Rig market NES - Bjørn Thoresen 17032016
Transcription
Rig market NES - Bjørn Thoresen 17032016
Offshore rigs Selected market topics – Swedbank Nordic Energy Summit 2016 Financial Analysts Bjørn Thoresen (bjorn.thoresen@swedbank.no / +47 23 23 82 49) Magnus Olsvik (magnus.olsvik@swedbank.no) / + 47 23 23 82 36) Agenda 1. Grim picture 2. Market dynamics that are working right now 3. Outlook 4. Closer look at NCS 5. Light at the end of the tunnel? Utilization is lowest in decades and still falling sharply Already worse than early 90s downturn Floater rigs utilization 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Jan-85 Jan-90 Jan-95 Tota l uti liz atio n flo ater ri gs % Source: ODS Petrodata Jan-00 Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 Ma rke te d u tili zati on flo a te r rig s % 3 2016 E&P budgets reflect pressing need to preserve cash USD 300bn cash outflow for the top 10 deepwater operators over 8-year period. This is clearly unsustainable and something that needs to be addressed Top 10 UDW rig users* cash flow - consensus (USDbn) Drivers: • Production volumes • Commodity prices • Costs 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 Cash flow from operations Capex Dividends CF after dividends -100 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015e 2016e 2017e Source: FactSet, Swedbank Research estimates. Note: *) Based on aggregate of the 10 largest users of UDW rig capacity (1q14) incl. Anadarko, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Shell, Statoil and Total 4 Market hinting that further measures are needed In particular Petrobras have no choice but to continue focusing on improving its cash flow generation Petrobras bond yields Pemex bond yields 16% 16% 14% 14% 12% 12% 10% 10% 8% 8% 6% 6% 4% 4% 2% May-13 Dec-13 Jul-14 Yield, PBR 2019 bond Source: Macrobond, Bloomberg Feb-15 Sep-15 Yield, PBR 2023 bond 2% Sep-13 Mar-14 Sep-14 Yield, Pemex 2019 bond Mar-15 Sep-15 Mar-16 Yield, Pemex 2024 bond 5 We estimate E&P capex reduction in 2016 by approx. 25% Worst downturn since mid 80s Global E&P capex change y-o-y 30% 25% 18% 18% 20% 18% 15% 9% 10% 21% 19% 19% 18% 15% 12% 12% 12% 9%10% 9% 8% 6% 3% 1% 5% 3% 3%2% 0% 0% 1984 -10% 1987 -8% 1990 1993 -3% 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014e 2017e -6% -12% -20% -21% -30% -23% -25% -33% -40% Source: Schlumberger, Citigroup, WoodMac, Swedbank Research estimates 6 Agenda 1. Grim picture 2. Market dynamics that are working right now 3. Outlook 4. Closer look at NCS 5. Light at the end of the tunnel? 1) Lower capex = lower production Late 1980s illustrating that sharp reductions in E&P investments tend to weigh on production volumes Capex vs. production growth Non-OPEC production 58.0 mb/d 57.5 57.0 Capex vs production (non-OPEC) 6% y = 0.073x + 0.01 R² = 32% 5% CAGR Non-OPEC production, next 4y During 1986-1989 both capex and production declined in the countries outside OPEC. We believe the same will happen in 2016/17. 4% 3% 2% 1% 57.7 0% 1986 -30% -20% 1987 1989 57.0 -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% -1% 1988 56.5 2015e 2016e Non-OPEC Source: IEA, Rystad, Swedbank Research -2% CAGR Non-OPEC capex, real terms, past 4y 8 1) US shale production decline accelerating Most recent estimate from EIA is that production is off ~500kbbls/d from Jul-15 to Apr-16** US shale oil production* MMbpd Now: Growth rate -0.96mmbls/d p.a. 6 5 Avg. 5.3 Before: Growth rate 1.3mmbbls/d p.a. 4 Avg. 4.71 Avg. below 4.6? 