curso de actualizaciÓn en regulaciÓn en gas natural ...€¦ · golar igloo ± 2015 dubai, uae...

1

CURSO DE ACTUALIZACIÓN EN REGULACIÓN EN GAS

NATURAL LICUADO (GNL), TERMINALES DE

REGASIFICACIÓN Y ALMACENAMIENTO.

12 y 13 de Agosto de 2019.

Forward Looking Statements

NASDAQ: GLNG and GMLP

This presentation contains forward - looking statements (as defined in Section 21 E of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 , as amended) which reflects current expectations, estimates and projections about itsoperations . All statements, other than statements of historical facts, that address activities and events that will,should, could or may occur in the future are forward - looking statements . Words such as

or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward - lookingstatements . These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertaintiesand other factors, some of which are beyond our control and are difficult to predict . Therefore, actual outcomes andresults may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in such forward - looking statements . You should notplace undue reliance on these forward - looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this presentation .Unless legally required, Golar LNG undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward - looking statementswhether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise .Among the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward - lookingstatements are : changes in liquefied natural gas ( LNG) floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) and floatingliquefaction natural gas vessel (FLNGV) market trends, including charter rates, ship values and technologicaladvancements ; changes in our ability to retrofit vessels as FSRUs and FLNGVs, our ability to obtain financing for suchconversions on acceptable terms or at all, and the timing of the delivery and acceptance of such converted vessels ;changes in the supply of or demand for LNG or LNG carried by sea; a material decline or prolonged weakness in ratesfor LNG carriers or FSRUs; changes in trading patterns that affect the opportunities for the profitable operation of LNGcarriers, FSRUs or FLNGVs; changes in the supply of or demand for natural gas generally or in particular regions ;changes in our relationships with major chartering parties ; changes in the availability of vessels to purchase, the timeit takes to construct new vessels, or useful lives ; failure of shipyards to comply with delivery schedules on atimely basis or at all ; our ability to integrate and realize the benefits of acquisitions ; changes in our ability to sellvessels to Golar LNG Partners LP, or Golar Partners ; changes in our relationship with Golar Partners ; changes to rulesand regulations applicable to LNG carriers, FSRUs or FLNGVs; actions taken by regulatory authorities that mayprohibit the access of LNG carriers, FSRUs or FLNGVs to various ports ; our inability to achieve successful utilization ofour expanded fleet and inability to expand beyond the carriage of LNG; increases in costs including among otherthings crew wages, insurance, provisions, repairs and maintenance ; changes in general domestic and internationalpolitical conditions, particularly where we operate ; changes in our ability to obtain additional financing on acceptableterms or at all ; and other factors listed from time to time in reports or other materials that we have filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, including our most recent annual report on Form 20 -F. Unpredictable orunknown factors also could have material adverse effects on forward - looking statements .

The Golar Group

Power/logistics

Golar LNG CoolCo Golar Partners Golar Power

Golar Celsius Golar Penguin

4

Golar Nanook + Golar Hilli route to Sergipe, Brazil

Golar Freeze in JamaicaGolar Winter and Golar Spirit in Pecem, Brazil

Nusantara Regas Satu in Indonesia Golar Eskimo in Aqaba, JordanGolar Igloo in Mina Al-Ahmadi, Kuwait

Golar’sFSRUs in operation: Substantial experience in multiple locations

5

Golar has a global corporate footprint

Oslo, Norway

Technical,

Procurement and

Operations

London, United

Kingdom

Global HQ,

Administration

Split, Croatia

IT, Crewing and

Logistics

Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

VesselAccounting

Douala,

Cameroon

Hilli FLNG

Operations

Bermuda

Principal

Headquarters

Sergipe, Brazil

CELSE Project

Company

Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil

Golar Power HQ

6

Aqaba, Jordan

Golar Eskimo – 2015Mina Al-Ahmadi, Kuwait

Golar Igloo – 2015

Dubai, UAE

Golar Freeze – 2010-2018

Jakarta, Indonesia

Nusantara Regas Satu – 2012

Rio de Janeiro & Bahia de

Todos Santos, Brazil

Golar Winter – 2009/2012

Sergipe, Brazil

Golar Nanook - 2019

Pecem, Brazil

Golar Spirit – 2008-2017

Old Harbour, Jamaica

Golar Freeze – 2018

Operational projects

Completed projects

Golar FSRU Projects: A global footprint with substantial operational experience –more than 124 million cubic meter LNG delivered to date

Golar FSRUs: Global footprint with more than 1,000 safe and reliable cargo operations

Discharge type # of cargoes Million m3 LNG

Jetty 444 66.6

Side-by-Side 564 58.5

Total 1,008 125.2

Operator # of cargoes Million m3 LNG

Golar LNG 45 4.9

Non-Golar LNG 963 120.2

Total 1,008 125.2

7

Whatimplicationsofnaturalgasliquefaction,whatareitscosts

andwhatmakesa liquefactionprojectfeasible?

