Random weekend energy thoughts… Productivity, costs, and DSV asset values…

Permian shale and tight production in the third quarter was 338,000 barrels per day, representing an increase of 150,000 barrels per day. Let me say it again: this is up 80% relative to the same quarter last year. As many of you will realize, that’s the equivalent of adding a midsized Permian pure play E&P company in a matter of months.

Pat Yarrington, CFO, Chevron, on the Q3 2018 results call

John Howe from UT2 posted the photo above on Friday and kindly allowed me to reproduce the it. The Seawell cost £35m in 1987 and according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator the same vessel would cost ~£94m in 2018 in real terms. In 1987 the USD/UK exchange rate was ~1.5 so the Seawell cost $53m and inflation adjusted around $132m (at current exchange rates).

Compare that with the most recent numbers we have for a new Dive Support Vessel (“DSV”) of a similar spec: the Vard 801 ex Haldane that was contracted at $165m (sold for $105m).  That price is roughly 25% above the cost of the Seawell in real terms. You get a better crane and lower fuel consumption but in productive terms you can still only dive to 300m (and no riser tower) and I doubt the crane and the lower fuel consumption are worth paying 25% more in capital terms.

These prices don’t reflect how much the MV Seawell pushed the technological boundary when she was built when and recognised as one of the most sophisticated vessels in the world. The major £60m/$75m upgrade she received in 2014 highlights again the myth that old tonnage will naturally be scrapped as an iron cast law is wrong, but more importantly highlights the technical specification of the vessel has always been above even a high-end construction class DSV (clearly visible in the photo the riser tower must have been seen a major technological innovation in 1987) and yet it is more economic to upgrade than build new for a core North Sea well intervention and dive asset. Helix has invested in an asset that brings the benefits of low-cost from a different cost era to a new more uncertain environment.

The reasons for price inflation in OSVs are well-known and I have discussed this before (here): offshore vessels are custom designed and have a high labour content which is not subject to the same produtivity improvements and lower overall cost reduction that manufactured goods have (Baumol Cost Disease). The DP system and engine might have come down in real terms, but the dive systems certainly haven’t. Even getting hulls built in Eastern Europe and finished in Norway has not reduced the cost of new OSVs in real terms (you only have to look at Vard’s financial numbers to see the answer isn’t in shipbuilding being a structurally more profitable industry).

That sort of structural cost inflation, a hallmark of the great offshore boom of 2003-2014, was fine when there was no substitute product for offshore oil. Very few OSVs were built in a series (apart from some PSV and AHTS). But the majority of the vessels were one-off or customised designs with enormous amounts of time from ship designers, naval architects, class auditors (i.e. labour) before you even got to the fit-out stage. Structural inflation became built into the industry with day-rates in charters etc expected to go up even as assets aged and depreciated in real economic terms because demand was outpacing the ability of yards to supply the tonnage as needed.

The same cost explosion happened in pipelay but did allow buyers to access deeper water projects. Between 2003-2014 an enormous number of deepwater rigid-reel pipelay vessels were built (in a relative sense) with each new vessel having even more top tension etc. than the last; but the parameters were essentially the same: they were just seeking to push the boundary of the same engineering constraints. The result was (again) a vast increase in real costs but one that was partially offset by advances in new pipe and riser technology that allowed uneconomic fields to be developed. Now Airborne and Magma are working on solutions that could make many of these assets redundant. Only time will tell if those offshore companies who have made vast investments in pipelay vessels will have to sell them at marginal cost to compete with composite pipe if the solution gets large-scale operator acceptance (i.e. Petrobras). However, if composite pipe and risers get accepted by E&P companies on a commercial scale those deepwater lay assets are worth substantially less than book value would imply (I actually think the most likely scenario is a gradual erosion of the fleet as it is not replaced).

But now there is a competitor to offshore production: shale. And it is clearly taking investment at the margin from offshore oil and gas. And shale production is an industry subject to vast economies of scale and productivity improvements. The latest Chevron results make clear that they have built a vast, and economically viable, shale business that added 150k barrels per day of production at an 80% growth rate year-on-year:

Chevron Q3 2018 Permian .png

To put that in perspective when Siccar Point gets the Cambo field up and going they will be at 15k per day and it will have taken them years (and the point is they are a quality firm with Blackstone/Bluewater as investors ensuring the do not face a financing constraint).

