Golar LNG Limited (GLNG) Earnings Call Transcript

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Golar LNG Limited Second Quarter 2026 Webcast and Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Karl Fredrik Staubo, CEO.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, and welcome to Golar LNG's Q2 2026 Earnings Results Presentation. My name is Karl Fredrik Staubo, I'm the CEO of Golar, and I'm accompanied today by our CFO, Eduardo Maranhao, to present this quarter's results. Before we get into the presentation, please note the forward-looking statements on Slide 2. Starting on Slide 3, we start with an exciting announcement. Overnight, we signed our fourth FLNG unit, which is another Mark II FLNG to be constructed at CIMC Raffles Shipyard in China. That's the same shipyard already constructing our existing Mark II FLNG on order. The fourth FLNG order will deliver within 2029 and be the earliest available FLNG capacity globally. The order has been placed on the back of strong interest from prospective charters as well as Golar's stated policy of adding additional FLNG capacity once the existing fleet has secured long-term charter commitments. Across Hilli, Gimi and the Mark II under construction, now named the FLNG Esperanza, Golar has a total EBITDA backlog of $17 billion before commodity upside and before a charter on the fourth FLNG unit. During the quarter, Hilli completed her 8-year contract for Perenco offshore Cameroon with 100% economic uptime for the life of the contract. Gimi overproduced 15% versus contractual volume and the FLNG Esperanza remains on time and on budget. As part of the firm order for our fourth FLNG, we have also secured an option for an incremental Mark II FLNG with CIMC Raffles, i.e., an option unit, and today, we also announced a letter of intent with Seatrium Shipyard in Singapore for further incremental growth units utilizing our Mark I or Mark II design. We will provide further color on our growth ambitions later in the presentation. Our liquidity stands at approximately $1.5 billion, inclusive of the $600 million revolving credit facility secured during Q2. Turning to Slide 4, we highlight our long-term charter contracts with Hilli, Gimi and Esperanza contracted through 2045 and with a total EBITDA backlog of $17 billion before commodity upside and inflationary adjustments. With our fourth FLNG order, we see potential to meaningfully increase our earnings capacity, and we'll now elaborate on that on Slide 5. Today's announced order marks a 41% increase in Golar controlled liquefaction capacity, increasing our total fleet capacity from 8.6 million tonnes to more than 12 million tonnes on a fully delivered basis. Assuming that we can achieve contractual terms in line with those achieved for Esperanza last year, we see potential for a 50% increase in our earnings capacity. Our fourth unit is also expected to bring diversification of our earnings backlog, both with regards to charter counterparts as well as geographical exposure. Today's announced order will also be the world's earliest available liquefaction capacity, at least 1 to 2 years ahead of any alternatives. And this again will drive charter interest in the unit. The incremental options, both on CIMC and through the LOI with Seatrium create a replicable model and a capacity to meet some of the demand we see for FLNG deployments. On Slide 6, we lay out the overview of the FLNG industry by owner. With our fourth order, we now regained the position as the market-leading owner of FLNG capacity with number of units at par with ENI, but higher in terms of controlled liquefaction capacity. We expect to see another 1 to 3 FLNG orders from the existing owners on this page within the next 6 to 12 months further building on our thesis that the FLNG market will see similar development to that of the FPSO industry, which started in 1985 and now has grown to more than 250 units globally. Golar maintains the position as the only proven provider of FLNG as a service. Turning to Slide 7. We have laid out the same overview of the FLNG units globally, but here divided by the shipyard of construction. As you can clearly see from the slide, Samsung is the market leader for delivery of FLNGs. Wison shipyard in China has also built 3 newbuilds and continue to actively market newbuild FLNGs, while Hanwha Ocean delivered 1 unit in 2016 and don't have near-term capacity to add additional units. 2 shipyards on the far right, both Seatrium and CIMC have only ever built units for Golar and only done conversions. The way we see the market today, we do not expect other players actively pursuing conversion candidates. Hence, they are focused on Samsung or Wison. Based on conversations with both shipyards, we believe Samsung is at the very earliest able to deliver incremental capacity sometime in 2031. We do expect Wison to be in prime position to win 2 large FLNG units in the relatively near future, and then they will also be spoken for, for well into the 2030s. Hence, the way we see the market right now, we believe the only incremental capacity that can be added with relatively near-term delivery is Golar conversions at Seatrium and CIMC. In addition to yard capacity, we see significant pressure on critical long lead equipment. Equipment like turbines, dual fuel engine, steam generators and cold boxes see significant competition from other industries, including AI data centers, shipbuilding and the aircraft industry. Hence, further pressure on these long leads further drives lead times for incremental orders. Therefore, we believe today's announcements, both of a firm order #4 and option for another unit at CIMC as well as an LOI with Seatrium secures Golar with a growth trajectory to capture market opportunities ahead of competition. We will remain with our policy of only having one open vessel at the time. So as soon as we lock in the contract for #4, we're then likely to proceed at #5, but we have no ambition to overextend. Again, this is furthermore in line with our announced strategy and also strategic review that we are looking at alternatives to accelerate our FLNG growth, and this speaks to that statement. Turning to Slide 8 and an overview of the LNG industry and what's going on in the market as we see it. The industry is set to grow around 40% between 2026 and 2031. As stated on our Q1 call, the 2 largest exporters in the world, U.S. and Qatar, are at the same time expected to increase their market share from 40% to 53% of global supply. Hence, as much as we see a growing market, we see very significant increase in supply concentration. Turning to the middle graph, geopolitical events make such concentration with increasing uncertainty for offtakers. The world's second largest exporter of LNG, Qatar, was directly hit in military action during Middle East events and the Ras Laffan liquefaction plant has estimates that they will be out by around 17 million tonnes out of a total capacity of 88 million for at least 3 to 5 years. We, therefore, see a need for the global LNG market to further diversify its supply. This is where we think FLNG will play a vital role. And on the graph on the far right, you can see the location of FLNG projects globally. 