presentation 2 - erik-tonne.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
1/30
FPSO: Perspectives from the equity market
September 2010
Erik Tø[email protected]+47 21 01 32 26
+47 48 40 32 26
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
2/30
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
3/30
3
Underlying market development: Growth has been good and steady, and will
likely continue to be so
11 1114
1315
1818
20
22 22 22
1213
14
1516 18
10
76644311100
322
2
11111000000
63
2
2
10
000
00000000000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
02
137
83
35
01
127
76
34
00
117
70
33
3
99
112
67
32
98
93
53
30
8
97
80
46
26
7 1
96
65
36
22
6
95
57
31
21
5
94
50
28
184
93
43
24
16 3
92
37
22
12
0
91
34
21
11
0
90
31
19
10
0
89
25
13
88
21
13
87
20
2
78
11 13
86
19
12
85
13
FPS (installedbase)
84
11
6
83
9
+9%
09
225
144
41
08
222
144
40
07
214
137
40
06
190
116
40
05
8
176
108
37
04
166
100
36
03
149
89
36
9
6
82
7
6
81
6
5
80
5
4
79
2
SPARs
TLPs
Production Semi’s
FPSOs
CAGR of 9% last 10 years
Underlying rationale for floating production solutions is strong – deeper, further from shore, more marginal
fields etc. FPSOs are cost-efficient and versatile solutions (for the oil companies at least)
FPSOs continue to dominate as the most widely used floating production solution
CAGR, number ofunits 1999-2009
Source: IMA; Arctic Securities
We expect floating production to continue to seehealthy / strong growth rates for the foreseeable future
We expect floating production to continue to seehealthy / strong growth rates for the foreseeable future
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
4/30
4
Recent market development: A strong upswing in FPSO contract-awards…
Source: IMA; Arctic Securities
Order intake, new Floating Production Units (FPUs) ordered
7
4
3 3 3
4
2
6 6
8
11 11
8
4
11
3 3
45
8
11
5
10
7
9
16
11
9
2
9
10
4
0 0
6
7
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
J u n - S
e p 9 7
O c t 9 7 - F
e b 9 8
M a r - J u n 9 8
J u l - O
c t 9 8
N o v 9 8 - F
e b 9 9
M a r - J
u l 9 9
A u g - N
o v 9 9
D e c 9 9 - M
a r 0 0
A p r - S
e p 0 0
O c t 0 0 - J
a n 0 1
F e b - J
u n 0 1
J u l - O
c t 0 1
N o v 0 1 - M
a r 0 2
A p r - J
u l 0 2
A u g 0 2 - J
a n 0 3
F e b - J
u n 0 3
J u l - O
c t 0 3
N o v 0 3 - M
a r 0 4
A p r - J
u l 0 4
A u g - N
o v 0 4
D e c 0 4 - M
a r 0 5
A p r - J
u l 0 5
A u g - O
c t 0 5
N o v 0 5 - M
a r 0 6
A p r - J
u l 0 6
A u g - N
o v 0 6
D e c 0 6 - M
a r 0 7
A p r - J
u l 0 7
A u g - N
o v 0 7
D e c 0 7 - M
a r 0 8
A p r - J
u l 0 8
A u g - D
e c 0 8
J a n - A
p r 0 9
A p r - J
u l 0 9
A u g 0 9
- D
e c 0 9
J a n 1 0
- J u n 1 0
J u l - A
u g 1 0
N r o f F P U
o r d e r s
Even if excluding the eight pre-salt hulls for Petrobras, we are at 11 contracts YTD, representing a decentlevel. More to come with e.g. CLOV, OSX-2 and Frøy so far not announced
Even if excluding the eight pre-salt hulls for Petrobras, we are at 11 contracts YTD, representing a decentlevel. More to come with e.g. CLOV, OSX-2 and Frøy so far not announced
6 Projects awarded H2/09
1. Aseng to SBM2. Papa Terra to BWO/Quip3. Chim Sao to EOC4. TGT to Bumi Armada5. Aquila to Saipem6. Baleia Azul to SBM(redeployment)
19 Projects awarded so farin 2010:
1. Kitan to Bluewater(redeployment)2. Guara to MODEC3. OSX-1 to OSX (old Nexus)4. Goliath EPC-contract toHyundai5. Athena LoI to BWO6. Huntington LoI to SEVAN
(redeployment)7. Tupi Nordeste to SBM-consortium8. Sidon/Tiro to Teekay9. TSB to BWO10. Aruana to Teekay(redeployment)11. Pagerungan Utara toBLT (redeployment)12.-19. Eight pre-salt FPSO-hulls (LoI to Engevix/GVA/Cosco)