What makes shale economic is the vast economies of scale and scope available to companies like Chevron. E&P companies producing shale are adding vast amounts of production volume every year and theories that they are not making money doing this are starting to sound like Moon photo hoax stories. E&P companies throw money and technology at a known geological formation and it delivers oil. The more money they invest the lower the unit costs become and the greater the economics of learning and innovation they can apply at even greater scale.

Offshore has a place but it needs to match the productivity benefits offered by shale because it is at a disadvantage in terms of capital flexibility and time to payback.The cost reductions in offshore that have been driven by excess capacity and an investment boom hangover, these are not sustainable and replicable advantages. In offshore everything, from the rig to well design and subsea production system, has traditionally been custom designed (or had a significant amount of rework per development). When people talk of “advantaged” offshore oil now it generally means either a) a field close to existing infrastructure, or, b) a find so big it is worth the enormous development cost. Either of those factors allow a productivity benefit that allows these fields to compete with onshore investment. But to pretend all known or unknown offshore reserves are equal in this regard is ignoring the evidence that offshore will be a far more selective investment for E&P companies and capital markets.

One of the reasons I don’t take seriously graphs like this:

IMG_1067.JPG

…and their accompanying “supply shortage” scare stories is that the market and price mechanism have a remarkably good track record at delivering supply at an economically viable price (since like the dawn of capitalism in Mesopotamia). Modelling the sort of productivity and output benefits that E&P majors are coming up with at the moment is an issue fraught with risk because 1 or 2% compounded over a long period of time is a very large number.

As an immediate contra you get this today for example:

(Reuters) – The oil market’s two-year bull run is running into one of its biggest tests in months, facing a tidal wave of supply and growing worries about economic weakness sapping demand worldwide.

Which brings us back to DSVs in the North Sea, their asset values, and the question of whether you would commission a new one at current prices?

Last week the OGA published an excellent report on wells in the UK and its grim for the future of UK subsea, but especially for the core brownfield and greenfield projects in shallow water that DSVs specialised in. And without a CapEx boom there won’t be a utilisation boom:

OGA wells summary 2-18.png

Future drilling is expected to pick-up  mildly, although it is unfunded, but look at this:

EA well spud.png

Development Drilling.png

So the only area in the UKCS that isn’t in long-term decline is West-of Shetland which is not a DSV area. CNS and SNS were the great DSV development and maintenance areas and the decline in activity in those areas are a structural phenomena that looks unlikely to change. Any pickup is rig work is years away from translating into a Capex boom that would change the profitability of the UKCS DSV and small project fleet.

DSV driven projects have become economic in the North Sea because they are being sold well below their economic cost. Such a situation is unsustainable in the long run (particularly as the offshore assets have a very high running cost). The UKCS isn’t getting a productivity boom like shale to cover the increased costs of specialist assets like DSVs and rigs: E&P companies are merely taking advantage of a supply overhang from an investment boom. That is no sustainable for either party.

So while the period 2003-2014 was “The Great Offshore Boom” the period 2015-2025 is likely to be “The Great Rebalancing” where supply and demand both contract to meet at an equilibrium point. Supply will have to contract because at the moment it is helping to make projects economic by selling DSVs below their true economic worth, and the number of projects will have to contract eventually because that situation won’t last. E&P companies will need to pay higher rates and that will simply make less projects viable. You can clearly see from the historic drilling data that a project boom in shallow water must be a long time coming given the lags between drilling and final investment decisions.

The weak link here in the North Sea DSV market is clearly Bibby Offshore (surely soon to be branded as Rever Offshore?). As the most marginal player it is the most at risk as marginal demand shrinks. Bibby, like other DSV operators on the UKCS, serves an E&P community that is facing declining productivity relative to shale (and therefore a higher cost of capital), in a declining basin, where the cost of their DSVs is not reducing proportionately or offering increased productivity terms to cover this gap. Both Technip and Boskalis were able to buy assets at below economic cost to reduce this structural gap but the York led recapitalisation of Bibby still seems to significantly over value the Polaris and the Sapphire – particularly given implied DSV values with the Technip purchase of the Vard 801 (TBN: Deep Discovery).