6 of today's exporters would not have been exporters if it weren't for FLNG technology. Where Golar operates, we represent the only export facility. That's true for Mauritania, Senegal, it will be true for Argentina, and it was true for Cameroon before we left the country. Significant proven gas reserves remain stranded, which creates further opportunities for FLNG-led LNG supply diversification. Turning to Q2 and recent highlights and developments. As stated during the quarter, Gimi delivered 15% above its contractual day rate with a 41st cargo delivered. Hilli ended its 8-year contract in Cameroon with 100% economic uptime since contract startup and 156 cargoes delivered over the 8 years. The unit is now in transit to Singapore for modifications ahead of its 20-year contract in Argentina. SESA officially named the Mark II under construction, the FLNG Esperanza. We secured a $600 million revolving credit facility. We signed the fourth FLNG order and through the EPC for #4 and the LOI with Seatrium, we made a pathway to increase the fleet to over 7 units. Turning to Slide 11 with a focus on Hilli. On July 26, Golar delivered its final cargo under our contract with Perenco Offshore Cameroon. We're extremely proud to see the unit have 100% economic uptime since start-up. We're further pleased to see that the redeployment progress as planned. We exited the country and are in transit according to schedule. Once the modification work has completed, we will sail to Argentina, where we will start a contract in the second half of next year, where we will generate $285 million of annual EBITDA before further commodity upside. On Slide 12, we would like to extend our gratitude and thankfulness to our partners, SNH and Perenco for solid cooperation over 8 years in Cameroon. In addition to LNG export, the project has created meaningful value to the local economy and people. Golar's operations employed more than 100 Cameroonians or more than 40% local content on board the unit. In addition to significant scholarship and training courses, we have spent $80 million in local procurement and generated more than $1.5 billion in cash earnings to Cameroonian state interests. We've also voluntarily invested in critical infrastructure in country such as water holes, streetlights, school renovations, new sports centers, et cetera. We're motivated to work together again on potential gas monetization in Cameroon and hope to be back in the near future. Turning to Slide 13 and the Gimi. Gimi continues to produce above contractual levels. During the quarter, we produced 15% above the contracted capacity. That's despite the fact that we are coming into summer months and liquefaction plants are sensitive to both ambient and water temperature. Hence, we're extremely pleased with this performance. We do expect to see continued impact of high temperatures during Q3 before we see improved performance when we enter the winter months. Over the year, we do expect the unit to produce meaningfully above the contractual capacity. Turning to FLNG 3, the Esperanza project remains on schedule and on budget. We're now 74% complete on the conversion progress with more than 15 million manhours completed without lost time incidents. The unit remains on track for sail away by year-end 2027 and to start operations in Argentina in the second half of '28. Today, we've spent around $1.3 billion in cash equity into the conversion project out of a total budget of $2.2 billion. On Slide 15, we're also progressing the required infrastructure in Argentina. SESA, our contract counterpart in which Golar is a 10% shareholder, are now progressing critical infrastructure, including pipeline connections required for the start-up, warehouse for operations support, supply both feeder vessels and crew vessels, and we're also marketing the LNG offtake. The first 2 million tonnes of the total 6 has been sold to securing energy for Europe. And we have now seen multiple offtakers bidding for the next 4 million tonnes, and we expect more offtake to conclude before year-end. Turning to Slide 16. We have now confirmed our final investment decision for our fourth FLNG unit. The unit will be similar to the Esperanza currently under construction. The total CapEx budget has increased on the back of inflationary pressure for -- in particular, for long-lead equipment globally. And we have a CapEx budget now of around $2.45 billion versus around $2.2 billion for the Esperanza. Even with this approximate 10% increase in cost, we see this as highly competitive, both compared to an FLNG newbuild and certainly in relation to the cost inflation observed on other offshore and shipping assets globally in the course of the last 2 years, which have grown meaningfully more than 10%. We expect significant synergies to be realized from building a repeat design and from having 2 units with overlapping construction at the same shipyard. We have secured a donor vessel for the conversion. And we are now in advanced discussions for long-term employment for the unit. We do not expect to add additional units until we have clear visibility on the long-term charter for the unit now ordered. However, once we do, we turn to Slide 17, and we have a very clear path as to how we may grow beyond unit #4. Firstly, we -- the order we placed overnight includes an option for a third Mark II FLNG at CIMC Raffles in Yantai, China. As earlier stated, we've also signed an LOI with Seatrium. Seatrium is the shipyard that constructed both the Hilli and Gimi and also the shipyard that will conduct the Hilli modification work this year and next year. That LOI reserves slot reservations for either a Mark I or a Mark II design FLNG. In addition to the shipyard capacity, we have secured options for incremental long lead equipment. We have identified and are working to secure additional donor vessels, and we're certainly advancing charter discussions for long-term employment with multiple counterparts. With the agreement signed today, Golar is laying out the groundwork for accelerated FLNG growth in the years to come. I'll now hand the call over to Eduardo to take us through group results.

