2008 | 2009 | ||||||
Price: | 62.25 | EPS | |||||
Shares Out. (in M): | 0 | P/E | |||||
Market Cap (in $M): | 2,255 | P/FCF | |||||
Net Debt (in $M): | 0 | EBIT | 0 | 0 | |||
TEV (in $M): | 0 | TEV/EBIT |
Sign up for free guest access to view investment idea with a 45 days delay.
Thesis
SEVAN Marine (SEVAN.NO, Kr62.25/shr) designs, builds, owns, and operates cylinder-shaped floating vessels used to provide offshore oil/energy services. The company was founded in 2001 based on its unique cylinder-shaped vessel design and is building a fleet of primarily deepwater FPSO vessels as well as a Floating Driller. An FPSO is a floating production, storage and offloading vessel that serves as a conduit between an offshore oil field and the tankers that transport the product to market. SEVAN has designed additional applications for its technology and is working to open up brand new markets by securing contracts for a Floating LNG (liquefied natural gas) vessel and a Floating GTW (gas-to-wire power plant) vessel in the near future. SEVAN is a compelling investment opportunity as the company has come up with a superior solution for a secular growth industry, is leveraging its technology and expertise into new markets, has more than 100% upside over a one-year time horizon, and offers reasonable downside protection based on existing/near-term contracts (see DCF valuation below).
The superior solution is SEVAN’s patented cylinder design that is cheaper to build and operate and has superior motion characteristics when compared to the traditional ship-shaped floating vessels that are offered by the rest of the industry. These advantages should drive robust market share and attractive return on invested capital for the foreseeable future. The secular growth story is driven by several factors, including 1) declining production curves of mature onshore and shallow-water oil reserves that continue to make deepwater oil the primary solution for maintaining and growing world oil production; 2) accelerating interest in Floating LNG to satisfy global energy shortages and arbitrage regional natural gas prices; and 3) the option value of leveraging SEVAN’s technology solution into other floating vessel concepts.
Capitalization: Kr62.25/shr, 185mm shares, $2.3b market cap, $570mm net debt, $15mm ADV.
Please forgive the limited discussion of valuation in this thesis introduction as the best way to value SEVAN, given that the company is in the growth phase of its economic life cycle, is through discounted cash flow analysis as detailed below.
Fleet Profile
SEVAN is in the nascent stage of growth with one FPSO in operation (as of 4Q07), one FPSO expected on-line in 1Q08, two FPSOs under construction with contracts, two FPSOs under construction on spec, and one driller under construction with contract. Customers include Petrobras, Venture Production, and Oilexco. Vessels cost $200-500 million, depending on size and topside specifications, and take approximately two years to build. Due to its superior motion characteristics, SEVAN typically targets harsh weather or motion-sensitive opportunities for which both barriers-to-entry and economic returns are higher. Of SEVAN’s five contracts, three are in the North Sea, one is off the coast of
SEVAN’s Cylinder Technology
We see SEVAN’s patented cylinder vessel design as a game changing technology. The building of offshore oil production equipment is very capital intensive and SEVAN’s cylinder shape and innovative design give it a 30-40% construction cost advantage to traditional ship-shaped FPSOs. This advantage comes from the need for less steel and piping per unit volume as well as lower engineering costs and shorter construction time due to more uniform modular assembly. A traditional ship shape is designed to move as efficiently as possible through water, but an FPSO is not designed with the intent of sailing as it is fixed to a given field for multi-year periods. The ship-shaped FPSOs that SEVAN competes with therefore require a complex and costly turret system that allows the ship to swivel and point itself into winds, waves, and currents. Because SEVAN engineered its hull to be as stable as possible in the water and the cylinder shape has natural symmetry, the SEVAN FPSO can be moored to the ocean floor, providing stability in a far simpler and less costly manner. Relative to ship-shaped FPSOs, the cost to operate the vessel is approximately 10% lower and the superior motion characteristics allow for higher uptime and more efficient processing of oil, especially during times of severe weather.
SEVAN recently participated in a joint industry program with several oil companies to study the SEVAN unit’s ability to stay connected in 10,000 year hurricane/cyclone conditions. This study was funded by the oil companies (potential customers) and Australian super-regional Woodside even published an article in an internal company magazine extolling the potential benefits of SEVAN’s design. Here are some excerpts from the Woodside article:
“At present… Woodside… FPSO’s disconnect the turret and sail away in a cyclone. This is a time-consuming operation that is also costly in terms of lost production and probably unacceptable for integrated gas projects that require very high availability… The [SEVAN] model performed surprisingly well as it rode waves created to the maximum capabilities of the test tank without pitching or rolling as a ship shape would.”