DSVs made the UKCS viable and built the core infrastructure, but they did it in a rising price environment where the market was based on a fear of a lack of supply. One reason no new North Sea class DSVs were built between 1999 the Bibby Sapphire conversion in 2005 is because the price of oil declined in real terms but the price of a DSV increased meaningfully in real terms. A new generation of West of Shetland projects may keep the North Sea alive for a while longer but this work will be ROV led. A number of brownfield developments and maintenance work may keep certain “advantaged” fields going for years that will require a declining number of DSVs.

North Sea class DSV sales prices for DSVs are adjusting to their actual economic value it would appear not just reflecting a short-term market aberration.

#structural_change #this_time_it_is_different #supplymustequaldemand

The slow fade to obscurity and Gell-Mann amnesia…

Dum loquimur, fugerit invida ætas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

(While we speak, envious time will have fled; seize today, trust as little as possible in tomorrow.)

Horace

For this will to deceive that is in things luminous may manifest itself likewise in retrospect and so by sleight of some fixed part of a journey already accomplished may also post men to fraudulent destinies.

Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian 

Amid the seeming confusion of our mysterious world, individuals are so nicely adjusted to a system, and systems to one another, and to a whole, that by stepping aside for a moment man exposes himself to a fearful risk of losing his place forever.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

Michael Crichton

Fearnley Securities resumes OSV coverage as slow pickup starts to take shape…Analyst Gustaf Amle places buy ratings on Tidewater and Standard Drilling at a time market is experiencing a slow recovery…

Tradewinds

Energy companies and investors are focused on profits and reluctant to boost spending even after crude prices surged to four-year highs, a senior Goldman Sachs banker said on Thursday…

But this time round, the barriers for investments are high, with investors seeking returns of as much as 15 to 20 percent from multi-billion dollar oil and gas projects, Fry said.

“In the near term the focus is on returns as opposed to growth for the sake of growth,”

Big Oil still reluctant to open spending taps: Goldman

I haven’t written much lately a) because I have been busy with an LNG project I am working on, and b) because it’s a bit like Groundhog Day at the moment: a bunch of offshore companies come out with bad results and tell you it’s grim out there and then a bunch of Norwegian investment banks and consultants write reports about what a good time it is to invest. In the same way the relentless expansion of shale continues apace so to does the inevitable decline in value of the offshore fleet and the capital intensity required to maintain it.

Offshore supply is so grim, with such vast oversupply, it is not even worth the effort to rebut some of the more outlandish claims being made. But if you buy Standard Drilling shares expecting the World Wide Supply Vessels to reocver anything like 60% of their historical value I wish you luck, the money would probably be better spent on lottery tickets, but good luck. If you have relied on one of these above-mentioned reports it is likely you are suffering from Gell-Mann amnesia, forgetting the false positives these self-same analysts saw before (this time it’s different…)

On the contracting/subsea side in the North Sea a denouement slowly approaches regarding capacity and the number of firms. I am interested in the North Sea not only because I worked in that market but also as a quite specialised market, with a small number of players and potential assets, it is as close to a natural experiment in economics as you are likely to get. So when you see a load of small firms losing cash, charging rates below what it would cost them to replace capital equipment, and competing against diversified and well capitalised multi-national corporations, the most likely scenario is that sooner or later their private equity owners decide they are not worth putting money into and they are shut down.

It isn’t the only scenario: the investment industry is awash with liquidity, every PE house wants to be the hero that called the bottom of the market right before it boomed. This idea found its ultimate expression in Borr Drilling, but York Capital buying Bibby Offshore was based on a similar sentiment. The problem is that the price of oil has doubled and the amount of offshore work has remained relatively fixed. Next year (apparently?) the oasis in the desert will appear…

Despite the music journalist from Aberdeen claiming that the management reshuffle at Ocean Installer a few months back was just a small thing and all about focus, this week the ex-CEO left to join DOF Subsea. No one would have had more share options in OI than Steinar, and I bet DOF Subsea wasn’t buying any out: when insiders know the shares are worthless you can bet they are. Even a PE house as big as Hitec Vision has to admit sometimes they cannot keeping pumping money into such a marginal venture as OI with such clearly limited upside for an exit? McDermott and OI couldn’t agree on price and unless another bidder can be conjured up to pay more for a business than you could build it from scratch then it’s days are surely numbered?