Thank you, Karl, and good morning, everyone. Moving to Slide 19. Q2 was another strong quarter for Golar with continued operational performance across our FLNG fleet and a meaningful increase in EBITDA. Total operating revenue was $130 million in the quarter, with FLNG Gimi continuing to perform above contractual levels, delivering earnings approximately 15% above contracted base rate during Q2. We also completed the final legacy O&M contract relating to the FSRU Italis LNG, further completing our transition into a pure-play FLNG infrastructure company. EBITDA increased approximately 20% quarter-on-quarter to $127 million compared to $106 million in Q1, primarily driven by higher commodity-linked earnings from Hilli. Hilli generated $37 million of commodity-linked earnings during the quarter compared to $10 million in Q1, demonstrating once again the meaningful commodity upside embedded within our contracted earnings base. Net income was $56 million in the quarter, bringing year-to-date net income to $158 million. And consistent with our capital allocation framework, we have declared another quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share in Q2. Now moving to Slide 20. Our balance sheet continues to provide substantial flexibility to fund the next phase of FLNG growth. At quarter end, total cash stood at approximately $900 million and net interest-bearing debt was approximately $1.8 billion. In July, we further strengthened our liquidity position by closing a new $600 million revolving credit facility, which currently remains undrawn. Including the RCF, we have approximately $1.5 billion of available liquidity. At the same time, we have now equity funded approximately $1.3 billion of the FLNG Esperanza conversion, leaving significant embedded financing capacity across our asset base. As illustrated on the right, optimizing the financing of Hilli and locking long-term financing for Esperanza could release approximately $2.3 billion of incremental liquidity. Discussions on both transactions are advancing. Together with our existing liquidity, operating cash flows and potential proceeds from asset level financing, that will provide substantial capacity to fund FLNG #4, while preserving balance sheet flexibility for further growth, as explained by Karl. The timing in terms of FLNG #4 asset level financing will ultimately be aligned with its long-term charter and our broader FLNG growth opportunities. Now moving to Slide 21. I would like now to spend a moment on this slide here to talk about the commodity-linked component of our earnings, which has become increasingly relevant given the strengthening LNG price environment. Hilli provides a useful demonstration of the value of this structure. Over its 8-year contract in Cameroon, Hilli generated over $650 million of commodity-linked earnings before all the hedging proceeds, which we achieved during that period. Our contracts in Argentina also give us meaningful upside participation. Under the Hilli and Esperanza charters, Golar receives a commodity-linked fee equivalent to 25% of FOB prices above $8 per million BTU, while our 10% ownership in SESA provides additional commodity exposure. As we previously highlighted, every $1 per million BTU above $8 can generate up to approximately $100 million of incremental annual earnings to Golar. Importantly, LNG offtake indices and forward prices have strengthened materially since early this year. Based on current and forward pricing, we estimate that this movement could increase the value of our commodity exposure by up to $500 million per year during the first 3 years of SESA operations. While forward market liquidity naturally reduces further out in the curve, the important point here is that this upside sits on top of our long-term contracted earnings base. If we now turn to Slide 22. Now this slide brings the 2 key components of our model, a highly visible contracted earnings base and a significant commodity-linked upside. With Gimi, Hilli and Esperanza fully operational, we expect an annual run rate EBITDA of approximately $800 million by 2028 before commodity upside and inflation adjustments. If FLNG #4 is contracted on terms broadly comparable to Esperanza, annual EBITDA has the potential to increase by approximately 50% to more than $1.2 billion by 2030. And importantly, that remains the base contracted earnings. On top of that, our Hilli, Esperanza and SESA exposure provides meaningful participation in LNG prices. At $8 per million BTU, as you see on the graph, we would expect annual EBITDA of more than $1.2 billion. At $10, this increases to $1.4 billion, while at $15, which is the current forward prices for next year, that would imply approximately $1.9 billion in EBITDA to Golar. And to illustrate the embedded upside potential, if we apply the LNG pricing that we saw in 2022, we would see potential annual EBITDA approaching $4 billion. The key takeaway is that we have a highly visible contracted earnings base capable of exceeding $1.2 billion annually with our FLNG #4, together with substantial additional upside if LNG markets remain strong. Now turning to Slide 23. One of the key attractions of FLNG is that it provides buyers with geographically diversified LNG supply while offering very compelling economics to reserve owners. The illustration on the left shows the economics for a 3.5 MTPA Mark II FLNG based on current forward LNG prices. Including upstream feedstock gas, the cost of liquefaction, shipping and regas, we estimate an all-in delivered LNG cost of under $8 per million BTU. If you compare that to a 1-year forward LNG price of approximately $15 per million BTU, this leaves a very significant margin for the charter. At approximately 90% utilization, a 3.5 MTPA FLNG would deliver around 50 cargoes per year. On these assumptions, that translates into approximately $1.3 billion of annual operating margin for the charter or around $25 million per cargo. Importantly, these economics come together with the strategic benefits of FLNG, shorter time to market, access to geographically diversified gas resources and reduce the dependence on a limited number of large onshore LNG supply locations. This combination of attractive economics and supply diversification provides a compelling proposition for prospective FLNG charters. So in summary, Q2 was another strong quarter for us. We continue to deliver operationally. Our contracted earnings base provides significant long-term visibility, commodity exposure offers substantial upside and our balance sheet provides the capacity to fund the next phase of FLNG growth. With attractive economics supporting demand for additional units, we believe we are extremely well positioned for the opportunities ahead. So with that, I'll hand the call back to you, Karl.