3 2 1 0 Source: EIA Drilling productivity report. Note: *) Include oil production from the regions Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian, Utica, Eagle Ford and Bakken. Note: **) ‘actual’ figures are only estimates for the last 3 months 9 1) Lower non-OPEC production expected in 2016 To contribute to rebalancing of the oil market Oil demand growth vs. non OPEC supply growth (mmbbls/d) Call-on-OPEC turning from negative to positive 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015e 2016e 2017e -0.5 -0.6 -1.0 Change demand Source: IEA Change Non-OPEC + OPEC NGLs 10 2) Substantial cost reductions being realized among the E&Ps STL showed USD 39/bbl break-even as of Sep-15, significantly lower than WoodMac’s for the same projects Breakeven prices, key STL projects (USD/bbl) 90 80 70 60 50 48 43 39 35 34 33 40 30 20 1q13 Project 1 3q13 Project 2 1q14 Project 3 3q14 Project 4 1q15 Project 5 3q15 Project 6 Source: Statoil (left chart), WoodMac (right chart), Swedbank Research. Note: *) Woodmac figures, includes 10% IRR. Selection may not be complete. Shaded bars show projects were Statoil is operator 11 3) Cash spent on debt repurchases rather than rig upgrades Approx. USD 1.8bn of cash used on early debt redemptions from 3q15 Bond repurchases* 3q15-> (USDm) 2000 1800 1600 Equivalent to: 1400 RIG 1200 ~9 New-build jack-ups ORIG 1000 ESV NE 800 ~25-90x Special Periodic Surveys if USD 20-75m per SPS 600 400 200 0 Bond repurchases* Source: Companies, Swedbank Research estimates. Note: *) Aggregate purchase price 12 3) There are still lots of candidates for retirement ~30% of current fleet of floater rigs older than 30 years. These are key candidates for retirement in today’s difficult market Floater rigs by build year Highlights 111 units built prior to YE 1990 (29% of total including newbuilds) 35 111 rigs, including 33 DW/UDW units, will be >25 yrs in 2015 30 33 DW/UDW rigs built prior to YE 1990 (9% of total including newbuilds) 96 rigs, including 25 DW/UDW units, will be >30 yrs in 2015 25 20 15 10 5 0 197 0 197 5 198 0 198 5 199 0 199 5 200 0 200 5 201 0 201 5 202 0 >7500ft floater rigs by build year 5000-7499ft floater rigs by build year <5000ft floater rigs by build year Source: ODS Petrodata 13 3) Wave of attrition Total attrition have reached 54 floaters from 2014-YTD Floater rig attrition per month Floater rig attrition, cumulative 9 60 8 7 50 7 40 6 23 5 30 4 20 3 2 24 10 1 0 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 MW DW Source: ODS Petrodata UDW 0 Jan/14 Apr/14 Jul/14 Oct/14 Jan/15 Apr/15 MW DW Jul/15 Oct/15 Jan/16 UDW 14 3) Expecting significant capacity adjustments As many as 30+ new-build projects may be terminated, and most of the uncontracted new-builds will be deferred. Our scenario assumes scrapping of 105 rigs (vs. 54 thus far) Floater rigs fleet growth (# rigs) 40 30 20 10 0 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016e -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Attrition Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research Expected new-builds Scheduled new-builds Net fleet growth 15 Agenda 1. Grim picture 2. Market dynamics that are working right now 3. Outlook 4. Closer look at NCS 5. Light at the end of the tunnel? Fleet – 2017 fleet expected ~20% lower than in 2014 Floater rigs fleet (# rigs) 450 Fleet if all new-builds delivered according to schedule and no further attrition 400 Expected fleet 367 350 300 255 250 200 150 100 50 0 1995 1999 Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research 2003 2007 2011 2015e 17 Demand – 2017-18 sensitive to 2016 oil price development We assume relatively stable demand in 2017 vs. 2016, followed by recovery in 2018 Floater rigs contracted – demand (# rigs) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 Historical demand and future backlog Assumed new contracting Demand est. SWB oil price trajectory Demand est. fwd curve Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research 2015e 18 Market balance scenario (derived from a lot of assumptions, whereof most touched upon) Low point 2016, start of recovery in 2017, starting to see some pricing power for 2018 Floater rigs fleet (# rigs) 350 100% 300 250 90% 200 80% 150 100 70% 50 0 60% 1995 1999 Total fleet Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research 2003 2007 Active