The FPSO industry historically achieves new vessel IRRs of 10-15%. The construction and operating cost advantages for SEVAN can justify ROIC that is 600 basis points better than other harsh weather competitors. Another 250 basis points of ROIC outperformance can be justified assuming vessel uptime is improved by 5% and SEVAN shares 50% of the efficiencies. This is because any barrel of oil that is not produced today gets pushed to the end of the 10-20 year field life. Based on management guidance and our competitive analysis, we believe that new contracts will generate IRRs in the 15-20% range. Given SEVAN’s estimated 8.0% WACC, each new contract signing is highly accretive to valuation.
We spent significant time vetting SEVAN’s cost advantage and found that it could be verified in both harsh and benign water. While SEVAN has captured the three most recent
Market Share
Due to its superior technology, SEVAN has managed to capture approximately 15% market share of new FPSO contract awards, since signing its first contract with Petrobras in early 2005, and one driller contract despite having an unproven concept. The company has also captured each of the last three
Secular Growth
Most large oil fields have been found and are in a state of decline, resulting in an increasing trend to offshore, deepwater fields. Building infrastructure to these fields is increasingly expensive or not physically possible, leading to the use of FPSOs in favor of more fixed platform and pipeline solutions. In addition to having cost and timing advantages, FPSOs can be easily moved at the end of a field’s production life, thereby reducing risk and providing better amortization of capital costs. These trends have resulted in the worldwide FPSO fleet growing from 23 in 1995 to 145 in 2007, or a 16% CAGR, and should continue to drive ~10% CAGR for the foreseeable future according to International Maritime Associates. While the market is aware that demand for FPSOs is very strong for the next few years, our analysis suggests that long-term demand for oil FPSOs is approximately 20 new vessels per year, with 75% of those being leased from SEVAN or its competitors. Recent oil and gas discoveries by Petrobras and others in the
The deepwater trend should also enable SEVAN to capture additional floating driller contracts over time. Management has suggested that with an additional driller contract SEVAN may spin off the business to better take advantage of robust demand for floating drillers. As a separate entity, the drilling business will be able to expand balance sheet capacity and dedicate management resources to more aggressively pursue new contracts. We believe that the driller business can reasonably capture one contract per year as an independent entity.
In seeming confirmation of the option value in both deepwater energy solutions and SEVAN’s technology in particular, the energy industry’s interest in Floating LNG has expanded dramatically over the last six months. We believe the industry and SEVAN itself will announce a firm Floating LNG contract by year-end at the latest. Floating LNG in this context refers to the building of floating vessels that contain gas processing and liquefaction equipment on the topside and cryogenic storage in the hull. Floating LNG is a new concept with as yet no liquefaction vessels in operation worldwide. The concept will capitalize on the world’s current bottleneck in gas liquefaction capacity which is needed to satisfy regional energy shortages and arbitrage the price differential between regional trapped gas and developed markets. LNG regasification and transportation capacity have outstripped onshore liquefaction capacity due to labor shortages, cost inflation, and political uncertainty causing significant project delays. The resulting supply chain bottleneck has turned the industry toward the offshore liquefaction, or Floating LNG, solution. Floating LNG, while still in evaluation stage, is likely to have shorter lead-times, more manageable infrastructure requirements, and competitive unit economics when compared to onshore projects. And again, the ability to move vessels over time reduces risk and provides better amortization of capital costs. Evaluation of Floating LNG has also accelerated due to tougher environmental requirements regarding gas flaring, which wastes increasingly valuable energy and releases green-house gasses. Infield, an independent oil and gas industry research firm, has identified as many as 2,000 offshore gas fields that the industry may target over time. SEVAN’s unique cylinder design and its superior motion characteristics are particularly well-suited for Floating LNG due to the importance of minimizing LNG sloshing. We believe that SEVAN can capture one Floating LNG contract per year and perhaps more as the concept proves out.