OI is a subscale business with a few chartered vessels and is exposed to their charter rates rising if the market booms. The downside is limited to zero for equity and but the upside effectively capped. It is no one’s fault it is just a subscale firm in a remarkably unattractive industry from a structural perspective. Eventually, just as with M2, the grown-ups take charge and face reality. As my shore-based offshore engineering guru reminded me: only a well-timed exit from the Normand Vision kept the business open as long as it has been in all likelihood.

But in the long-run OI has no competitive advantage and will be lucky to earn a cost of capital beyond Reach or other such comparable firms, certainly not one to move the needle on a PE portfolio for Hitec. Is there a market in Norway big enough to keep OI as a Reach competitor? I doubt that despite it being a favoured Equinor outcome.

DOF Subsea revealed in it’s most recent numbers that it only makes a ~9% EBITDA margin on projects (excluding the long-term pre-crash Brazil boats).

DOF pre-post.png

That one graphic shows you the scale of the change in the industry: contracts signed pre-2014: profitable, business post that? Uneconomic. No firm in the market will be making much more than DOF Subsea in IMR  and that is loss making in an economic sense: a signal to the market that there is severe excess capacity in contracting.

The Chief Strategy Officer of Maersk Supply recently went public and admitted even an oil boom won’t save them (a relatively frank admission for a company seeking a buyer whose only interest must be seeing MSS as a leveraged play on an oil boom!). For Maersk Supply the future is charity projects (waste collection), decom (E&P forced waste collection), deepsea mining, and a crane so clever it will make windfarms more than a zero sum game for the vessel provider. The chances of that being as profitable as helping an oil company get to “first oil” are zero. But still with a big corporate parent Maersk remain there supplying capacity at below economic cost and ensuring “the great recovery” remains an elusive Loch Ness styled creature.

A slow descent into obscurity would seem the best case scenario for OI while the worst case is clearly a suddent stop in funding when the investors realise 2019 will just be another drain on cash. Something the ex CEO and CFO have acknowledged in their career choices…

I fear the same thing for Bibby. Clearly York are delaying spending on the re-branding (required by their acquisition) because they were hoping to sell the business before the year was out. The financial results released make it clear how hard that will be. Not only did they overpay to get into the business they then, despite Bibby having spent £6m on advisers, had to pump in £15m more in working capital. When you have to put 30% more investment into working capital don’t believe the line about customers paying slowly: it was a simple, yet dramatic, complete misundertsanding about how much cash the business could generate and would therefore need. If you really believed Polaris, Sapphire, and the ROV fleet were worth 80m you would take the money and run…

Like OI the most likely, but not the only scenario, is that Bibby is simply ground down by Technip, Subsea 7, and Boskalis. At the moment North Sea DSV day rates are such that they do not come close to covering the funded purchase of a new DSV (likely to be USD 170m), and yet Bibby have a relatively old fleet. The 1999 built Polaris for example only has 10 years life left in her: on a DCF valuation model that means she has a finite life and not a capitalised value. In all probability Polaris simply cannot earn enough money in the next ten years to pay for the deposit on a new-build to replace herself (particularly given the dearth of bank financing). When I talk of capital leaving the industry this is a classic case of how this will happen. Boats can be chartered now but then the value accrues to the owner, a situation Volstad are only too aware of and will take advantage of when the Topaz charter comes up for renewal.

A quiet winter and a couple of dry-docks later in June 2019 and it is going to be hard to convince an investor to put another £15m because the customers just keep paying slowly (sic). A bidding competition to renew the Topaz charter would in effect render the business worthless.

There are other scenarios for these firms. I sometimes think optimism is a mineral in Lofoten. A veritable army of Norwegian investment bankers are no doubt trudging around with pitchbooks and research reports showing that if you just pay them a transaction fee in cash these contracting companies will bring you untold wealth (next year). But the most likely scenario is that a dramatic reduction in demand is followed by a large reduction in supply and at the moment only the first of these outcomes has occured as the previous cyclical nature of the industry has encouraged hope for a demand led revival. “It’s not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand” as John Cleese famously remarked.

