Golar Lng Ltd Q1 FY2025 Earnings Call

Welcome to the Golar LNG Limited First Quarter 2025 Presentation. After the slide presentation by the CEO, Karl Fredrik Staubo; CFO, Eduardo Maranhao; CTO, Morten Skjong and Chairman, Tor Olav Trøim, there will be a question and answer session. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. I will now pass you over to Karl Fredrik Staubo. Karl, please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and welcome to Golar LNG’s Q1 2025 earnings results presentation. My name is Karl Fredrik Staubo, CEO of Golar LNG, and I'm very pleased to be accompanied today by our Chairman, Mr. Tor Olav Trøim, our CFO, Eduardo Maranhao, and our Chief Technical Officer, Mr. Morten Skjong, to present this quarter's results. Before we get into the presentation, please note the forward-looking statements on Slide 2. As normal, we start on Slide 3 with an overview of Golar today. Golar is now a focused FLNG company. We own three units, of which two are on the water and one is under conversion. The key event of the quarter was securing two 20-year charters, one for our FLNG Hilli, following the end of our current charter in Cameroon in July next year, as well as entering into definitive agreements for a 20-year charter for our Mark II FLNG and its construction. As announced on our Q4 call, we have now fully exited LNG shipping with the sale of the Golar Arctic and our equity stake in Avenir LNG. We currently have a market cap of around $4 billion, total net debt shy of $800 million, and a fully delivered net debt to EBITDA of around 2.8 times. Our strong cash flow visibility, solid balance sheet, and market-leading position as the only proven provider of FLNG as a service set the company up for continued attractive FLNG growth. We have three FLNG designs available for growth, and we will elaborate on our ambitions as we go through today's presentation. Turning to Slide 4 and a focus on Hilli, which is still the best-performing FLNG globally. Hilli maintained her market-leading 100% operational uptime during the quarter. Hilli has delivered 132 cargoes since contract commencement in 2018, amounting to over 9.2 million tons of LNG produced. On May 2, all conditions precedent for her 20-year redeployment in Argentina were concluded, and the final investment decision was taken, securing $5.7 billion of EBITDA backlog before commodity upside. We have now designated a dedicated team of project and operations personnel to manage Hilli's planned vessel upgrades and transit from Cameroon to Argentina to facilitate 20 years of on-site operations. On Slide 5, we focus on our second FLNG, the Gimi, which is in her final stage of commissioning to start her 20-year charter for BP offshore Mauritania and Senegal. The commencement of operations will activate the vessel on our P&L statement. Golar's share of the contractual EBITDA is $151 million based on 90% capacity utilization, with any production above that level translating into a pro rata increase in Golar's share of EBITDA generation by Gimi. Following the commercial reset announced in August of last year, Golar has invoiced $196 million in pre-COD payments from the GTA upstream partners. This amount is recognized on our balance sheets and will be amortized over the contract duration. We have successfully offloaded 2 LNG cargoes and expect COD to remain on track within this quarter, marking the start of the 20-year contract period. Turning to Slide 6 for an update on our Mark II FLNG conversion. The conversion of the LNG carrier Fuji into a 3.5 million tons per annum Mark II FLNG is well underway. During Q1, the Fuji arrived at the shipyard in China. The vessel has now been divided in two and moved onshore. The liquefaction plant that will be built in a new midship section is well underway, and a significant portion of our long lead items have arrived at the shipyard, ready for installation. The project remains on schedule for delivery by the end of 2027. On May 2, simultaneous with the final investment decision for the FLNG Hilli charter in Argentina, we entered into definitive agreements for a 20-year charter for the Mark II to operate alongside Hilli in Argentina. The contract is subject to the same conditions precedent as for Hilli, which were completed in July last year. These conditions include environmental assessments, export licenses, risk protection, and a final investment decision by the partners. All the conditions are expected to be lifted within 2025, and we expect to benefit from the recent Hilli process approvals. The CapEx to EBITDA for the Mark II is around 5.5 times before commodity upside for a 20-year charter period with a further five-year extension option in the charter's favor. On Slide 7, we visualize these substantial charter developments. Our contract backlog now stands at more than 60 years of combined contracts across our three FLNGs, equating to approximately $17 billion of EBITDA backlog before factoring in commodity exposure. This existing fleet is now fully contracted, and we are progressing towards our goal of transforming into a market-leading infrastructure company with attractive commodity upside. In the next section, we will elaborate further on key attributes of our FLNG charters in Argentina. Turning to the next section and Slide number 9, we illustrate the LNG value chain and Southern Energy's role in introducing Argentina as an LNG exporting nation. As part of the Argentina deal, Southern Energy has secured fixed-price gas sales agreements for 20 years from the upstream partners of SESA to provide the project with natural gas sourced from the Vaca Muerta onshore field in Argentina. SESA will facilitate a dedicated pipeline to transport the natural gas from the Vaca Muerta to the FLNG location in the Gulf of San Matias, approximately 500 kilometers away. This will equate to a fixed pipeline fee for SESA. SESA will manage chartering and operating the FLNGs, as well as marketing the gas. Their responsibilities include all activities from the Vaca Muerta until LNG is produced and ready for export. The export point price is referred to as 'free on board' (FOB). The difference between FOB prices and the LNG prices typically recognized is the shipping costs from the production site to the consumption destination. The destination price is referred to as 'delivery