Isit idealforColombiaconsiderliquefactionandexportLNG?

Whatarethemainregasificationandliquefactionmarketsfor

LNGintheworld?

Whatarethecosts,timesandthenecessarylogisticsof LNG

transport?

Whatisthebestalternative: Landbaseorfloatingsolutions?

WhattodoandhowtooptimizetheBoil-Offprocess?

Main Issues

8





LNGintheworld?


transport?



Main Issues

LNG –High Growth

9

LNG and renewable growing fastestGlobal energy demand of 264 million boe/day

Source: BP Statistical Review 2018, Shell LNG Outlook 2019

Oil34%

Natural Gas20%LNG

3%

Coal28%

Nuclear4%

Hydro7%

Renewables4%

-0,4 %

0,4 %

2,9 % 2,9 %3,4 %

9,4 %

16,6 %

-2,0 %

0,0 %

2,0 %

4,0 %

6,0 %

8,0 %

10,0 %

12,0 %

14,0 %

16,0 %

18,0 %

Co

al

Oil

Hydro

Nu

cle

ar

Na

tura

l G

as

LN

G

Re

new

able

s

Exp

ecte

d C

AG

R (

2015

-2020)

LNG and renewables are the fastest growing sources of energy globally

Shell’s LNG Outlook 2019

“Gas provides required flexibility for power generation”

“LNG continues to be the fastest-growing gas supply source”

“Gas to supply the largest share of energy demand growth, supplying over 40% of additional demand by 2035”

LNG - Cheap Energy

10

LNG value chain: from well to delivery

(1) Henry Hub 2021 forward price + 15% and WAF USD 1.4/MMBTU price

(2) US: USD 3/MMBTU landbasedtolling fee, WAF USD 2/MMBTU offshore tolling fee

(3) Assumes large LNG carrier with 10% economics on charter (to Europe for US Gas and Asia for WAF gas)

(4) Assumes FSRU with 10% economics on charter

3,00

3,00

1,10

0,407,50

1,40

2,00

0,90

0,404,70

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

Source LNG (1)Liquefaction(2)

Shipping (3) Regas (4) Delivered Gas

US

D/M

MB

TU

LNG can be sourced at USD 28-44/bbl brent oil dependent on source gas location

LNG is cheaper than oil

a West AfricaLNGb Henry HubLNG HFO Brent Diesel

28

44

6265

82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

West AfricaLNG USD/BOE

US LNGUSD/BOE

HFO Current Brent Diesel

US

D/B

OE

a West Africa LNGb Henry Hub LNG

LNG –Liquefaction issues

• Liquefaction costs vary across projects but have, on average, risen significantly over the last

decade.

• Several projects have seen cost increases of 30–50% over estimates at FID.

• With numerous projects reaching FID in a similar timeframe, demand for engineering,

procurement and construction (EPC) services led to elevated input and labor costs

• Construction delays have also impacted costs.

• Factors in determining liquefaction costs include a project’s location, capacity, liquefaction

process and choice of compressor driver, storage, skilled labor availability, and regulatory and

permitting requirements.

Oil-to-gas switch =

An annual multi billion dollar opportunity

Trucks

19 million

bblspd

Power

5 million

bblspd

Rail

2 million

bblspd

Marine

4 million

bblspd

Res/Comm

11 million

bblspd

41 million bbl/day

Annual cost saving vs. oil price (USDbn)Oil-to-gas switch potential

LNG / Natural Gas can replace ~40 million barrels of oil per day

Based on significant LNG reserves and forward LNG price, LNG can be delivered at USD 42 boe

Oil-to-gas switch potential of USD ~263bn on current oil price

Further potential in stronger oil price scenarios

117

263

336

409

555

701

847

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

50 60 65 70 80 90 100

An

nu

al

co

st

sav

ing

oil

-to

-gas s

wit

ch

in

U

SD

bn

Oil price (USD/bbl)

13

Current project pipeline by year of COD: Close to 50% of projects have uncertain COD

Current project pipeline by region: Asia and Latin America are biggest, but also with highest uncertainty

Market/Pipeline –Demand: More than 60 projects on ‘everything included’ list

3

1112

6

32

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

# o

f p

roje

cts

West Africa South Asia South East Asia

Latin America Caribbean Middle East

Europe Other Africa

7

16

11

16

4 43 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

# o

f p

roje

cts

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Uncertain

14





LNGintheworld?


transport?