fleet 2011 Demand 2015e Active utilization 19 Mid 80s utilization would still imply moderate economics Small variation in day rates in 75-85% utilization range Offshore rigs – supply curve (floaters) SCORE to day rate conversion SCORE Index (Floaters) 180 New -build cost (USDm) Opex per day (USDk/d) 160 140 SCORE 90 85 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 120 100 80 60 475 165 EBITDA EV/EBITDA annualized new -build 109 103 97 85 73 61 49 36 24 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.6 6.5 7.8 9.8 13.0 19.6 Day rate 464 448 431 398 365 331 298 265 232 40 20 0 60% 65% 70% 75% Oversupply, rates cost driven 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Marketed utilization floater rigs ’Normalized’ Undersupply, economics windfall profits Source: ODS Petrodata, GlobalSantaFe, SWB Research estimates. Note: *) Assumes USD 650m build cost, USD 190k/d opex 20 Agenda 1. Grim picture 2. Market dynamics that are working right now 3. Outlook 4. Closer look at NCS 5. Light at the end of the tunnel? Active NCS floater fleet expected to contract to 20 units We estimate the active NCS floater fleet to decline to approx. 20 units (18-21) by 2017 NCS fleet NCS fleet growth 6 30 4 25 2 20 0 2013 2014 2015 2016e 2017e 2018e 2019e -2 15 -4 10 -6 -8 5 -10 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017e2019e Active fleet Cold stacked Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research estimates Scrapped Probable/possible rigs entering Cold stacked Existing rigs incoming Rigs leaving NCS New-builds contracted Net change 22 Declining demand since 4q13 peak of 28 NCS floaters in use L20yrs average demand of 19 units NCS floater market (# rigs) 35 100% 30 80% 25 60% 20 Avg. 97-16ytd: 19 Avg. 97-16ytd excl. 12-14: 17.5 15 40% 10 20% 5 0 1q85 0% 1q88 1q91 Demand Source: ODS Petrodata 1q94 1q97 1q00 Total Supply 1q03 1q06 1q09 Marketed Supply 1q12 1q15 Utilization 23 Historical avg. demand would imply 88-95% utilization of 17ye fleet NCS floater market – 2017ye fleet vs. historical demand range (# rigs) 35 # rigs 143% 31 % 2017ye active fleet 30 28.5 25 95% 20 88% 18.9 20 17.7 15 10.9 55% 10 5 0 Total fleet ye2017 Active fleet ye2017 Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research Peak demand 4q13 Avg. demand 1997-2016td Avg. demand 1997-16td, excl. 2012-14 Trough demand 4q03 24 >10 NCS development projects viable given current fwd strip Supports expectation of improvement in contracting as soon as oil price recovery takes some pressure off operators’ cash flows and balance sheets NCS – top 11 future field development projects vs. Brent forward prices (USD/bbl) 60 55 50 Top 11 NCS projects* - high 45 Top 11 NCS projects* - avg. b-e 40 35 Top 11 NCS projects* - low 30 25 Brent fwd 20 12/2015 12/2016 12/2017 12/2018 12/2019 12/2020 12/2021 Source: Statoil, WoodMac, Swedbank Research estimates. Notes: *) Includes 6 unnamed Statoil-operated projects, plus Snadd North (BP), Pil & Bue (VNG), Garantiana (Total), Krafla (Centrica), Skarfjell (Wintershall) 25 Statoil likely to need more capacity from 2017 STL has reduced its floater rig fleet on the NCS by approx. 40% since the early 2013 peak. Based on 6 rigs only with charters through 2h17, we would expect tendering for 2h17/1h18 start-up Statoil floater fleet NCS * 18 1717 16 16 Statoil floater contract overview Dec-15 171717 Ocean Vanguard, Semi 1500 3rd 16 Transocean Leader, Semi 4500 4th 15 COSLPioneer, Semi 1640 5th 1414 14141414 14 Transocean Spitsbergen, Semi 6500 6th 131313 1212 12 1111 10 Dec-17 Dec-18 Terminated Released / Exit to UK Terminated Released Songa Trym, Semi 1200 2nd Terminated COSLInnovator, Semi 1640 5th Terminated West Venture, Semi 2600 5th 11 Dec-16 Released Songa Delta, Semi 1500 3rd 10 10 Songa Dee, Semi 1800 3rd Bideford Dolphin, Semi 1750 4th 9 West Hercules, Semi 10000 6th Stena Don, Semi 1640 4th 8 Scarabeo 5, Semi 6233 4th 