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
5/30
5
Floating Production Systems on order/under construction, Quarterly since Q3/96
31
37 36
3235
3330
2321
17
21 22
27
37 37 3839
4138 3737
34 34 35 34
4346 46
5760
6765
60
56
49
41 4037
39
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Q 3 / 9 6
Q 1 / 9 7
Q 2 / 9 7
Q 3 / 9 7
Q 1 / 9 8
Q 3 / 9 8
Q 4 / 9 8
Q 1 / 9 9
Q 3 / 9 9
Q 4 / 9 9
Q 2 / 0 0
Q 3 / 0 0
Q 1 / 0 1
Q 3 / 0 1
Q 4 / 0 1
Q 2 / 0 2
Q 3 / 0 2
Q 1 / 0 3
Q 2 / 0 3
Q 4 / 0 3
Q 1 / 0 4
Q 3 / 0 4
Q 4 / 0 4
Q 2 / 0 5
Q 3 / 0 5
Q 4 / 0 5
Q 1 / 0 6
Q 3 / 0 6
Q 4 / 0 6
Q 1 / 0 7
Q 3 / 0 7
Q 4 / 0 7
Q 1 / 0 8
Q 3 / 0 8
Q 4 / 0 8
Q 1 / 0 9
Q 3 / 0 9
Q 4 / 0 9
Q 1 / 1 0
Q 3 / 1 0
…Resulting in the order backlog (nr. of units under construction) at yards
turning again
During Q1/10, order backlog increased again for the first time in eight quarters, following a steady
drop
We expect order backlog to come up further: Demand is pent-up, and backlog should continue to
build as FIDs (Final Investment Decisions) gain momentum
Average = 39
Note: Excludes storage-only units, MOPUs and LNG RVs (shuttle/regas vessels)Source: IMA; Arctic Securities
If excluding the 8 pre-salthulls, order backlog wouldhave been at 41 units, stillconfirming the turn (thoughmore modestly)
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
6/30
6
Demand-side remains strong! In spite of many awards since Aug-09, number of projects
in the Bid/final design phase remains steady
Implying oil companies continue to move on projects, gradually progressing them to FID and contract-award
31323333
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nr of units
CurrentSep-09Dec-08Oct-08 Nov-09
Source: IMA; Press; Arctic Securities
Number of projects in the Bid/Final Design phasedescribes projects that are close to FID and contract-award
In spite of 25 awards since Aug-09, this numberremains fairly steady
This implies the number of projects progressing from“Planning” to “Bid/Final design” remains high; i.e.demand-side remains strong
We also believe it’s positive that this numberremained fairly steady through the financial turmoil,demonstrating oil companies continued to mature
projects
In short, we believe the demand-side is pent-up, andthat conditions are now increasingly in place formore contract awards again
The oil price is steady (enabling planning) on
back of healthy demand
Input-costs (steel, yard-capacity etc) have come
down
Access to financing for smaller E&Ps and FPSO-
operators has improved
Number of FPSO-projects in the bid/final design phase (see next two slides for details)
Of whichFLNG units
1 1 1 1 2
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
7/30
7
Industry majors are increasingly positive – both amongst oil companies and
major contractors
Source: Technip (Mar/Apr-10); Arctic Securities
We’re noticing more positive signals from most (all) of the companies,especially within subsea, field development and floating production
We’re noticing more positive signals from most (all) of the companies,especially within subsea, field development and floating production
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
8/30
8
Industry survey: Industry-players are more optimistic, reflecting higher
tendering-levels and improved market-conditionsIndustry sees on average 12 contracts in 2010 and 15 contracts in 2011
Industry-players significantly moreoptimistic compared to last year’s survey
On average, the players expect a furtherincrease in number of awards during 2011
“How many FPSO-lease contracts do you expectwill be awarded across the industry next year?”
