The Emporers New Clothes… Seadrill Redux…

As a quick update to my last post on Seadrill (in which I was making a semi-serious point). I had a quick flick through the Seadrill 6k so you don’t have to… But first a little background… this post I wrote in April last year “Seadrill restructuring… secular or cyclical industry change?” seems to have aged well. In particular I noted:

[According to their restructuring plan in] 2019 Seadrill needs to grow revenue 65% to lose $415m of cash after turning over $2bn. In 2020 Seadrill then needs to grow 40% again, and only then do they generate $25m after meeting all their obligations. A rounding error. A few thousand short on day rates or a few percentage points in utilisation adrift and they will lose some real money.

Have another look at their business plan they had released in April last year:

Seadrill forecast P&L 2018.png

How is that “forecast” on revenue going? Seadrill did $302m in Q1 2019, which if they keep at that level is a rounding error above 2018. But it is more than 30% less where they thought they would be only a year ago. It’s not that long ago to be like $600m (of only $1.9bn) out… just saying… it’s more than a minor forecasting error… (go back and look at my post they were already downgraded and had been based on numbers supplied by a reputable IB with an analyst who currently has a Buy rating on SDRL).

Now just be to clear Seadrill was also forecasting they would generate $721m in EBITDA (a proxy for cash flow and an ability to service their debt). We have now passed the Q1, where they generated $72m, and guided $60m for Q2. So if we annualise that (which is generous as they got an unexpected $12m in Q1) they are on target for (max) $250m; around 1/3 of what they thought.

The $7.2bn of debt remains of course and was the (only?) accurate part of the forecast. Immovable and a testament to the willingness of humans to believe something that cannot possibly be true.

The numbers are clearly a disaster. The business plan above is a fantasy and Seadrill is heading for Chapter 22. Relatively quickly.

If you’re interested here’s how bad it is:

Seadrill actually did less revenue last quarter than the one the year before:

Seadrill Revenues Q1 2019.png

But had the same number of rigs working:

SDRL rigs working Q1 2019.png

And therefore the obvious… day rates have dropped…

SDRL Day Rates Q1 2019.png

And that is your microcosm for the whole industry offshore and subsea. Excess capacity means that even if you can find new work it is at lower rates.

Also, and I keep banging on about this, what are they going to do when Petrobras starts handing back the PLSVs this year? DOF’s are in lay-up, and there is no spot market for PLSVs. The equity in that JV is likely zero. Even if Petrobras does start re-tendering for PLSVs (unlikely given the drop in the number of floaters working) all that beckons is a price war with DOF to get them working. Anything above running costs will be a victory if the vessel market is a guide.

It goes without saying that in a price deflationary environment it is only a question of how long the banks can pretend they will be made whole here. SDRL isn’t going to get to $1.9bn in revenue this year and it certainly isn’t getting to $2.6bn the year after unless they change their reporting figures to the Argentinian Peso.

When I have more time I will explain my point on this more… but in the meantime be reassured the 23% drop the other day was  not an anomoly. The real question is why it took so long (and yes I do have a theory:). The investment bankers dream of someone buying Seadrill almost as much as Seadrill’s lending banks, but I find it highly unlikely (but not impossible) someone will make good $7bn in debt, and putting to stones together doesn’t mean they will float.

But the core point is that this is part of a deep structural change in the oil production market where offshore is not the marginal producer of choice any more. Previously that meant short-term oil price effects had a large (extremely pro-cyclical) effects on an industry with a very long-run supply curve, and this was combined with a credit bubble between 2009-2014. If my theory is right, and it has held up well for the past few years, then the much predicted,  but never appearing, demand-side boom will remain the Unicorn it has been for the past few years: a chimera that only appears in investment bank and shipbroker slide-decks.

That marginal producer is the now that shale industry a point Spencer Dale made a very long time ago now:

An important consequence of these characteristics is that the short-run responsiveness of shale oil to price changes will be far greater than that for conventional oil. As prices fall, investment and drilling activity will decline and production will soon follow. But as prices recover, investment and production can be increased relatively quickly. The US shale revolution has, in effect, introduced a kink in the (short-run) oil supply curve, which should act to dampen price volatility. As prices fall, the supply of shale oil will decline, mitigating the fall in oil prices. Likewise, as prices recover, shale oil will increase, limiting any spike in oil prices. Shale oil acts as a form of shock absorber for the global oil market.