Thank you, Eduardo. Turning to Slide 25 to summarize. Golar is the leading global FLNG player controlling a fleet of 12.1 million tonnes per annum. Through our operations to date, we've delivered 100% economic uptime and delivered 197 LNG cargoes. Our backlog stands at $17 billion before commodity upside and inflationary adjustments and with further upside in a potential charter for our fourth FLNG unit announced today. Assuming we can fix that unit in line with our last fixture last year, we have a potential to grow our annual earnings by 50% or to north of $1.2 billion by 2030 before commodity upside and inflationary adjustments. We see that FLNG is an increasingly relevant source of global energy security and supply diversification. We are strategically positioned for growth. And with the announcements today, both with CIMC and Seatrium, we're well positioned to capture the market opportunity significantly ahead of any incremental competition from alternative suppliers. We maintain a disciplined capital allocation focused on shareholder returns, and we still have capacity under our share buyback program. We continue our quarterly dividend with significant capacity for further growth as the fleet deliver to their long-term contracts. With that, I'd like to hand the call over to the operator for any questions.

[Operator Instructions] And the question comes from the line of John Mackay from Goldman Sachs.

Congrats on the fourth vessel announcement. I wanted to pick up on a couple of things you've been talking about. Maybe can you just walk us through the path to commercializing that vessel and signing a customer. And you talked about maybe framing up the economics on the last vessel, but maybe broadly talk about target return profiles in this context.

John, if you follow the sequencing of both our previous speculative orders and our announcements year-to-date, we have been focused on evolving the charter opportunities to narrow down the design. We were contemplating either Mark I or Mark II. But with the visibility we now have, we see the best value proposition to be a Mark II order, which is why we ordered that one. We expect then to further narrow down the charter opportunities and to secure a long-term charter for the unit where we maintain sort of a 20-year duration plus/minus. And we remain with our guidance in the 5 to 6x CapEx to EBITDA sort of range.

And just to clarify, that -- how should we think about kind of the remaining time line and milestones for us to watch? For signing the customer?