Note: Survey conducted in Q2/09 and Q2/10 respectively. Participants: MODEC, PROD, Maersk, FOP, SEVAN, BWO (10 only), SBM (09 only)Source: Companies; Arctic Securities
10
7
5
25
12
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Low HighAverage
2009-results
2010-results
16
11
7
23
15
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
HighAverageLow
2009-results
2010-results
“How many FPSO-lease contracts do you expect willbe awarded across the industry by year-end?”
Competitive pressure reduced. Some players evencomment being in single-source discussions for projects
Major input costs have dropped further since last year.Companies’ answers for 2010 vary significantly
How many bidders are there on averageinvolved in projects you are tendering for?
How have input prices developed over the past12 months? (%-change)
8
5
3
6
4
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
HighAverageLow
2009-results
2010-results
-1
-3-3-3
-4
-7
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Yard costs Other costsMajor topsideequipment costs
2009-results
2010-results
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
9/30
9
High-end of the lease segment consolidates with BWO-PROD combining.
Competitive pressure should be further reduced, boding well for returns
Note: Does not include turnkey FPSOs, i.e. only includes FPSOs owned and operated by the FPSO-companiesSource: Companies; IMA; Arctic Securities
Company Num er o ease FPSOs in operation or un er construction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SBM
MODEC
Prosafe Production
BW Offshore
Bluewater
Maersk
Petrojarl (Teekay)
Sevan FPSO
Saipem
Bumi Armada
Fred. Olsen Production
Rubicon
Sea Production
Tanker Pacific (TPOT)
Single unit owners
Contracted FPSOs in operation
Contracted FPSOs in operation (operations only)
Contracted units under construction/conversion
Construction on speculation
Idle
Combining toone entityLimited
financial
bidding capacity
Mainly N.Sea
Financialcapacity?
Likely to takeone more
project only?
To conclude, we believe it’s fair to say the market is picking up and that bargaining position for
the remaining players has improved and continues to do so!
To conclude, we believe it’s fair to say the market is picking up and that bargaining position forthe remaining players has improved and continues to do so!
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
10/30
10
Agenda/key topics highlighted in this presentation
Market development: Is the situation in the market picking up?
How do investors and analysts look at the FPSO-sector? What are theirevaluation criteria?
Is the market willing to finance new developments? Is the financing
situation on the road to recovery?
What are the main concerns for investors in financing FPSO-projects and
how can you achieve a win-win deal with project financiers?
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
11/30
11
Few (equity) investors have a detailed understanding of the FPSO-segment
Hard to place all in one group. Many are generalists. Investment strategies and
exposures vary - across industries, geographies and asset classes
Some are oil services “specialists” – even these sometimes have detailed knowledge of
the floating production business
Available time to dedicate to detailed analysis of selected companies is limited
Valuation approaches are usually “simple”: Valuation metrics (multiples), relative toother segments, look at potential for earnings-upgrades/re-valuation. Some do
modeling/DCF-analyses/more detailed work
History matters…
Opinions and momentum can turn rapidly – from loved by everyone to hated by
everyone (usually infectious)
Source: Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
12/30
12
The floating production segment has spooked investors – for obvious reasons
A string of disappointments…Shares have been a disaster – even in companies perceived to be “solid” and steady-performing
businesses
BWO listed at NOK 25 May-06, currently at NOK 8.0
PROD listed at NOK 36 Feb-08, currently at NOK 13.0
Add to this; Aker Floating Production, Sevan… - not a joyride for shareholders
Leading established players – e.g. SBM – have also disappointed with significant delays to EPC-
contracts (rigs, Yme, Deep Panuke), and are trading at historically low P/B-levels
Speculative entrants (mainly originated out of Norway) didn’t help the situation
Very hard to point to any success-stories. Massive value destruction
Nexus, Petroprod, FPSOcean, MPF, Nortechs/Songa Floating Production
The financial community helped fuel the hype…
“Floating Production is the new deepwater drilling”
“If we assume two new contracts won per year at 15% IRR…”
…and failed to recognize fundamental aspects of the business
No upside through e.g. rate-fluctuations – i.e. rate locked once capex is agreed upon/contract signed
Source: Arctic Securities