Consensus
The sell-side is generally positive on SEVAN with six BUYS, four HOLDS, and one SELL. However, we believe the sell-side is being conservative in its underwriting of future vessels for SEVAN, with the most bullish analysts projecting that SEVAN ultimately builds its fleet to 17 vessels. And while the market seems to accept that a downside scenario for SEVAN might be a fleet of 7-9 vessels, we believe such a scenario is excessively conservative given the secular tailwinds and replacement requirements. While it is understandable that the market might be cautious when underwriting growth for an emerging company and concept, we also feel it is narrow-minded not to pay attention to the facts. SEVAN has both captured significant FPSO market share and cracked into the driller market over the last three years despite not having a proven concept in either market. The cylinder concept is now proven and receiving high marks from its customer and management is confident on signing three new contracts by 2Q08. The secular growth story for deepwater solutions continues to be strengthened by the recent
Valuation Scenarios
SEVAN has realistic upside of more than 100% over a one-year time horizon and reasonable downside of 10% based on existing/near-term contracts. While this section will outline a few valuation scenarios, SEVAN is a stock that will require more independent diligence to verify cash flows and appreciate the valuation impact as new vessels join the fleet over time. All scenarios assume a 8.0% WACC based on 4.50% risk-free rate, 2.50% debt spread (although long-term financing recently arranged at L+150), 10.0% tax rate, 5.00% equity premium, 1.0 asset beta (long-term contracts offset other risks), and 50/50 debt/equity. This WACC imputes to a 9.5x EBITDA multiple on a completed vessel, which is quite reasonable given the low tax rate and modest maintenance capital requirements.
Downside: SEVAN launches two vessels per year for the next five years for a total of ten vessels (including the five contracts already signed). Achieved IRR on new contracts is 15%. Present value price target at year-end 2008 is approximately Kr55 per share, or 10% downside. We find it highly unlikely that SEVAN will ultimately be limited to ten vessels.
Midcase: SEVAN launches two vessels per year for the next five years (including the five contracts already signed) and two vessels per year for the following five years, taking total fleet to 20 vessels. Achieved IRR on new contracts is 15%. Present value price target at year-end 2008 is approximately Kr100 per share, or 60% upside.
Upside: SEVAN launches two vessels per year for the next five years (including the five contracts already signed) and three vessels per year starting year five on an ongoing basis (for 20 years). Achieved IRR on new contracts is 15%. Present value price target at year-end 2008 is approximately Kr200 per share, or more than 200% upside. While consensus might find this extended build program aggressive, our research suggests that SEVAN is particularly well positioned to capitalize on secular deepwater trends for multiple floating applications that will last not just for the next five years that are published in a sell-side research note, but rather for the next several decades. While it may be unlikely for SEVAN to see Kr200/shr by year-end, justifiable upside of this magnitude suggests that SEVAN is a stock that can generate substantial annual gains over a multi-year holding period.
show sort by |
# | AUTHOR DATE SUBJECT |
---|---|
11 | |
Is anyone following Sevan? The stock is down in the mid-30s and nothing appears to have changed in the fundamental outlook. Would appreciate any insights or thoughts. | |
10 | |
I am meeting the CFO next week if anyone has any specific questions, put them on the board and I'll get back to you with response | |
9 | |
Thanks for the questions. Regarding your first question about the order book. While I’m sure these numbers are slightly inaccurate as it’s difficult to keep track of every FPSO, there are presently 51 FPSOs that have been ordered. 17 of these are new builds, 33 are conversions, and 1 is a redeployment. 13 of the 51 (26%) are being build without a contract, which is obviously a lot of speculative build. However, in this list of 13 spec builds are 2 SEVAN vessels. And the only other spec build FPSO suitable for harsh water is a vessel from Nexus. This list actually includes 2 vessels from Nexus although they have not begun production of the 2nd vessel as they do not have a contract for their first vessel (and there are industry rumors that Nexus will cancel the second new build). Therefore, it appears that there are 3 FPSOs being built on spec that are suitable for harsh water and 2 of these vessels are from SEVAN. It’s up to SEVAN to prove that they can receive 2 FPSO contracts by mid-2008 and reduce their speculative build. This is management’s guidance and the market will be very disappointed if they do not achieve it. Regarding your second question, I’m actually not going to answer it directly because the CFO has flat out said that he will never again sign a contract with terms any where close to the deal with Petrobras. But perhaps a “reasonable downside” scenario would be to assume that the SEVAN 300 that is currently under construction gets a dayrate of $150k/day, which is more than a 25% discount to the $202.5k/day of the last contract. I’d also note that management has put their necks on the line stating that the next contract will have a