energy Archives - Page 12 of 13

Tankers: Floating Storage Scenario Analysis & Utilization Impact

Our 3-Stage Approach To Tankers For the Remainder Of 2020

Our 3-Stage Approach To The Remainder Of 2020 Pages 1-2
Floating Storage Scenario Analysis – Impact On Utilization Pages 2-3
Storage Arbitrage, Inventories, & Rate Reactions Pages 4-7
Multi-Factor Crude Tanker Utilization Model Pages 8-9
Updated Tanker NAVs, Valuation Metrics, & Estimates Pages 9-10

For access information, please email us at [email protected]

Depth Of Floating Storage Build Key For Tanker Equities In Q220. Amid the double black swan start to the year (OPEC supply shock/pricing war coupled with demand destruction from the COVID-19 response), tanker equities have (generally) acted as a hedge against the rest of the energy tape, as the prospect of significant structural and arb-driven floating storage has supported tanker earnings well above seasonal trends (page 4). While increasing OPEC & Russian crude production battle to replace US exports (the degree to which remains in question) – the market mechanism for finding that new global production balance should ultimately result in saturated land based storage and a ramp in floating storage (already ~100mb), and narrower tanker capacity, providing a significant tailwind for tanker cash flows. From an equity perspective, we think about Tanker stocks (FRO, EURN, DHT, ASC, etc.) in 3 stages….(Pages 1-2)

What Would Robust Floating Storage Mean For Tanker Rates & Utilization In Q2/Q3? We ran a multi-factor scenario analysis based on our updated crude tanker utilization model, flexed for different levels of incremental daily crude production moving into floating storage over the next 2-3 quarters. At the low end of the range…(Pages 2-8)

For access information, please email us at [email protected]

W|EPC: Force Majeure & The LNG Supply Chain: Scenarios For BH, Kiewit, & Venture Global

Reviewing Satellite Images Of Italian Fabrication Yards & Force Majeure Flow Charts

• Supply Chain Overview Pages 1-2
• Satellite Images: BH’s Fabrication Yard In Avenza, Italy Pages 2-4
• Implications Of Calcasieu’s Unique Contractual/Structural Dynamics Pages 3-5
• Force Majeure Flow Charts: Wrapped vs Unwrapped Pages 4-5
• Pertinent Questions From Here Pages 5-6

For access information, please email us at [email protected]

The LNG Supply Chain & Force Majeure Dominoes. Given the continued, rolling implications of the global response to COVID-19, we thought it was worthwhile to examine potential points of friction as it pertains to the implications of Force Majeure (FM) declarations on large-scale, multi-faceted LNG export projects. We believe such a scenario is relevant for Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass (CPLNG) project given its globally linked supply chain – including its liquefaction modules which are being fabricated at a Baker Hughes (BH) fabrication facility in Avenza, Italy. (Satellite images on Pages 2-4)

Venture Global’s Potential FM Predicament Is Unique. A typical, fully wrapped, EPC contract would typically just keep an owner on the hook for extensions to a contractor’s guaranteed completion date. However, the less expensive, decentralized contracting structure that Venture Global has assembled for CPLNG could potentially expose the project to contractors looking to recover mitigation and prolongation costs. (Pages 2-4)

Implications Of FM Claim For BH, Kiewit, & VG. We believe work on CPLNG’s modules was still progressing last week (with non-essential personnel working from home), given the escalation in restrictions we believe those productivity dynamics are (justifiably) fluid. Should BH file a successful FM claim, it would most likely be granted… (Pages 3-6)

For access information, please email us at [email protected]

W|EPC Utilities & Energy – Sempra Deep Dive – Oncor, March 2020

Sempra (SRE) Capital Project Analysis – Oncor March 2020.

As part of our W|EPC Utility & Energy Project coverage, we’ve put together a deep dive into a number of large public utilities, including SRE, SO, D, AEP, CNP, ENB, EPD, ET, KMI, XOM, TOT, RDS:A, and others. We’ve included more information about our W|EPC Utility & Energy project coverage in the back of this presentation.