A lot went wrong operationally (poor contracts, too low contingencies, supply-chain tightnessdelays & overruns etc.), and a lot of investors got burned
A lot went wrong operationally (poor contracts, too low contingencies, supply-chain tightnessdelays & overruns etc.), and a lot of investors got burned
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
13/30
13
Norwegian FPSO-peers: By far the worst segment during the recent meltdown…
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
May-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10
Drillers NOR Subsea NOR Supply NOR FPSO NOR Seismic NOR
Source: Factset; Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
14/30
14
…and clearly the laggard since the market started improving again
70
120
170
220
270
320
370
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Drillers NOR Subsea NOR Supply NOR FPSO NOR Seismic NOR
Source: Factset; Arctic Securities
Hard to get investors’ enthusiasm up when the segmenthas underperformed all other oil services segments
Hard to get investors’ enthusiasm up when the segmenthas underperformed all other oil services segments
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
15/30
15
Adjusting for worst performers (AKFP & SEVAN), some of the FPSO-peers have performed
more in line with other oil services segments since the market started coming up again
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
310
330
350
370
Mar-
09
Apr-
09
May-
09
Jun-
09
Jul-
09
Aug-
09
Sep-
09
Oct-
09
Nov-
09
Dec-
09
Jan-
10
Feb-
10
Mar-
10
Apr-
10
May-
10
Jun-
10
Jul-
10
Aug-
10
Sep-
10
Drillers NOR Subsea NOR Supply NOR Seismic NOR BWO PROD FOP SBMO MODEC
BWO up stronglylately on back of
APL-sale
FOP in line withdrillers and supply
PROD, SBM and
MODEC under-performing
Source: Factset; Arctic Securities
A key question investors are asking themselves is: “Why should I invest in this, when there are somany other alternatives”
A key question investors are asking themselves is: “Why should I invest in this, when there are somany other alternatives”
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
16/30
16
Creating value for shareholders…?
Source: Vitae Energy; Arctic Securities
Shareholders care about this… it’s more or less the only thing they care about!Shareholders care about this… it’s more or less the only thing they care about!
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
17/30
17
Sector shake-out: A lot of players have disappeared. Speculative newcomers
likely gone for quite some time…
1. AKFP
2. BWO
3. FLNG
4. FPSO (FPSOcean)
5. FOP
6. MPF – bankrupt
7. NEXUS
8. PetroProd9. PROD
10.SEAP (Sea Production)
11.SEVAN
12.SFLO (Songa Floating Production,
ex. Nortechs FPSO)
Norwegian FPSO-segment – March-09 Norwegian FPSO-segment – Today
1. AKFP
2. BWO
3. FLNG
4. FPSO (FPSOcean) - bankrupt
5. FOP
6. MPF – bankrupt
7. NEXUS – NEXUS I sold to OSX
8. PetroProd - bankrupt9. PROD
10.SEAP (Sea Production) – OTC/Rubicon/Ashmore
11.SEVAN
12.SFLO (Songa Floating Production, ex. Nortechs
FPSO) – Bankrupt
Source: Vitae Energy; Arctic Securities
Of the remaining players, equity more or less wiped out in AKFP and the company lacks funding for additionalprojects. FLNG needs significant further funding. PROD will not bid actively before year-end 2010 and SEVAN likely
lacks equity to take on new significant capex commitments for some time
Of the remaining players, equity more or less wiped out in AKFP and the company lacks funding for additionalprojects. FLNG needs significant further funding. PROD will not bid actively before year-end 2010 and SEVAN likely
lacks equity to take on new significant capex commitments for some time
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
18/30
18
Analysts and investors have moved from “euphoric” to sober. Maybe a bit too
sober…
Trusting companies’ input on capex, time,
targeted IRR in contracts
Assuming all contracts will be fully utilized,including options, and potentially beyond
that
High residual values / redeployment
opportunities
Including a high system value / value of
expected further growth (“2 new contracts
per year”)
Believing in potential “super-returns” due
to the strong and appealing deepwater story(“after DW drilling comes production”)
Low WACCs (abundant cheap financing)
From To
Strongly fearing capex overruns – running
sensitivity analyses, incorporating cost
overruns and delays in estimates
NPV-analysis of firm contracts alone –
options viewed as potential upside only
Modest residual values
Assigning no value to growth / system value,not even for large players
Assuming “super-returns” will never
materialize
Increasing WACCs
Note: Does not necessarily apply to all analysts, but expresses our view on the perceived shift in attitudeSource: Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
19/30
19
So, with a ”bad” track-record, but a positive market-outlook, what are the
investors telling us?