dayrate of $220-240k/day so $150k/day is no where close to management guidance. Also, when the last contract was signed at $202.5k/day, SEVAN management thought the cost of a vessel was just $275mm – given a cost today of $350mm, they will increase the dayrate to compensate for the increased CX. To also be very draconian, lets assume a dayrate of just $225k/day on the SEVAN650 currently under construction. Run rate EBITDA will be $310mm in 2010 (this assumes corporate cost ~$30mm ahead of management to be conservative). Year-end 2009 Net Debt is $2.1b. Mkt cap at today’s price is $2.15b. So EV of $4.25b at year-end 2009 and EBITDA of $310mm results in 13.7x EV/Fwd EBITDA at year-end 2009. It’s probably more realistic to cut my corporate expense in half to be inline with management guidance as this scenario does not envision future growth. Making this adjustment raises EBITDA to $340mm and the valuation is 12.5x. | |
8 | |
Acknowleding that the Sevan FPSOs have advantages when competing for harsh environment contracts versus ship-shaped FPSOs, the lesser newbuilds will still be competing for contracts and at some price they are superior to the operator. If it is known, what does the newbuild orderbook look like for FPSOs? just wondering what the risk is that a lot of speculative Newbuilds have been ordered and will pressure rates. not basing that on anything (and i beleive the deepwater drillers like Seadrill are attractive due to how few rigs are in the ship yards relative to demand) but just identifying it as a risk. Thanks. Point of clarification on my poorly worded question from before. What i was trying to get at is a rough idea of the enterprise value fully loaded for the remaining capex of unfinished FPSOs versus the EBITDA of those assets if you used the contract terms from Petrobras. I know this is probably way too conservative since the Petrobras rate was a trial run of the first one and is too low but may be a useful datapoint. in other words, if they finish building the floaters and sign similar contracts and order no more boats, how is this trading? thanks | |
7 | |
Thanks for the question. And I believe you're hitting on one of the very key risks for the business. This is a capital intensive business and cost over-runs would certainly harm returns. A few thoughts: 1. SEVAN management is very upfront that they've had cost over-runs to date that are not acceptable. If you listen to the Q407 conf call, they discuss efforts they're undertaking to avoid future cost over-runs, such as having more work completed in China. Management has said a number of times that a future SEVAN 300 vessel will cost $350mm. I doubt that management wants to set itself up for a big fall by missing this cost estimate. 2. I can't think of anyone in the FPSO industry that is not experiencing cost over-runs at the current time. The 4 most comparable harsh water FPSOs currently under construction all have signficant cost over-runs (BP Skarv, Nexus I, Marathon Alvheim, Bluewater Ettrick). As this is an industry, rather than SEVAN, issue I believe these higher costs will be passed along in future contracts. And because SEVAN is a cheaper solution, the dollar advantage of SEVAN increases as costs inflate. 3. Because SEVAN is a less expensive FPSO, I have confidence that it can pass through higher costs. If you diligence the CX cost of each of the 4 vessels listed above you'll find that they're all signficantly more expensive than a comparable SEVAN vessel. Likewise, my analysis of FPSOs for benign waters that require a turret showed that SEVAN is also less expensive. And do note that in the back of SEVAN's presentations they indicate that areas that are extremely benign and do not require a turret (e.g., West Africa) are not a focus area. These areas are still more than 60% of demand for FPSOs. 4. SEVAN management indicated to me last year that they were planning to wait until they had approximately 1 yr of construction on the SEVAN 300 #5 and SEVAN 650 #1 (the 2 vessels currently being built on spec) to sign a contract because they wanted to be sure they had a solid estimate of total construction cost. You'll note that when SEVAN signed its most recent contract at the start of 2007 (for the SEVAN #3 with Oilexco) they thought the cost to construct was $275mm and now they realize it will be $325mm. So I feel that management is learning from past mistakes and will more accurately price in future construction costs to contracts. 5. SEVAN has a better solution and therefore I believe there are oil companies that would pay MORE for a SEVAN vessel than a traditional ship-shaped FPSO. For example, I spoke with Woodside and they indicated that in an average year their FPSOs off West Australia must disconnect approximately 10 days/yr in order to get out of the way of cyclones. SEVAN's superior motion characteristics would allow the vessel to stay connected. I'm not in my office with my notes, but the rough numbers are that Woodside is the operator of 5 FPSOs in Western Australia with total production of ~200k bbls/day. So assume 10 days * 200k bbls * $100/bbl = $200mm of revenue today rather than in 10-15 yrs at the end of the field's life. Additionally, SEVAN's platform is more stable allowing better efficiency of equipment that separates oil from other fluids. It's hard to put an exact number on this value, but major oil companies are paying SEVAN to perform studies to show that the cylinder shape can withstand huge storms. Additionally, I've seen wave pool footage of SEVAN's vessel in a once in 100 yr North Sea storm alongside a traditional ship shaped FPSO. The difference in motions is extremely large. Sorry for a long response without a precise answer. I agree that cost over-runs are a risk. Perhaps I'd recommend factoring in cost over-runs into your estimates and then determining if SEVAN is still an attractive investment. I believe that even in a downside scenario with cost over-runs, SEVAN is an attractive investment. | |
