctly judged that legitimacy was extremely important to him, and then you could not buy that with money. Kennedy was a very effective and tough first chairman.

  5. Philo Beddoh

    Many of us were happy to see the scary ACP cancelled, but VERY dubious of it’s demise. Hooking the South on fracked PA gas, to power AC 24/7 at a higher price? But, Constitution being cancelled as NYC builds peaker-plants, converts scores-of-thousands of fuel-oil boilers, to shift carbon 140mi west, maybe extending Frackistan north? Lots of this, kinda makes pipeliners go HMmmm? With Shell’s basically uninspected 97mi ethane collection system leaking like a seive, Exxon abandoning their PA cracker… Pittsburgh’s apparent new mayor & Cuomo’s vulnerability; curious minds want to know? CNG micro-turbine/ hybrid busses? Cui bono from Biden’s bogus bio-gas boondoggles?

  6. Glen

    It’s my personal belief that American MBAs must be trained to ignore the engineers. It’s so common where I work that engineers seek training on how to communicate with management.

  7. topcat

    The KPMG fraud case was settled for 1 million I think, and the CEO was fined something like $120K and kept his job. So, no, the money will not be clawed back.

  8. TXWildcatter

    I worked in reserves auditing and a former boss left to lead the Alta Mesa engineering team years before it finally blew up. He was back with our firm within a year and wouldn’t talk much about the experience…

  9. Kaleberg

    Fraud is a time honored tradition in the oil business. It used to be even worse. Standard Oil got big by dynamiting its rival’s oil rigs. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, my father used to follow the trials and scams of Mesa Petroleum. Any relation to Alta Mesa? One was expected to lie about reserves, and you only invested in oil and gas if you understood how long division worked so you could estimate some real numbers. At best, operators were sketchy. Look at lovable James Garner in The Wheeler Dealers to get a sense of the shenanigans that were considered SOP. By the time I started investing in the 1980s, I knew how to read a natural resources oriented financial statement. It’s a skill more people should acquire.

    The thing was that with sufficient cynicism one could actually make money by investing in companies that dug holes in the ground and pumped out stuff that people would buy to run their cars and heat their homes. Unlike a lot of modern investments, there actually was a profitable business model.

Comments are closed.