ex-ship' (DES) pricing. As part of the charters, Golar will receive 25% of all achieved LNG prices above $8 per MMBtu in FOB price. In the current market, TTF and JKM spot prices are trading around $12, indicating a potential upside of $2 to $3 above the $8 threshold if the project were operational today. Turning to Slide 10 and some contract highlights. Both vessels have a 20-year contract term. Hilli will generate an annual EBITDA of $285 million and the Mark II will generate $400 million. Operational expenditures are passed through for both vessels. Both EBITDA tariffs are subject to a CPI adjustment equivalent to 30% of US CPI from year 6. Both vessels have the same upside component of 25% above $8. Combined, the two contracts provide Golar with an EBITDA backlog of $13.7 billion before considering the CPI adjustment and commodity upside. Transitioning to Slide 11, we will discuss the commodity upside aspect of the charters. As mentioned, Golar will enjoy a 25% upside above $8. For every dollar above this threshold, we anticipate an annual EBITDA increment of around $70 million. Over the contract lifetime, this translates into $1.4 billion of additional EBITDA for every dollar pricing above $8, with a limited downside mechanism, where Golar would provide a temporary discount should annual average FOB prices drop below $7.5 down to $6. This provides a maximum downside exposure of $210 million over two years, with no cap on the upside. If this contract was in place over the past five years, it would have generated significant additional EBITDA beyond the contracted amounts. Regarding our additional commodity exposure, Golar holds a 10% stake in Southern Energy alongside our upstream partners. This stake brings in additional commodity exposure without caps on the downside or upside, with changes in gas prices impacting Golar's EBITDA generation by approximately $28 million for each dollar change. Thus, when combining the $70 million upside tariff and the $28 million equity ownership impact, a $1 change in the gas price equates to approximately $100 million in EBITDA upside. This is further elaborated on Slide 13, where we outline our EBITDA buildup. Hilli has a base tariff of $285 million; Mark II $400 million; indicating combined earnings capacity of $685 million. The downside scenario tied to our equity stake in SESA factors in, while the rest is upside. Each dollar above $8 results in roughly $100 million additional EBITDA, and each dollar below entails a downside of about $28 million, indicative of a favorable risk-reward profile. Given the current and anticipated LNG prices, we foresee substantial additional EBITDA contributions from this commodity upside. Turning to Slide 14, we note that contracting in Argentina has not been without risks. We have implemented extensive risk mitigation strategies, both regulatory and legal, to support the charters. Highlights include English Law governing all charters, all payments in US dollars, and support from the Argentine government to introduce regulatory frameworks that encourage domestic investment and provide us with a 30-year non-interruptible LNG export license for the FLNG Hilli. We are also engaged with the large investment incentive scheme under the recent regulatory protection framework which assures regulatory stability throughout the project's duration, and ensures restrictions on imposing new national, provincial, or municipal taxes, alongside full freedom to repatriate profits, dividends, and capital during the contract's life. These same protections are integral to the conditions precedent for the Mark II Charter. Moving on to Slide 15, we examine the global LNG market and SESA's significance in this context. As we entered this year, the market stood at around 430 million tons, with the USA being the largest current producer holding a 23% market share. Expected growth in the coming years is significantly driven by American volumes. Hence, we are keen to align with cost-competitive projects versus US exports, acknowledged as the marginal producer. Referring to the cost curve on the right-hand side, we can note that the delivered price of US export projects exceeds $10 per MMBtu. Continuing to Slide 16, we assess how the recently announced Argentina-Golar contracts compare with US liquefaction projects. Our gross tariff is significantly superior to those in US liquefaction contracts, where EBITDA is net of operational and maintenance costs approximately $2, while we've secured roughly $2.45. CapEx per ton currently sits at about $1 billion for US liquefaction, versus $600 million for the Mark II. CPI adjustments are noted at 20%-30% in the US, compared to 30% for our Argentina contracts. Additionally, no commodity upside exists for US liquefaction tolling arrangements, while we benefit from the 25% incentive above the $8 FOB threshold. These characteristics indicate that a higher EBITDA tariff and a reduced CapEx per ton yield higher returns on employed capital. Our commodity upside offers strong participation without spot market risk, and the fixed-price gas sales agreement provides SESA with a call on international LNG pricing for 20 years. We are confident we will capture 25% of monthly volatility despite no definitive gas price forecasts available. In summary, with low CapEx requirements and high average tariffs, we favorably position ourselves compared to other LNG liquefaction infrastructure investments. Slide 17 shows that we aim for an optimal balance of low CapEx and high average tariffs, alongside maintaining long-term cash flow visibility. We currently hold 20-year contracts for all our three assets that ensure a stable revenue stream. Turning to business updates on Slide 19, we highlight key quarter accomplishments from our business development department, including final investment decisions for Hilli and definitive agreements for the Mark II. We see strong momentum on further FLNG commercial developments, with few yard slots available within the 2020s. There's growing interest from projects that missed out on Hilli and Mark II. We're targeting competitive wellhead gas opportunities that secure both attractive base tariffs and commodity upside. Our negotiations span across various vessel designs including Mark I, II, and III, with some discussions involving potential equity participation.