But it is starting to feel like the end of the road… Solstad has become a national embarrasment, OI a vanity project, and Bibby simply a mistake (to name just three examples). Eventually, when all the other possibilities have been exhausted mean reversion and cash needs will begin dictate economic reality.

One of the most bullish offshore data firms recently published this forecast:

IMG_0992

Just remember as a general rule: the larger the orange bar at the bottom (particularly in a relative sense) the less your offshore asset is worth.

[Graph in the header from this Seadrill presentation. Not a graph I suspect that will appear in one from Borr Drilling soon].

It’s grim up North… And the labour theory of value…

It’s Grim Up North.  The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu

Ricardo, Marx, and Mill believed that prices were determined by how much people had, in the past, invested. And that blinded them to any understanding of the workings of the market.

Friedrich Hayek

[I am not really a Hayek fan (in case anyone is interested). But he was a very smart guy who understood social and economic change processes better than most. Beyond that you get diminishing returns. As an aside I have been too busy to blog much lately, which is a shame as some really interesting things have been happening, but it doesn’t seem to have affected my visitor numbers much, which just goes to show maybe my silence is more valuable.]

The Oil and Gas UK 2018 Economic Report is out. For the North Sea supply chain there is no good news. There is clearly a limited offshore industry recovery underway as we head towards the end of summer. However, the market is plagued by overcapacity, and while service firms without offshore assets are starting to see some positive gains, if you are long on floating assets chances are you still have a  problem, it is only the severity that varies.

The UKCS is what a declining basin looks like: fewer wells of all types being drilled and dramatically lower capital expenditure. There is no silver lining here: an asset base built to deliver 2013/14 activity levels simply has too many assets for the vastly reduced flow of funds going through the supply chain. The report makes clear that the base of installed infrastructure will decline and there will be a relentless focus on cost optimisation to achieve this.

UK Capital Investment 2018.png

The volume of work may be increasing marginally but the overall value may even down on 2017 at the lower end of the 2018 forecast (purple box). Clearly £10bn being removed from the oil and gas supply chain, c. 60% down on 2014, is a structural change.

And the OpEx numbers unsurprisingly show a similar trend:

UKCS OpEx 2018.png

Party like it’s 2012 says Oil and Gas UK. Unfortunately a lot more boats and rigs were built since then.

Unit Operating Costs 2018.png

An unsurprisingly the pressure on per barrel costs seems to have reached the limits of downward pressure.

This should make supply chain managers seriously consider what their investment plans are for assets specific to the region and the likelihood of assets having to work internationally to be economic. It should also make people reassess what stuff is actually worth in a market that has reduced in size by that quantum and from which there is no realistic path to 2014 activity levels.

Technip paid $105m for the Vard 801, about $55m/45% discount to the build cost. Such a deal seems realistic to me. Some of the deals I have seen in offshore remind me of The Labour Theory of Value: if you dig a massive hole that costs a lot it must therefore be worth a lot. In reality with so much less cash floating around for assets that will service the UKCS an asset is worth the cash it can generate over its life, and the fact that it is substantially less than its replacement cost is just another clear example of how the industry will reduce its invested capital  as production levels in the basin decline. Like airlines offshore assets have a high marginal cost to operate and disposable inventory which is why you can lose so much money on them.

Boskalis appears to have paid an average of c. $60m for the two Nor vessels which equates to a similar discount on an age weighted basis. Quite where this leaves Bibby needing to replace the 20 year old Polaris and 14 year old Sapphire is anyone’s guess. But it is not a comfortable position to be in as the clear number four by size (in terms of resource access) to have competitors funding their newest assets on this basis. Yes, the shareholders may have paid an equivalent discount given the company value they brought in at, but if you want to sell the business eventually then you need a realistic economic plan that the asset base can self-fund itself, and at these sort of prices that is a long way off. Without an increase in the volume and value of construction work 4 DSV companies looks to be too many and this will be true for multiple asset classes.

As a mild comparison I came across this article on $Bloomberg regarding Permian basin mid-stream investment:

Operations in the Permian that gather oil and gas, and process fuel into propane and other liquids, have drawn almost $14 billion in investment since the start of 2017, with $9.2 billion of that coming from private companies..