Given its size, and the sheer volume of projects and jurisdictions, we’re breaking our Sempra (SRE) coverage down into underlying components, with our Oncor deep dive below. Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, is headquartered in Dallas, TX and is a regulated electrical distribution and transmission business. It is owned by two investors, SRE (80.25%) and Texas Transmission Investment LLC (19.75%).

Our Key Takeaways On Oncor:

Out-sized Role In Critical TX Projects
- Oncor is involved with 5 out of the 10 most important projects to provide more efficient electricity dispatch, while supporting the increasing electrical demand in Texas. (Page 5)
Oncor vs. Other Investor Owned Utilities
- Oncor has 156 more projects scheduled to be completed in 2020 than AEP, ET (50% AEP/50% Berkshire Hathaway) and CNP combined. (Page 8)
Final Estimates vs. Final Actual Costs
- Over the last 15 months, Oncor’s reported final construction costs for 190 projects were 12% higher than their final estimated costs. (Pages 9-10)
Lubbock Power and Light
- Oncor’s May 2019 acquisition of InfraREIT included a variety of electricity transmission and distribution projects & assets, which included ~$3600MM joint project with Lubbock Power and Light (LP&L). (Pages 13, 17-20)
Future Project Opportunities
- The integration of LP&L to ERCOT should reduce congestion costs in the Panhandle of Texas and increase demand for new transmission projects in/and around Oncor’s coverage area. (Page 4)

Click here to buy this report

LNG Canada Update: Shell, Fluor, JGC, & Force Majeure

**March 18 Update………………………………….Page 2
Executive Summary…………………………………Page 3
COVID-19 Impact……………………………………Page 4
EPC Schedule Analysis……………………………..Page 5
Site Labor Analysis 6………………………………..Page 6
Site Labor EPC Cost Impact……………………….Page 7
Conclusions…………………………………………..Page 8

Update: In light of yesterday’s announcement that the Shell-led LNG Canada project was cutting its staffing levels in half over the coming days, we felt it worthwhile to pass along our LNG Canada Update from late February, along with a slide on our updated thoughts. (Page 2)

COVID-19 Impact Updates
1. The World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11-Mar-20.
a. JFJV may have a stronger FM claim now that WHO has declared the COVID-19 a pandemic, to the extent that JFJV specifically has “pandemic” or “epidemic” listed as an FM event in their contract.
b. FM Impact of Chinese module fabrication yards…….Page 4

2. On 17-Mar, LNG Canada and JFJV both announced that JFJV’s on-site workforce in Kitimat would be halved in order to increase social distancing and help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Given that the announcement was made jointly between JFJV and LNG Canada – impact on FM/schedule relief.…..Page 5

3.While JFJV did not announce when the site at Kitimat would resume a full workforce, it took “several” weeks for workers to return to JFJV’s Chinese fabrication yards…..Page 5

LNG Canada Planned Vs Foretasted Progress – Where Were We In February, and Where Are We Heading Now?…..Pages 5-8

Click here to buy this report

OPEC+ Fallout: Contagion Everywhere From Looming Price War…

***From Sunday 3/8***

For access information please email us at [email protected]

Tankers Among Few Eventual Beneficiaries

Impact On Tankers: Page 1, 3-5
The 2015 Tanker Comp, Similarities, Implied Upside Pages 3-4
Impact On LNG Developers (LNG, TELL, NEXT, GLNG, NFE) Pages 2-3
Historical & Implied Equity Correlations To Crude Vol Page 3
NAVs: Current, Mid-Cycle to Trough Range Page 3
OPEC+ Background Page 3, 6

This Is Going To Hurt: On Friday (3/6) talks between OPEC and its OPEC+ allies (Russia) over a corona-related production cut collapsed, sending oil prices down with it (Brent and WTI down 9% and 10%, respectively on Friday). While the lack of OPEC+ support for crude prices was enough to rattle markets, what’s transpired since – the relationship between the Saudis and the Russians rapidly devolving into what looks like an all-out pricing war – has the potential to reshape energy markets for years to come, and will likely take the mantle as the most value-destructive policy shift in decades.