Good morning, good afternoon. In Golar, we have three different FLNG designs: Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III, with liquefaction capacities ranging from around 2 million tons per annum up to a maximum of 5.4 million tons per annum. This depends on the FLNG configuration, feed gas properties, and ambient conditions. The Mark I at Seatrium is a successful design with 2 units currently in operation, and Hilli has a stellar track record during its contract in Cameroon with Perenco. Meanwhile, our first Mark II conversion is progressing well at CIMC Raffles, where the EPC contract includes options for a second vessel. Our Mark III represents years of innovative engineering alongside Samsung's world-leading FLNG track record. A common advantage across all designs is the Black & Veatch precool liquefaction technology, which allows us to leverage vital lessons learned across FLNG designs. Importantly, these projects benefit from the input and leadership from Golar's world-class projects and operations teams. With the FID for Hilli and the signing of definitive agreements for the Mark II in Argentina, we are advancing constructively with our contractors to confirm updated pricing and schedules for our FLNG designs. We have also successfully completed ship inspections for potential donor vessels for either Mark I or Mark II and are confident that we can secure a conversion candidate with Fuji's storage capabilities or higher at a favorable price. Furthermore, we are in discussions with long lead equipment suppliers to ensure timely acquisition of critical equipment for our future projects. This preparation will enable us to pursue at least one FLNG EPC award this year, regardless of the design we select.

