When Balance Sheets, Not Barrels, Force the Deal: Restructuring and Special Situations M&A in Oil and Gas

Restructuring activity in oil and gas during 2024–2025 is being driven far less by asset quality and far more by capital structure strain. Many upstream, midstream, and services businesses continue to operate competitively at the field level, generating cash flow under conservative price assumptions. Yet those same businesses are constrained by leverage established in a different rate environment, hedge books that no longer extend cleanly, and reserve-based lending frameworks that have tightened materially.

‍

For boards and creditors, restructuring is no longer a retrospective exercise focused solely on balance sheet repair. It has become an active transaction pathway that frequently culminates in a change of control. In this market, restructuring and M&A are no longer sequential tools. They are often the same process viewed from different positions within the capital stack.

‍

Special situations underwriting in oil and gas has evolved meaningfully. Traditional distressed investors once anchored on asset value relative to secured debt. Today’s buyers, including credit funds, hybrid capital providers, and opportunistic strategic acquirers, begin with a more fundamental assessment. The central question is whether the existing or proposed capital structure can normalize without ultimately forcing a sale.

‍

As a result, underwriting now concentrates on a narrower set of durability metrics. Buyers and lead creditors focus on borrowing base resilience under conservative price decks, hedge coverage relative to refinancing and maturity timelines, PDP weighted reserve profiles compared with sustaining capital requirements, and counterparty exposure that may impair liquidity through midstream, marketing, or joint venture arrangements. What increasingly fails to clear investment committees is the assumption that time alone will resolve leverage. If free cash flow after maintenance capital cannot reliably support a post restructuring balance sheet, transactions are priced and structured as control events rather than turnarounds.

‍

The value thesis in oil and gas special situations is frequently misunderstood. These transactions are rarely recovery stories predicated on commodity upside. They are risk reallocation exercises. Successful outcomes transfer risk from legacy lenders to new equity holders, replace brittle and layered capital structures with simplified ones, and shift reliance away from hedge dependent cash flow toward base production economics.

‍

A recurring point of failure is sponsor or stakeholder patience. Many processes stall when interim capital providers underwrite to a commodity rebound that is neither necessary nor rewarded by the market. In 2024–2025, value is created by reducing sensitivity to price volatility, not by amplifying it.

‍

Despite earlier intervention and increased sophistication, restructuring driven M&A continues to fail in predictable ways. Capital stacks are often over engineered in an effort to satisfy all constituencies, recreating the same fragility the restructuring sought to eliminate. Post transaction leverage is sometimes predicated on hedge continuation that cannot be economically extended, reintroducing refinancing risk within a short window. During forbearance periods, management teams may delay divestitures or relax drilling discipline in an attempt to preserve optionality, eroding liquidity in the process. In other cases, restructuring milestones are not clearly aligned with an M&A endpoint, leading to process drift, stakeholder fatigue, and value leakage.

‍

In most challenged outcomes, asset quality remains intact. The failure lies in delayed or ambiguous decisions around control transfer.

‍

Capital markets conditions have reinforced these dynamics. Higher base rates have increased carry costs during amendment and forbearance periods, while reserve based lenders have reduced tolerance for prolonged uncertainty. Unsecured markets remain effectively closed to sub scale or levered exploration and production companies. As a result, new money financings are increasingly structured as bridge to sale instruments rather than long term solutions. Exit financing assumptions are conservative and asset specific, and post-transaction capital structures are sized for durability rather than optimization.

‍

From a capital markets advisory perspective, the implication is clear. Restructurings that do not embed a credible M&A or asset sale pathway tend to defer the problem rather than solve it.

‍

Transaction structures have adapted accordingly. Special situations M&A in oil and gas increasingly relies on credit bid led acquisitions that convert debt into control efficiently, pre-arranged asset sales tied to restructuring milestones, single lien simplification to restore financing optionality, and management incentive resets aligned with post-control outcomes. These approaches deliberately trade theoretical upside for certainty of resolution, a trade most stakeholders ultimately prefer once distress becomes unavoidable.

‍

Boards and creditor groups often misjudge how quickly optionality collapses once liquidity tightens. Each short-term amendment, waiver, or incremental fix narrows the universe of credible buyers and financing partners. Disciplined boards and lead creditors therefore focus on more fundamental questions. They assess whether the business is viable independent of capital structure complexity, whether the current plan clarifies or delays control outcomes, and whether stakeholders are underwriting time or underwriting results. In special situations, clarity itself becomes a source of value.

‍

In the current oil and gas market, restructuring is no longer a detour from M&A. It is often the entry point. Transactions that preserve value are those that recognize this early, align stakeholders around an inevitable control outcome, and use restructuring tools to enable strategic change rather than postpone it. For boards navigating distress in 2024–2025, the decisive issue is not whether the assets can continue to operate, but whether the capital structure can endure, and if it cannot, whether the process converts stress into a clean transaction rather than a prolonged erosion of value.