There are no standard process for fixing an FLNG because the only ones who've ever done them as a service is Golar, and they've all been quite different, to be honest. But the typical first step is a signing of either a term sheet or a framework agreement that sets out the key commercials. Sometimes it's binding, sometimes it's not, but it is certainly a milestone, if that's achieved. From there on, we will then evolve the term sheet or framework agreement into a full contract. And then the third step is typically then to lift all CPs thereafter, which are typically regulatory, both in terms of export license and the environmental license required. And in certain countries, which are not yet LNG exporters, you also need clarification on the tax regime. So 3, call it, key steps, signing of term sheet, signing of definitive contracts and lastly, lifting of CPs.

And second question for me, Karl, you mentioned the potential for 7 vessels. I understand there's a couple of moving pieces here and the time line, like you said, can move around. But maybe in a, let's say, a blue sky scenario, how would we think about kind of pace of deployments and being able to get to that fleet of 7.

So first off, it's on the yard capacity side. We have ordered unit #4 today. We have an option to do unit. We will not commit to that being CIMC or Seatrium in that order. But for simplicity, unit #5 then with a fixed option at CIMC and Unit #6 and 7 at Seatrium, but it may not be that exact sequence. The fifth could be Seatrium and the sixth could be CIMC, if you understand. That's what we've already locked in today with the contract signed at CIMC and the LOI with Seatrium. In terms of sequencing, we remain with our very clearly stated policy that we are not going to have more than one open FLNG at the time. Hence, we're not considering ordering unit #5 until we have clear visibility for a long-term contract on the fourth unit. Once that is locked in, we will then proceed with the fifth, and we'll continue to replicate that model as we grow. Once we secure long-term contracts, we will then attach asset level financing to the then derisked FLNG and recycle that capital into the consequent unit.

And the question comes from the line of Alexander Bidwell from Webber Research & Advisory.

So with the LOI with Seatrium covering either a Mark I or Mark II and then you've got the option for a third Mark II at CIMC. Can you talk us through how you're thinking about shipyard selection for your next unit? Is there -- are there any differences between going with one or the other?

So we have spent -- we've obviously built 2 units with Seatrium in the past, both of them being Mark I. And we are in process of building a Mark II with CIMC. Given that, that unit is now 74% progress, we feel comfortable ordering the second unit there. So when it comes to the next unit and the yard selection, we are clearly comfortable with both shipyards. So it will come down to price, payment terms and delivery. And to the extent that is relevant, there may be a charter preference for one yard over the other. But in general, it has to do with the price payment terms and delivery. That's the key decision maker. And then if it's Mark I, it's very likely to be Seatrium anyway.

And then just for a quick follow-up. Can you talk us through the, I guess, the delta in budget between the FLNG Esperanza and the second Mark II conversion? I think it's $2.2 billion versus $2.45 billion.

Yes. So as we said, that's around a 10% increase. That's mainly driven by very significant cost inflation on long lead equipment and also impacted by steel prices and currency fluctuations. But if you look at some of the long leads typically have 40% to 60% cost inflation. So the fact that the overall unit is, call it, only up with 10%, obviously, it's still meaningful, but we think that is a testimony to the very significant work that we've done over the course of this year, both with regards to long lead items and negotiating with the shipyards. I would also like to highlight that when we say that this is the price, that's the all-in price. meaning it includes the EPC with the shipyard. It includes crew training, bunkering and transport from yard site to contract sites and also the mooring system that we anticipate using. So it's delivered cost to site.

And the question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi from BTIG.

First, very simply, what drove the decision to order a Mark II? Is that indicative of where conversations with charters have progressed? Because a quarter ago, you guys talked about pretty big range in terms of looking back in capacity.

You broke up a bit at the end there, but I think we got the question. So the primary reason for going with that unit is that's where we see the strongest charter engagement for relatively near-term employment of the unit. It's also where we see the most attractive CapEx per tonne and OpEx per MMBtu. I think both the economics to the client and the charter interest and the gas reserves in question at the moment, it's the most actively demanded unit we have, and therefore, we felt comfortable doing that also on the back of the solid performance by the shipyard in constructing the Esperanza, which is now 74% complete.

And then for the 2 to 3 options that you hold, can you tell us -- and I apologize if I missed this, but can you tell us when do these additional options expire and kind of the lead time for those units for when they would hit the water would be helpful.

We don't want to go into details as to exactly when they expire because commercially, that's a little bit sensitive, and we think we can drive better value with holding that for ourselves for now. In terms of delivery, you're talking around 38 to 40 months, subject to which shipyard and what the time.

And the question comes from the line of Chris Robertson from Deutsche Bank.