Thank you, Morten, and good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to provide an overview of Golar's financial performance for the first quarter of 2025. Moving to Slide 22, let’s review some key financial highlights of the quarter. We achieved total operating revenues of $63 million, while total FLNG tariffs reached $73 million. Over the last 12 months, total FLNG tariffs amounted to $336 million, illustrating revenues from FLNG Hilli and realized gains from TTF and Brent-linked fees. The Gimi has also begun contributing to our cash flows, and as of May 2025, we invoiced around $196 million in pre-COD fees under the commercial reset agreement, most of which has been received. This amount does not appear in our P&L but is recognized on the balance sheet until COD. Total EBITDA reached $41 million in Q1, significantly driven by lower Brent and TTF prices. Over the past year, total EBITDA amounted to $218 million. During this quarter, we reported a net income of $13 million, matching the previous quarter. This figure includes $32 million of non-cash items, reflecting adjustments in the value of embedded TTF and Brent derivatives within the Hilli contract, along with changes in our interest rate swaps. Our liquidity remains robust, with approximately $680 million in cash at quarter end. I will address these initiatives and others on the financing front in the next slide. Lastly, we're pleased to declare a dividend of $0.25 per share this quarter, with a record date of June 3 and payment set for June 10, which translates to around $105 million annually on a run-rate basis. Now turning to Slide 23 for a closer look at our debt position. At the end of Q1, we had just under $1.5 billion of gross debt when adjusted for our 70% stake in Gimi. On an asset level, considering the existing $17 billion EBITDA backlog mentioned by Karl, our units remain significantly under-leveraged given our cash flow visibility extending beyond 2045. This is bolstered by further growth from increased capacity utilization and commodity exposure. Recently, we entered a $1.2 billion debt facility to refinance Gimi with a consortium of top Chinese leasing companies. This facility comes with a 12-year tenor and a 17-year amortization profile. Closing on this facility will generate around $530 million in net proceeds, with 70% or $370 million of these funds being released to us. Currently, we are working on fulfilling remaining closing conditions, which involve stakeholder approvals, aiming to close around summer. Additionally, to evaluate our debt optimization options, we've completed the rating process with major agencies, allowing us to engage the capital markets more effectively. Regarding Hilli, we possess an EBITDA backlog that provides ample room for optimizing its financing, and our current levels stand around $0.5 billion. The Mark II remains fully unencumbered with about $700 million of equity invested in its construction. We currently maintain a net debt position of around $800 million projected to rise to approximately $2.3 billion upon the completion of the Mark II’s remaining CapEx. By 2028, with Mark II fully operational, our anticipated fully delivered run rate EBITDA is expected to reach $835 million before any commodity upside. This positions us with a favorable leverage ratio of 2.8 times net debt to EBITDA, supported by clear earnings visibility extending through 2045. Assuming a conservative 5 times net debt-to-EBITDA ratio, capitalizing on our secured long-term contracts, refinancing existing debt on optimized terms could potentially unlock upwards of $1.9 billion in equity. This strategic move aims to facilitate growth and fund additional FLNG units, streamlining capital recycling efforts for sustainable self-funding.

Yes, I'm not going to take much time. It's probably been 10 years since I've been on one of these calls, but it's valuable to recap what has happened over this 25 years since we took over and to credit the people who have effectively built this company. I think Sea Tankers took over Osprey as a conglomerate in the late 90s. We transitioned into an LNG growth vehicle due to our belief in LNG's high commodity growth potential, which seems to have been vindicated as we scaled from approximately 130 ships back then to more than 600. The increase over this period has been dramatic. Yet, I also recognize we were probably 15 years ahead of the market. As we reached 2001, we shifted focus onto shipping with an innovative approach to commodity shipping with spot tonnage, initially perceived as audacious. But within three years, we cultivated a scenario where many followed suit. We then made a transition towards developing LNG terminals, engaging with President Lula of Brazil to foster independence from oil and gas, which then shifted us towards becoming an FSRU company, yielding good returns initially until the market adjusted. By 2014, a transformation was crucial. We worked on the FLNG concept since 2010; however, internal disputes led to my departure from Sea Tankers. We arranged the buyout of the $1.8 billion stake from Seatankers with strong support from institutional holders and secured our first FLNG order amidst a challenging start. The downturn in oil markets in 2014 made securing contracts vital, and our track record covers over a decade since then. Although fluctuating LNG prices have posed challenges, we have evolved into the largest FLNG company globally. Among our proudest partnerships is that with Perenco, a company we've collaborated with since 2012, who we consider one of the best operators in the sector. This latest deal has led to a backlog of $17 billion spanning over 20 years, which I believe should positively influence our share price. This board, with a history of rejecting bids during less favorable times, is committed to delivering maximum shareholder value over time. However, we recognize the necessity to attract alternative funding structures to support continuous growth. The market's perception of fossil fuel industries has created volatility, yet natural gas is an essential driver within global energy balance, with electric consumption rising year-on-year. I firmly believe we possess a unique growth outlook. The opportunity to develop assets under 20-year contracts at competitive multiples keeps us optimistic about our future.