Ignoring this fact lets you produce a “Key Financials” slide that bears no obvious relationship to how the market is really going to evolve. There is a lot of pain to come for the offshore industry as the need for banks to make painful writeoffs starts to permeate through the system and finally even more painfully capacity will be permanently removed from the market. This is an industry that needs significantly less capital and capacity to generate economic profits. And as I say: this is the recovery.

Corporate finance Borr Drilling style…

One of the more curious corporate finance transactions took place earlier this year when Borr Drilling, an enormously leveraged rig company when financial commitments are taken into account and using its revolver for working capital, then purchased 1.5m of its own shares at NOK 35.50. As can be seen above the shares have since declined 18% and are now worth NOK 29, which is signficantly below the price they last raised capital at ($4.6/ ~NOK 39).

In the scheme of things the loss isn’t that much money,  it’s really a question of whether for such a  (sic) “high-growth” company is depleting liquidity to buy back shares the best use of its capital? I noted at the time this was close to extraordinary for a company that needs to raise hundreds of millions of dollars (not a misprint) in capital over the next three years to remain a going concern ? In which case why are they doing it?

For what it’s worth my own view is I think the Management and the Directors of Borr understand how deeply in financial trouble they are: the market simply isn’t coming back to anything like what they and their original backers planned. Without a massive increase in demand the entire investment thesis is flawed and the company has no reason for existing in a very real sense. By embedding leverage in the shipyard delivery times as well as the bonds, and using a revolver for working capital, Borr requires the market to come back strongly and for them to activate a vast number of warm-stacked units in this hypothetical demand pickup… just for Borr to remain solvent, yet alone make an economic return. As an external observer reading the public anouncements it feels like a degree of panic is setting in.

As the Borr Drilling prospectusin early 2018 made clear this is a highly competitive business:

The profitability of the offshore drilling industry is largely determined by the balance between supply and demand for rigs. Offshore drilling contractors can mobilize rigs from one region of the world to another, or reactivate cold stacked rigs in order to meet demand in various markets.

The shallow water segment of the drilling industry is particularly competitive with no single contractor having a dominant market share. Competitive factors include price, rig availability, rig operating features, workforce experience, operating efficiency, condition of equipment, safety record, contractor experience in a specific area, reputation and customer relationships. [Emphasis added].

Particularly competitive” with “no single contractor having a dominant market share” tells you how absurd the plan here is, and how much alternative investors wanted to believe in an outcome they knew to be economically illogical. Market share and competitive factors are directly related to profitability. With no fast growing market this company is simply a financial time bomb. Yet as recently as September Borr’s Chairman stated:

“We have an ambition to return a significant part of cash back to shareholders quickly … if we don’t pay dividends in 2020, we have failed,” Troeim told Reuters.

I’ll bet my house that doesn’t happen. [Actually that isn’t strictly true because Troeim could clearly afford to take me up on that and my domestic happiness would be rapidly curtailed if I started playing in the futures market with matrimonial property… But you get where I am coming from].  But the dividend comment springs from the same belief that the current market is some mis-pricing anomaly rather than a deep structural change in the oil market.

Now for plan B. A rights issue that would heavily dilute shareholders is the most logical fundraising strategy here, but finding more hedge funds to by your stock when it keeps on going down 30% is not easy. I just cannot believe Schlumberger are going to carry on committing capital to this venture on a proportionate basis. Debt? really? With no backlog or even utilisation?

The idea that this slide seems to highlight ,that banks or other debt providers would lend against the unencumbered rigs when they have absolutely no work available, seems so very 2012, quaint almost:

Built to last .png

The title of this slide is surely begging irony? The whole Borr business plan relies on growth significantly faster than the market when the market has extreme overcapacity from well capitalised (and desperate) competitors, and financing this by borrowing against rigs with no work or backlog. What could go wrong? See more here.  Borr management have done a lot, struck deals, brought kit etc., but the possible economic value creation is a simply a vastly leveraged play on a never appearing demand boom. It is a microcosm of offshore investment sentiment and a stubborn willingness to accept the scale of change shale as wrought on the market. At some point the business case must be a logical inconsistency if shale keeps growing at current rates? I’d suggest that point was passed a while ago.