6 | |
Thanks for the question. My estimate of an average future vessel blends a SEVAN300 and SEVAN650 size vessel. These are the 2 smallest size vessels that SEVAN produces. I assume a cost to construct of $400mm spread over 2 yrs, Maint CX of $1mm/yr, a dayrate of $263k/day, OpEx/day of $51k, a first year of operation startup expense of $10mm, WC use of $15mm in the first year of operation, and a 9% tax rate. Y1: -200 Y2: -200 Y3: 45 Y4-Y32: 69 This should result in an IRR of 15.1%. Assuming a WACC of 8.0%, this results in an NPV of $290mm, which is worth about Kr8/sh. | |
5 | |
Thanks for the questions. 1. To answer your first question about cumulative cashflows, my answer would be the following: $3,243mm (this is not NPV, just total dollars) Back-up to cashflows is below and note that all cashflows include use of WC, taxes, Maint CX, and one-time startup expense: 1. FPSO #1: SEVAN Piranema is on a 11yr fixed and 11yr option contract with Petrobras. The contract has escalators for inflation. Petrobras has already made it fairly clear that they will keep the FPSO for 22yrs (almost all FPSOs have the option exercised). From 2008-2029 (22yrs) I get cashflow of $724mm. 2. FPSO #2: SEVAN Hummingbird is on a 2.5yr fixed and 5yr option contract with Venture Production (Venture owns 20% of the vessel). If the option is exercised, the contract increases in dayrate. Assuming 7.5yrs, I get cashflow of $114mm (this accounts for a large one-time startup expense and one-time WC expense; the one-time startup expense will be much less on future vessels). 3. FPSO #3: SEVAN Voyageur is on a 5yr fixed and 5yr option with Oilexco. Note that this is the most recent FPSO contract signed by SEVAN and the dayrate is $202.5k/day. The terms for each SEVAN FPSO contract have gotten progressively better and management has made it very clear to expect better terms on the next contract. I estimate cashflow of $479mm for the first 10yrs of this vessels life 4. FPSO #4: SEVAN Pilot is on either a 5 or 10yr contract with Venture Production. Management has indicated that it will announce the final terms of a contract in the near future. I spoke with the CEO of Venture Production and he confirmed this. To be conservative I'll assume a 5 yr life which gives cashflow of $228mm. 5. FPSO #5: No contract yet. Assume a dayrate of $215k/day for 10yrs. Results in cashflow of $519mm 6. FPSO #6: No contract yet. This is a larger vessel so I assume a dayrate of $275k/day for 10 yrs. Results in cashflow of $696mm. 7. SEVAN Driller: On a 6yr contract with Petrobras. Cashflow of $483mm. Finally, I'd note that these FPSOs have depreciable lives of 30yrs. Therefore, giving credit for shorter lives is conservative. 2. Your second question was the remaining CX for the first 7 vessels. Unfortunately this is not a number that management will provide so this is my best estimate: $1.35b 3. I was a little confused by your last question. If the answer I provide below isn't sufficient, please ask it again and I'll do a better job answering it. The first point I'd make is that the contract for the first vessel with Petrobras is not representative of future contracts. SEVAN needed to get a contract signed and accepted terms from Petrobras that they will never accept again. Btw, Petrobras is the world's largest operator of FPSOs so this is an excellent partner for a first contract. But to answer your question, if you assume the terms above for the first 7 vessels, my run-rate FCF for SEVAN would be approximately $315mm/yr. EBITDA would be ~$350mm/yr. | |
1 | |
thanks for the great writeup. If you looked at the cash flows that are already contracted and in backlog (the 4 FPSOs and one driller) and then assumed a similar day rate and OPEX/day for the ones under construction but not contracted, what would those add up to? What is the remaining CAPEX needed to be spent to get the assets (other than the one currently operating) out of the shipyard? Would be interested in seeing what this run rate cash flow stream, which assumes margins basically stay the same for assets out of the yard relative to the current Petrobras contract, looks like compared to the enterprise value grossed up by the remaining money they'll need to spend, regardless of how it is financed. This cash flow stream would obviously be lower than what they'd ultimately earn when cranking out a few FPSOs a year or when doing floating LNG but would give a sense of what you're paying now for the backlog plus assets under contruction. Thanks. |
Are you sure you want to close this position SEVAN Marine?
By closing position, I’m notifying VIC Members that at today’s market price, I no longer am recommending this position.
Are you sure you want to Flag this idea SEVAN Marine for removal?
Flagging an idea indicates that the idea does not meet the standards of the club and you believe it should be removed from the site. Once a threshold has been reached the idea will be removed.
You currently do not have message posting privilages, there are 1 way you can get the privilage.
What is wrong with message, "".