That is just one part of the value chain. I get you it’s not a great comparison, but the idea is simply the ability to raise capital and deploy it in oil production, and it is clear that for Permian projects that is relatively easy at the moment. The sheer scale of the opportunities in the US at the moment is ensuring it gets attention and resources that belie a strictly “rational” basis of evaluation.

IMG_0957.JPG

That is what a growth basin looks like. The narrative is all positive. Once short-term infrastructure challenges are resolved that stock of drilled but uncompleted will be turned into production wells.

Oil and Gas UK go to great pains to explain the economic potential of the UKCS. But finance isn’t strictly rational and I still feel they need to be realistic about the cycle time tradeoff offshore entails. Shale, as we have seen, has an enormously flexible cost base relative to offshore and that has value.

The comments I make below are part of a bigger piece that I keep wanting to write but a) don’t have the time; and, b) probably doesn’t work for a blog format. But I think the impact of the private equity companies taking over North Sea assets needs to be realistically assessed.

Don’t get me wrong here I am a massive supporter of them. In terms of the volume of cash, and the ability to buy and invest at the bottom of the cycle, the North Sea would clearly have been worse off without private equity. But the results are in and there has not been a development boom… there has been a focus on the best economic assets that may make the fields last longer, but that is a different test. There may clearly have been an investment boom relative to what there would have been without private equity money, but again that is a slightly different point.

Private equity firms have a much higher cost of capital than traditional E&P companies and at the margin that will limit the number of projects they fund. The focus on lowering costs and returning cash as quickly as possible, often to compensate for how hard it will be for the owners to exit such sizeable positions, also adds to the change in the investment and spend dynamic (on the downside obviously). I am genuinely interested to see how these large multi-billion dollar investments are exited given how much trouble the super-majors are having at getting out.

Private equity may well be the future of the North Sea but that has huge implications for the supply chain. It is also worthwhile pointing out that while the smaller companies maybe able to sweat old assets they have a limit for larger projects. Quad 204 is a classic project where it is hard to see even one of the largest PE backed companies having the technical skills and risk appetite to take on such a vast project.

The majority of the larger deals also involved significant vendor financing from the sellers. Shell had to lend Chrysaor $400m of the $3bn initial consideration. This happened not through generosity, or a desire to maintain economic exposure to the assets, but because debt finance from the capital markets or banks was simply unavailable even to such large and sophisticated buyers. Siccar Point went to the Norwegian high-yield market in January borrowing $100m at 9% for five years. The fact is finance is scarce, and when available expensive, and this is impacting the ability of E&P projects to get financed. Enquest has had to do a deeply discounted rights issue, and borrow off BP, to complete Sullam Voe.

The E&P majors are helping to finance their own exit because it is the only way they can get out. The turnaround from that to an investment boom that could raise asset values in the supply chain is a long one.

In order to make money in this environment the E&P companies, particularly those backed by private equity, are focusing on driving down costs and limiting Capex with a ruthless efficiency and commitment few in the supply chain believed possible long-term. Where offshore assets are concerned the oversupply situation only assists with this. I met one of the private equity investors last week and I can assure you there is no pressure to replace old assets, safety first definitely, economics and finance second just as definitely.

The reality for the supply chain is this is a market where it will be very hard to make money for a very long time, and in reality the glory days of 2012-2014 look extremely unlikely to return. The Oil and Gas UK report gives some important data in explaining why.

Chinese subsea vessels…

Last month COOEC successfully delivered a high spec DSV and IMR further adding capacity to an already depressed market. The only effect is that companies like who used to charter DSVs and IMR vessels in the region have now lost completely the chance for this work and these vessels will be offered at rock bottom rates when they are quiet domestically.

Given that it is cheaper, and will be for some time to charter vessels rather than own them, one wonders why construction on these vessels was started long after this became clear?

A good article here highlights the scale of the subsidies for Chinese shipbuilders and the effect this has had on the industry:

Chinese shipyards.png

Given the conclusion:

[t]his calculation implies that a frequent assertion that China developed shipbuilding to benefit from low freight rates for its trade seems to be unsubstantiated. Indeed, the benefits of subsidies to shipping are minimal. Perhaps instead, the Chinese government is aspiring to externalities for sectors such as steel and defense, or even national pride …

[t]he results of my study suggest that Chinese subsidies dramatically altered the geography of production and countries’ market shares. Although price (and thus consumer) gains are small in the short run, they may grow in the long run as the operating fleet becomes larger.