Exogenous Demand Shock, Meet Exogenous Supply Shock. As noted below, Aramco has already come out with discounted crude prices (OSPs) on the back of the meeting, and is reportedly speaking to a potential production ramp from its current 9.7mbd, to well above 10mbd, and could even reach a record of 12mbd. Again – that would be additional supply into a market that’s already oversupplied amid global efforts to contain the Coronavirus (nCoV) weighing on demand. While the Russians have less available swing production, what they do have will be moving in the wrong direction as well, as they look to grab share from U.S. Shale producers.

How Does This Impact Our Universe:
Tankers: We’ll Call It Mixed… (And That’s One Of The Few Bright Spots). Once the dust settles the tanker group, including FRO, DHT, EURN, ASC, etc, should be one of the few actual overproduction beneficiaries as: 1) tanker activity and rates are generally positively levered to production volumes (including overproduction), and 2) we expect to see floating storage, both economic (as the front end of the crude forward curve collapses (already in progress) and…….continued on Pages 3-5

Most Relevant Tanker Comp: 2015, after OPEC failed to respond to falling crude prices. While overcapacity and falling crude prices ravaged the rest of the energy markets, Crude Tanker rates (VLCCs) averaged $65K/day (Figure 4) – a level not reached since 2008, up 116% y/y and the firmest level in nearly a decade. What would 2015 day rates mean for current tanker stocks? If we replaced our current 2020 rate decks with the 2015 average rates….continued on page Pages 2-3

Everything Stops. If nCoV brought the near-term prospects of new LNG business to a particularly slow crawl, we believe the OPEC+ blow up will bring it to a full stop, at least until the dust settles. For companies in the process of restructuring (like TELL).….continued on Pages 2-3

For access please email us at [email protected]

Noisy Neighbors: A Commonwealth LNG Deep Dive & Venture Global’s Engineering Update

Energy EPC: Venture Global’s Engineering Update & A Detailed Look At Their Commonwealth LNG

Note 1: As expected (and highlighted in our Commonwealth LNG Report below – initially published nearly two weeks ago), Venture Global has filed motion to intervene in Commonwealth’s project development due to its planned activity and dredging in the Calcasieu Ship Channel. We’ll continue to monitor.

Note 2: Over the next few weeks we’ll be rolling out a new line of Energy EPC research, centered around the unique and insightful analysis of EPC Risks. Please let us know if you have any questions, and we’re excited to share more details soon!***

Commonwealth LNG (CWLNG) is a proposed 8.4 MTPA LNG export facility located on a 393-acre site in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Project is on the west side of the Calcasieu Ship Channel (“the Channel”) near the entrance of where the Channel spills into the US Gulf of Mexico. The Project is also located directly across the river from Venture Global LNG’s (“VGLNG”) 10.0 MTPA Calcasieu Pass LNG (CPLNG) export facility (Figure 1).

In the 20-pages that follow, we’ve analyzed the CWLNG project and how the Project’s boundaries and shipping operations may be an issue for CPLNG, the State of Louisiana, and the U.S. Coast Guard. (Webber note: again – VG filed a motion to intervene after this piece originally went to clients in late February)

CWLNG’s execution plan is based upon modularizing the LNG process and pre-treatment units as well as the LNG storage tanks. Typically, a full containment 160,000 m3 LNG storage tank takes 36 to 42 months to construct and commission. CWLNG has proposed modularizing six (6) 40,000 m3 single containment LNG tanks…(continued pages 2-22)

Venture Global LNG: Calcasieu Pass Engineering Update – Details, Background, & Key Questions

Key Points:

CPLNG’s engineering, procurement, and construction workflow/ sequencing is not following “traditional” EPC industry standards. (Pages 2-3)
It’s too early to tell if that differentiated sequencing has helped expedite the project or if procurement and construction activities will be impacted in later stages. (Page 3-4)
CPLNG’s recent engineering filings point to significant, relatively late-stage engineering changes (at least by historical standards) that warrant monitoring from a cost and timeline perspective. (analysis on Pages 4-6)

Click here to buy this report