”The FPSO-sector isstill un-investable”
”I’m stuck withstocks in the worstsegment in all of oil
services”
“The segment hasbeen a disaster”
“We need to be able to believe in
stronger IRRs to invest in this sector –how is the industry going to be
credible on this when they weren’tcapable of extracting stronger margins
in the last super-cycle?”
“How is it possible thateverything else in oil
services rallies and thissegment is lagging so
significantly?”
On a more positive note: We are starting to notice increased interest again from investors. Partially as aresult of the segment having lagged so significantly and partially as a result of the BWO-PROD situation –
potentially creating a larger and significantly more interesting entity for investors
On a more positive note: We are starting to notice increased interest again from investors. Partially as aresult of the segment having lagged so significantly and partially as a result of the BWO-PROD situation –
potentially creating a larger and significantly more interesting entity for investors
Source: Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
20/30
20
Established players have heard the message and started to increasingly
address investors’ concernsIt remains to be seen whether this will result in tangible, profitable projects
Our take: Credibility needs to be restored (also for industry majors). We are however morepositive than we have been for quite some time and believe this is about to happen! Investor
interest is increasing
Our take: Credibility needs to be restored (also for industry majors). We are however morepositive than we have been for quite some time and believe this is about to happen! Investor
interest is increasing
”Target good returnFPSO projects”
”Will not agree to
undue contractual risk”
Source: BW Offshore; Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
21/30
21
Agenda/key topics highlighted in this presentation
Market development: Is the situation in the market picking up?
How do investors and analysts look at the FPSO-sector? What are their
evaluation criteria?
Is the market willing to finance new developments? Is the financing
situation on the road to recovery?
What are the main concerns for investors in financing FPSO-projects and
how can you achieve a win-win deal with project financiers?
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
22/30
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
23/30
23
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
sep. 10apr. 10okt. 09mai. 09nov. 08 jun. 08des. 07 jul. 07 jan. 07 jul. 06feb. 06aug. 05
H Y
S p r e a d s ( b a
s i s p o i n t s )
0
50
100
150
200
250
I G S
p r e a d s ( b a s i s p o i n t s )
High-Yield (RHS) Investment Grade (LHS)
Debt markets are also improving
Low default rates and high liquidity
secured record low spreads
Credit crunch, increased
volatility and low liquidity
Strong
recovery
PIIGS
Source: Bloomberg; Arctic Securities Credit Research
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
24/30
24
US High-Yield issue volumes YTD already above full-year 2009-level and
significant increase from the low level seen in 2008
Companies issued about USD 120 billion of junk bonds in the first half of the year, up fromUSD 63 billion over the same period in 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
US High-Yield
Volume issued (in USDbn)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1H 20101H 20091H 20081H 20071H 20061H 2005YTD
2010
20092008200720062005
U S D b n
Source: Bloomberg; Arctic Securities Credit Research
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
25/30
25
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
sep. 10apr. 10okt. 09mai. 09nov. 08 jun. 08des. 07 jul. 07 jan. 07 jul. 06feb. 06aug. 05
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
High-Yield (RHS) VIX (LHS)
Risk aversion is decreasing / price of ”insurance” coming down
VIX reflects a market-estimateof future volatility (“fearindex”), based on the weightedaverage of the impliedvolatilities for a wide range ofstrikes
Source: Bloomberg; Arctic Securities Credit Research
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
26/30
26
At USD 70/bbl, fundamentals still look strong. Oil companies increase E&P-
spending again Should ease financing-burden somewhat
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010E
E & P
c a p e x
p e r b a r r e l p r o d u c e d