It is hard not to see this as a move to ensure China moves up the value chain in the production chain for high spec vessels. Not good news for residual values long term I would suggest.

MPV Everest and DSV business models….

So it appears the Russians have paid equity and have fully taken delivery of the MPV Everest. Well done Keppel on getting paid the full contract value for such specialised tonnage in this market. I was wrong to cast aspersions on the soundness of the contract. And well done MCS for following through and taking full asset risk on this. I am not sure anyone esle can claim such a credit across most offshore asset classes?

The vessel looks close to signing some short-term work in Asia and will have the dive system commissioned as part of this. But…

The problem is the day rate… particularly as this is a vessel that looks set to operate at not that much more than cash breakeven on the first job and it has an empty schedule beyond that. The fact is the entirely speculative strategy of building high-quality DSV assets and thinking they would get a premium day rate, while displacing older tonnage, is having an extremely expensive initial experiment and proving its instigators both wrong and right…

Right in the fact there is a premium, but wrong in total economic terms because it is nowhere near enough for people to cover their cost of capital or hope to recover the builkd cost. The Everest was always a rescue job, having been built for a terminated contract, but others are not. UDS is rumoured to be getting USD 50k a day from McDermott for the Qatar job, but sitting in Singapore waiting for someone else’s boat to break is a high-risk strategy and unlikely to be profitable in the long run. The Everest looks like commanding a 10-15% premium to competitor vessels in the spot market but would need a ~400% premium to have any hope of recovering the build cost. This reflects the overspecification of the vessel, the fact it cannot command ice/polar rates, and the oversupply in the DSV market.

My only point on this has been that when a wall of oversupply meets a very weak market then economic returns will be substantially below economic costs. Continuing to deliver high quality tonnage to undercapitalised operators and chartering parties will just prolong any downturn for the existing fleet owners. But if initial indications are anything to go by MCS are in this for the long run, they have been burning c.10-15k per day Opex with Fox since delivery and purchased some second hand ROVs (from M2 I understand); and having put USD 200m into the vessel are unlikely to walk away quickly. Unfortunately the most logical, and likely, reaction from competing owners is simply to drop prices even more.

MPV Everest for sale…

If you had been paid the contracted SGD 265m for the MPV Everest I am not sure it would appear on LinkedIn as in the recent photo above? I love this statement:

MPV Everest can carry out subsea repair and construction activities at 3000 metres of water depth, well intervention, diving support services with an 18-men twin-bell system, fire-fighting and emergency rescue operations, as well as towing and the provision of supplies in Arctic terrain.

Having a DSV that can operate at 3000m is like having an aeroplane that can also fly to the moon, interesting but dramatically over-specified, given that divers are limited to 300m (and more commonly 200m now)? Yes, I get the crane and ROVs can be used at that depth… but why hire a DSV then? And quite why you would need an 18 man SAT system for the provision of supplies to the Arctic is beyond me?

Incidentially, if I had paid SGD 265m for a vessel I also would want it to be slightly better looking? Personal taste I guess…

But then again I am pretty sure no one has paid more than the progress payments for this vessel yet… If they get half the contract value I will be impressed (see here).

These types of assets that were ordered in the boom to do everything seem the most exposed in value terms while the market remains chronically oversupplied. If Keppel cannot get rid of this, and there are a very limited number of buyers, before the UDS vessels start arriving next year then all that beckons is a race to the bottom in day rates as supply  continues to outpace even a modest recovery in demand.

Looks a lot like this:

White Elephant

I still remain surprised at the lack of public comment on this from Keppel. The relevant SGX continuous disclosure requirements would appear clear:

SGX Cont Disc.png

Not getting paid for a SGD 265m asset, that is in all reality worth significantly less, would appear to “materially affect the price or value”? Nine figure write-offs, even for a company the size of Keppel, tend to have that effect?