Thank you, Tor, for your kind words. I fully resonate with the commentary regarding our organization. We will continue our diligent efforts to enhance stakeholder value. As for final remarks, moving to Slide 32, each of our assets has secured 20-year-plus charters. Hilli will conclude her current contract in July next year before relocating to Argentina. Gimi is set to commence operations for BP offshore Mauritania and Senegal, while Mark II is preparing for her conversion and subsequent deployment to Argentina for a 20-year charter. We continue to highlight our $17 billion EBITDA backlog with significant commodity upside potential. Looking towards Slide 33, I would like to outline some key milestones and objectives for the remainder of the year. Gimi has successfully completed her two first LNG cargoes, with the third cargo currently in progress and COD expected within Q2. We've finalized the FID of the 20-year charter with Southern Energy for Hilli, reflecting an adjusted EBITDA backlog of $5.7 billion. We have fully divested from shipping-related assets, including Avenir and the Golar Arctic. Ultimately, our ongoing targets include optimizing the refinancing process for Gimi, finalizing the conditions precedent for the 20-year Mark II charter, and further targeting balance sheet optimization based on our 20-year contracts to ensure continued attractive growth initiatives for FLNG units. This concludes our prepared remarks for our Q1 call. I'll now turn the call over to the operator for any questions.

We are now going to proceed with our first question. The questions come from the line of Alexander Bidwell from Webber Research & Advisory. Please ask your question.

Good afternoon. Appreciate the time. Can you touch on the overall commercial strategy for offtake on the Argentina project? Is there a target mix of merchant and contracted volumes that you are aiming for?

Sure. That work will be led by Southern Energy, where we are obviously a shareholder and will assist. The target is to have a basket of offtake likely between Brent, JKM, and TTF linked along with some spot volume. There are no LNG exports in this region presently, and a few high-paying countries nearby could further enhance earnings.

Thank you for the clarification. Quick one again regarding the Argentina contracts. Is there additional upside on the base charter rate for excess production similar to the Gimi contract?

No, they have chartered the full capacity. The $685 million is set for the full capacity. Just like with Gimi, we only guarantee 90% of nameplate capacity, and we capture any excess revenue through our shareholding in Southern Energy.

Thank you. We are now going to proceed with our next question. The questions come from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi from BTIG. Please ask your question.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. Regarding potential future units, if we are considering placing an order by year-end, when should we start thinking about ordering the long-lead items for another new build? And if we do place an order this year, what would the delivery timeline be?

For the Mark I and II, both based on conversions, the average conversion time is about 3 years. For the Mark III, as a new build concept, we are looking at approximately 4 years. The ramp-up of shipyard activity at present will ensure that we meet this construction timeframe and should include preparations for long lead items as well.

Got it. And for the Southern Energy JV, a couple of related questions. First, what would be the JV breakeven price for commodity exposure? And do Golar's 10% stake entail any CapEx obligations for the onshore infrastructure?

We haven't disclosed SESA's exact breakeven, but it’s reasonable to assume downside participation starts at $7.5, with upside commencing at $8. Both the gas sales agreements and scheduled pipeline fee are fixed for the 20-year term, thus I don't foresee significant breakeven shifts over time. Yes, Golar is responsible for 10% of required investments by SESA; however, this does not cover upstream work, only infrastructure for exports like port connections and mooring systems for the FLNGs.

Thanks, Karl. I’ll turn it over.

We are now going to proceed with our next question. The questions come from the line of Chris Robertson from Deutsche Bank. Please ask your question.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. The company just made a significant announcement regarding the FID of the Hilli and the definitive agreement for the Fuji. I wanted to clarify, if the share price remains here at current levels, is the company considering strategic alternatives? Would this process be made public if the Board chooses to explore this route?

This is Karl, and I'll begin. Management is committed to operating the business effectively and making sound decisions. It's also our responsibility to consider where the best bid for the company lies. That said, our priority is day-to-day operations, and while we are open to outside investment ideas, we are not actively pursuing any such bids. Strategic alternatives would fall under Board consideration, and any disclosure will align with their assessment.