The blow-up here is unlikely to be as dramatic and spectacular as something like EMAS because the perceived asset value is so high. But the scale of the amount of capital that needs to be raised, and the likely time period before it could be returned is so long, that each additional round of funding here is likely to be very expensive. Something “the market” seems to be belatedly waking up to. Borr Drilling is the ultimate measure of investment risk and sentiment in the alternative investment community in my opinion and serves as a useful barometer for how to perceive market risk.

I think Borr were trying to use the share buyback as a small signal to keep the share price high and to cut the dilution effect that will be imposed on the insiders who hold a large amount of the shares. I think the reactivation of 4 rigs speculatively was literally a gamblers last-roll as there have been no updates since about possible work for these units. A signalling event spectacularly mis-timed given the decline in the price of oil.

Share buybacks, particularly open-ended purchase programmes like the one Borr is engaged in, are extremely well-studied. There is evidence that managers can time the market (i.e. buy the shares cheap) and that smaller firms do this better than bigger firms… but you can also see “Share repurchases as a potential tool to mislead investors“, which is close to what I think happened here, although I temper this a view that offshore seems to have a number of people who see a declining oil price as contrary to some law of nature.

The fabulously optimistic Rystad Energy (more recently here and in direct contravention to DOF on AHTS, (who like actually own boats)) predict higher rates, proof that maybe you can build a great information business without having great information… a skill I grant you.  But there is no question now that most rational participants are coming to grips with the fact that the subsea and offshore market isn’t going to “recover” next year and that leaves Borr Drilling with an enormous funding hole to cover. Borr is the ultimate leveraged play on the “market recovery and scrapping” thesis, a momentum play that has lost inertia, and slowly the (hot) air seems to be draining from this balloon and the market sentiment in general.

 

Change at the margin… shale versus offshore…

Shelf Drilling US.png

The map above and the statement above are taken from the Shelf Drilling prospectus. According to management, as can be clearly seen, there has been a structural change in the market and it simply isn’t coming back. 28 jack ups gone. Forever.

My only point on this is when you read about 90 units being scrapped since 2014 and 31 this year alone that is good in terms of helping restore the demand supply balance. But a market that used to have 40 jack-ups at it’s peak is never coming back and could conceivably go to zero. 1/3 of the scrappings just reflected a decline in the size of the market. And Mexico isn’t looking good either. Strangely none of the waterfall charts that show scrapping add back in an allowance for the accepted end state of the US Gulf? So of the 285 jackups on contract 10% of that number have had their market permanently removed and must surely impact on any credible scenario of market recovery?

Yes many in the GoM will have been the ones scrapped and will have been the older and less capable units, certainly not premium. But the point is there has been a structural change due to shale that has removed an geographical segment of the jack-up market and those need to be accounted for in a simplistic scrapping scenario. It also mean that if the market is “certain” to double in five years then other areas actually need to grow proportionately more to pick up the slack?

There has been a structural change in the Gulf market. Shallow water is out and large fields are in. Many of the offshore guys have probably gone onshore for the same money and the expense of laying off-take infrastructure in shallow water just isn’t worth it for companies now. This is a unique feature of the Gulf, although in Mexico they also appear to have largely exhausted the shallow water fields, but a factor with utilisation and supply/demand balances for the entire global fleet.

For those hoping for some Mexican respite this article from the FT last week will not be good news quoting the almost certain-to-be new finance minister:

“We certainly want more and more foreign, not just Mexican, investment and we’re going to open the door to everything,” Carlos Urzúa told the FT.  “The only exception is that there’s going to be a halt to oil tenders, ” said Mr Urzúa, an economics professor and published poet with a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But apart from that, anywhere they want to invest, let them invest.” [Emphais added].

The growth in the GoM is all deep water high-flow rate, high CapEx projects. None of those can be serviced by jack-ups and given the international scope of companies like Rowan and Ensco some units are clearly destined for international markets.

This is just a small example of how small change at the margin affects the overall picture of demand for offshore assets. In 2014 the US was 14% of the jack-up market according to the figures above and recovery boom in the years ahead when the market has contracted meaningfully will be a rare feat if it occurs.