Who knows? Maybe PWC as auditors for Vard and Keppel could ask them to park the DSVs at the same location? That way they could save money as once a year an audit junior could go out, inspect the DSVs, confirm they were there and in good condition, hadn’t worked for a another year, but were still worth nearly exactly what someone had agreed to pay for them before they went bankrupt, and despite day rates for comparable vessel dropping somewhere between 40-60%?

Given it is now April this vessel will have no regular work, of any of substance, in  the 2018 calender year as the schedules are now effectively secured. Combined with the fact that this is by an order of magnitude the most expensive DSV in Asia (in cost terms) things are not looking good for Keppel here. The strategy of building the most expensive DSV in the world and seeing if it will force companies to upgrade their tonnage is getting a  pure natural experiment here before more similar vessels arrive. Serious buyers can be very patient here… the sellers? Maybe not so much.

Random DSV write-off Friday …

The map above, in the yellow circle, shows the MPV Everest parked right outside Keppel in Singapore (this morning)… which is an odd place to park a SGD 265m vessel you have “delivered”. I mean you have literally delivered it, but normally in shipping terms it means to someone who has paid for it. Sooner or later Keppel is going to have to front up and admit they haven’t been paid for this. I am surprised that as a listed company they haven’t had to already, but they will also need to come up with a realistic impairment value here which will be interesting?

Because according to AIS the two UDS DSVs (Lichtenstein and Picasso) are also in lay-up effectively in Singapore. With three more being built having 0% utilisation on the first two in the fleet must be a minor concern?

Jumeirah Offshore ST.jpg

And now into the mix comes the Jumeirah Offshore DSV being built at Huangpu… At least the yard here is being honest and admitting that the buyers have defaulted. But in the next breath you are told they will only sell at 100% of book value… And the vessel is c. 80% complete apparently: just enough to have purchased all the expensive long lead items but not enough to recover their value. This is a nice vessel on paper, 24 man Drass system, ST design, 250t crane, and a fairly generous power capacity etc.

In fact it is possibly as nice as the Vard DSV, speaking of unsold DSVs (although without the build quality one suspects), that will also only be sold at book value. So when looking at the size of the financial write down that these yards will have to take why not look there given Vard have just published their accounts? It is not completely clear how much value Vard are acribing to the vessel as they hold it in inventory with another vessel, but amazingly the write-off for all their vessels is only NOK 54m, or around $7m!

Given the discounts going around in offshore at the moment for completed offshore vessels, and the price Boskalis recently paid for the Nor vessels, to pretend that the Vard 801 only lost a maximum of $7m on it’s build cost (Vard use realisable value) is really unbelievable. Preposterous in fact. Surely a discount of 50% to cost would be needed to actually sell the vessel in this market? The scale of the loss here is massive for Vard, not quite a solvency event but not that far off and hence their desperation to hold an unrealistic value, but this is really a case where it is hard to see how the auditor has been objective here? There is enough market intelligence to suggest that a North Sea Class DSV that cost c. $150m to build would need to be marked down more than 5% to sell in this market? Good news for Keppel because they are audited by PWC as well I guess?

The fact is there are a host of very high-end DSVs mounting up in yards now with no realistic buyers and yet somehow we are meant to believe these vessels are worth close to what they cost to build? This despite the fact that UDS has made a business out of offering to commercially market very similar vessels and apart from a small job in Iran, and short-lived contract with a company without an office or phone, has managed to get close to zero utilisation. I am going to share with you an extremely insightful piece of economic thinking: if a boat isn’t being paid to work then it it isn’t worth a lot of money (generally speaking).

And still they come… three more from UDS alone… will they really be finished or cancelled like the Toisa vessel in China?

Quite where all these vessels end up is a great unkown. Only a maximum of 2 could ever end up in the North Sea given current demand levels and replacement requirements, and more likely one, and just as likely Technip and Subsea 7 just decide to replicate their last DSV new builds with export financing and attractive delivery terms… in which case none are worth the North Sea premium.

That means these vessels are likely to end up in the Middle East and Asia where day rates have never supported North Sea class DSVs for a host of very good economic and environmental reasons. So either there are a whole pile of USD 150m DSVs sitting around idle, with no buyers, that are all worth nearly exactly what they cost indefinitely, or someone is going to start losing some real money soon, even if the auditors allow them to pretend they won’t for a while longer.