The Board understands the current valuation of our backlog and recognizes future growth opportunities. We see substantial value here, and if the stock market fails to acknowledge this value long-term, we must take action. Our mandate is to create value for shareholders, and we won't be passive about an undervalued situation. Strategic options can take many forms, but typically, they originate from incoming inquiries rather than active outreach.

Thank you for that. A more mundane question here - can you clarify any remaining CapEx associated with Gimi during Q1 and Q2, as it approaches COD? Do you also anticipate any CapEx related to SESA this year?

Eduardo, would you like to address that?

Absolutely. Regarding the Gimi, we do not anticipate any substantial payments in the second quarter. As mentioned earlier, we've accounted for nearly $200 million in pre-COD revenues on our balance sheet that won't affect the P&L until we reach COD. We are nearing the COD stage, and upon starting operations, we will record contributions from contract revenues.

Got it. Thank you.

We are now going to proceed with our next question. The question comes from the line of Fredrik Dybwad from Fearnley Securities. Please ask your question.

Thank you so much and appreciate a great earnings call so far. My question relates to the potential additional units being ordered this year or next. You mentioned considering Mark I, II, and potentially III. Can you provide an overview of suitable fields? For instance, how many contracts are there for Mark I compared to Mark II, assuming the Mark I demonstrates greater flexibility?

That’s an important question. All three designs are generic, meaning they are not tailored for any specific field, allowing flexibility for deployment at various opportunities. With larger units like Mark II, greater gas reserves and flows are needed to utilize the vessel fully. Therefore, smaller designs typically face more commercial opportunities. However, the larger units may still be essential for development economics for specific projects. We are actively engaging with potential contracts across all designs and look to progress negotiations for multiple units this year. There's notable demand from parties disappointed by the outcome of Hilli and Mark II contracts. We're focused on nurturing the interest of counterparties as they now lack available liquefaction units.

Thank you. As a follow-up, you mentioned wanting to maintain one speculative order without a contract. Is that stance still the same? Or would you consider ordering two new vessels without contracts, similar to what you did with Fuji?

As stated in previous mentions, as long as we have visibility for charters, we aim to only have one speculative order. Given our current outlook, we believe it is highly likely that Mark II will secure a commitment in Argentina. The simultaneous signing of the definitive agreements reflects the economic benefits of utilizing both ships in the same region. Given the operational synergies, we're confident we can move forward with Unit #4 while adhering strictly to our strategy of maintaining one speculative unit open.

Thank you very much.

We are now going to proceed with our next question. The questions come from line of Petter Haugen from ABG Sundal Collier. Please ask your question.

Good afternoon, everyone. Just a quick clarification. For the CPI adjustments, I understand it applies to both the base EBITDA and to the upside ceiling of $8 per annum. Additionally, is it also applicable to the downside potential of $7.5 and $6 per MMBtu?

Indeed, your understanding is correct.

Thank you very much. If possible, I’d like to ask the Chairman about the Board's perception of what constitutes fair business valuation, considering both current standing and future growth opportunities.

While we have detailed valuations and scenarios discussed internally, it's best not to speculate publicly on specifics. From what I can say, I believe the valuation should reasonably be higher than current trading levels. However, we won't set guidance on any value recommendations as we believe sustained undervaluation should prompt the Board to take necessary actions. Our earlier bids demonstrate strong interest in parts of our asset base, underlining that our assets are valuable.

We are now going to proceed with our last question. The question comes from line of Michael Webber from Webber Research. Please ask your question.

Hi, good morning, everyone. I’d like to follow up on SESA, specifically regarding the gas supplied to both Hilli and the other unit. I understand Hilli's connected to an existing pipeline network which can leverage latent capacity, while a dedicated pipe is expected for the additional assets. Is treatment already in place, or does treatment need to be built for either Hilli or subsequent facilities?

All necessary infrastructure falls under the onshore development plan. However, Vaca Muerta gas is generally lean, necessitating minimal treatment. Facilities for the required treatments are mostly pre-existing.

In regard to timing for the treatment capacity correlated with the charter initiation, do you view that as a substantial risk?

The infrastructure aligns with a construction timeline significantly under two years. We've dedicated over a year to planning, leading us to believe we are well-positioned to facilitate necessary infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you for your participation. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for being here. You may now disconnect your lines.