( U S D )
Average supermajors Average majors (ex STL) Average Independents STL Petrobras
-
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010E
E & P s p e n d i n g ( U
S D m )
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A g g r e g a t e d p r o d u c t i o
n ( m b o e p d )
Supermajors Majors Independents Total production same co's
E&P spending 1998-2010e (top 23 companies)E&P spending 1998-2010e per
barrel produced, split by company type
Strong rebound in E&P-spending in 2010 (provided oil co’s use budgets)
First indications for 2011 point to +5-10% further increase from 2010-level
A sharp decline in oil price (down another 10-15 USD/bbl) likely requiredto “de-rail” the current upswing. Our oil analysts do not believe this is a likely scenario
A sharp decline in oil price (down another 10-15 USD/bbl) likely requiredto “de-rail” the current upswing. Our oil analysts do not believe this is a likely scenario
Source: Companies; Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
27/30
27
Is the (equity) market willing to fund new developments?
Mid segment
More challenging. Few players can raise equity unless at (significant) discount
Needs to be backed by main owners + likely commitments from banks on the debt-side
Track-record must be in place, so should a plan for tangible return on capital to investors
High-yield market potentially becoming increasingly possible again
Newcomers /speculative
projects
Impossible?
At least extremely challenging. Speculative projects are likely gone for a long time
In addition to equity markets reluctance, banks are not willing to commit. Though not FPSO,
Master Marine is a good example: Construction project on track (time and cost), 3Y firm
contract in place with ConocoPhillips, still unable to raise remaining bank-funding
More advanced and structured financing required. Up-front payments/milestones from oil companieslikely a way to go. More EPC-contracts. It makes more sense for the oil companies to come up with the
funding than for the FPSO-companies (lower funding cost)
More advanced and structured financing required. Up-front payments/milestones from oil companieslikely a way to go. More EPC-contracts. It makes more sense for the oil companies to come up with the
funding than for the FPSO-companies (lower funding cost)
Source: Arctic Securities
Top tierplayers (SBM,MODEC, BWO,
PROD)
Established players with track-record and firm contracts/existing operations can still raiseequity funding at acceptable terms. SBM e.g. successfully raised EUR 181m Nov-09 through a
book building process (price set at/near closing price for the day). MODEC recently raised
more equity, but directed at main shareholders
Increasing equity requirements pose challenges (for all players)
BWO able to raise debt-funding for PROD-deal at decent terms
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
28/30
28
Agenda/key topics highlighted in this presentation
Market development: Is the situation in the market picking up?
How do investors and analysts look at the FPSO-sector? What are their
evaluation criteria?
Is the market willing to finance new developments? Is the financing
situation on the road to recovery?
What are the main concerns for investors in financing FPSO-projects and
how can you achieve a win-win deal with project financiers?
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
29/30
29
What are the main concerns for (equity) investors and how can you achieve a
win-win situation with financiers?
Main concern: Receive decent return on invested capital
Both categories of investors: Secure decent yield on invested capital
Debt side: Avoid downside risk
Equity side: Focused on upside potential. This relates to 1) valuation/pricing and 2)
shareholder return policy
Companies need to:
Define a credible strategy for how investors shall receive a satisfactory ROI
Vs. debt-investors: Convincing risk mitigation (contract coverage/backlog, strong
contract-counterparties, guarantees, debt/value etc.)
Vs. equity-investors: Focus on shareholder (cash) return policy. Investors want to avoid
“value traps”. Look to Fredriksen. Why is implicit value per DW rig in SDRL USD 1bn+, vs.
USD ~470m in RIG, USD ~580m in PDE etc.?
In general, FPSO-sector is likely more debt-friendly than equity-friendly (capped upside)
Source: Arctic Securities
-
8/18/2019 Presentation 2 - Erik-Tonne.pdf
30/30