Main Issues

15

Regasification and Liquefaction markets

Sources: IHS Markit, IGU, Company Announcements

LNG LIQUEFACTION

16



LNG REGAS

17



LNG GLOBAL TRADE

293

X

370

18





LNGintheworld?


transport?



Main Issues

19

Comparison of Floating (FSRU) and Onshore Regasification

• The vast majority of existing regasification terminals are located onshore, amounting to 82% of total

global regasification terminals (2018).

• However, the ratio onshore to offshore terminals has been shifting in recent years. Of the seven terminals

that began operations in 2017, only four were onshore developments.

• Furthermore, only eleven of the nineteen terminals under construction as of early 2018 are listed as

onshore proposals.

• FSRUs and onshore terminals each have distinct benefits and drawbacks for regasification utilization,

which often depends significantly on the requirements of the specific target market.

20

Global FSRU fleet status

21

Different design and energy production systems

Moss tankers:

Spherical tanks

Higher cost than membrane

Long life time (400-600 year tank design life!))

Majority built before 2000

Mostly 125 000-150 000m3

Suitable for all weather conditions

Membrane tankers

Tanks part of hull construction

Lowest production cost

Life time 40 year (+?)

After 2000, nearly all year newbuilt LNG tankers are membranetype

70 000– 250 000 m3

Weather operation constrains when tanks are not full or empty

FSRU types

Steam ships:

Until about 2008 all LNG carriers and FSRUs were steam driven.

Very reliable, low operating cost

High fuel consumption

3 Fuel (DFDE) ships:

From about 2008 most ships are ordered with diesel engines running on diesel, heavy fuel or gas

Requires considerable more maintenance than steam

Considerably less fuel consumption than steam

Two stroke

Newest technology, but not well suited as FSRU

22

FSRU Newbuilding x Conversion

Newbuilding

Conversion

23

FSRU Conversion x Newbuilding

• Lower cost

• Optimized overall design

• Continuous improvement

• Less Project Management

• Full design responsibility by Yard

• Commissioning and trials prior to delivery

• Yards resource available

• Easier to finance?

• Long lead time 28 to 36 months

• Project requirement needed at an early stage

•

• Yards not always cooperative

• Less flexible for later modifications

• Modifications during late stage of construction are expensive

• Specification easily copied by others

Pros Cons

24





LNGintheworld?


transport?



Main Issues

25

Boil-Off: Dealing with the fact that LNG is a ‘perishable good’ Boil-Off Additional Comments

Assumptions: Boil-off on basis of full cargo @ USD 8/MMBTU

Boil-Off Management

56.250

39.150

28.800

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Older Moss type Newer vessels (post-2000)

Extra insulatedvessels

Fuel C

ost

(US

D/d

ay)

Boil-Off per day 0.25% 0.15% 0.10%

125 145-160 160

Boil off is calculated as % of full tanks. Reduction of boiled of mass will only slightly be reduced by lower filling in the tanks

Boil off rate is higher during cooling, if the vessel moves in waves and during loading of cargo

Graph shows maximum boil-off as guaranteed by yard

Actual boil-off will normally be lower than the figures shown on graph.

0.25%/day x 125,000 cubm = 312cubm = 140 tons



Differential in day rate for FSRU reflected in BOG

Taking into consideration total cost (Charter+Fuel)

Good boil-off management is key to enable efficient and economical operations

26

Primary means of BOG handling

Fuel for engines

Recondenser

Gas Combustion Unit

BOG management with zero send-out

Optional means of BOG handling

MSO compressor

Reliquefaction plant

HV Power send-out

Flare

Things to consider

Possibilities for cargo inventory management

Possibilities for cargo scheduling

Shall loading with zero send-out be considered

Advantage with low boil-off

4-stage LD compressor required in order to be able to minimize boil-off

27

Exporting spare power generation capacity to shore

Excess BOG can be utilized to generwate power, which can be exported so shore

Up to 36 MW of available power installed on Golars modern DFDE vessels

Several new projects are assessing this oppurtunity

Ship to Shore Power

curso de actualizaciÓn en regulaciÓn en gas natural ...€¦ · golar igloo ± 2015 dubai, uae...

Documents