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Deepsea Bergen, Semi 1475 3rd Deepsea Atlantic, Semi 10000 6th COSLPromoter, Semi 1640 5th Songa Endurance, Semi 1640 6th 4 Songa Equinox, Semi 1640 6th Songa Encourage, Semi 1640 6th 2 Songa Enabler, Semi 1640 6th Construction 0 1q11 1q12 1q13 1q14 1q15 1q16 1q17 Source: ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research Current contract Yard Free/mob/etc Future contract Option 1q18 Note: *) Shows number of rigs contracted for at least part of the quarter 26 Agenda 1. Grim picture 2. Market dynamics that are working right now 3. Outlook 4. Closer look at NCS 5. Light at the end of the tunnel? Offshore drillers 2016: high leverage and balance sheet focus Several shares have come down to levels where market capitalizations to a large degree only mirrors option value, reflecting high probability of need for refinancing/debt restructuring Market cap. as percentage of proforma enterprise value 100% 80% 133% 60% 40% 54% 48% 20% 34% 32% 27% 22% 20% 12% 9% 9% 8% 4% 3% 3% 3% PRS ODL SDLP PACD ORIG NADL SONG* 0% AWDR DO RDC NE ESV RIG ATW FOE SDRL -20% MCAP/Proforma EV Net debt/Proforma EV Minorities/ Proforma EV Associated co's/ Proforma EV Rem. New-build capex/ Proforma EV Source: Swedbank Research estimates, FactSet. Note: *) SONG prior to transaction announced 15-Mar-16 28 Extreme volatility Challenges analyst toolbox SDRL vs OSEBX – daily % changes 2016 SDRL vs OSEBX – aggr. abs. daily changes 2016 500% 70% SDRL 60% 450% OSEBX 50% 400% 40% 350% 30% 300% OSEBX 5.6x 20% 250% 10% 0% 05-Jan-16 SDRL 444% 200% 19-Jan-16 02-Feb-16 16-Feb-16 01-Mar-16 15-Mar-16 150% -10% 100% 80% -20% 50% -30% 0% Total distance travelled ytd -40% Source: InFront, Swedbank Research 29 Example: SDRL market capitalization vs. bond discount SDRL mcap vs. aggregate bond discount* SDRL bond discount relative to mcap* USDm 300% 20,000 18,000 250% 16,000 14,000 200% 12,000 10,000 150% 8,000 6,000 100% 4,000 2,000 50% 0 0% SDRL (incl. NADL) sum currently outstanding bonds @mkt Aggregate discount to par all SDRL bonds (incl. NADL) SDRL mcap Aggregate discount to par all SDRL bonds (incl. NADL) relative to SDRL mcap Source: Bloomberg. Note: *) Aggregate discount to par across all currently outstanding SDRL bonds (incl. issues by majority owned subsidiary NADL) 30 Any closer to the light at the end of the tunnel? 31 ‘Peak bearishness’ possibly behind us Energy HY credit spreads peaked in Jan-16 at close to 1200 basis points and have later narrowed to around 900 Analyst ratings offshore rigs* (cumulative) US HY Energy Credit Spread (bps), BofA 80% 1 400 70% 1 200 60% 1 000 50% 800 40% 600 30% 400 20% 200 10% 0% Nov-00 Nov-02 Nov-04 Nov-06 Nov-08 Nov-10 Nov-12 Nov-14 Sell rec. in % of total 0 2001 2003 Hold rec. in % of total Source: Bloomberg, Swedbank Research. Note: *) Analyst ratings for ATW, DO, ESV, NE, RDC and RIG 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 US HY Energy Credit Spread (bps) 32 Brent fwd complex: currently back to 50/bbl by 2019 However, we note some re-pricing vs. a week ago Brent oil, fwd market (USD/bbl) 80 70 60 50 40 30 -1W 20 05/2015 Source: Bloomberg 05/2016 05/2017 -1M 05/2018 -3M 05/2019 -1Y Brent fwd 05/2020 05/2021 33 Oil price outlook: 40 likely way below long-term equilibrium Swedbank forecasts somewhat more optimistic than the forward market currently Brent crude (USD/bbl) Source: Macrobond, IMF, IEA, SWB Research estimates. Note: Dotted lines show average actual Brent price for the year 34 Oil price seasonality also on the positive side Brent oil yearly performance since 1990 (1-Jan = 100) Source: Macrobond 35 80s: demand/utilization increase 1.5yrs after oil price trough Floater rig demand vs oil price 200 Floater rig utilization vs oil price 45 100 45 40 90 40 35 80 35 30 70 30 25 60 25 20 50 20 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 19 m 19 m 100 15 Jan 1986 Jul 1986 Jan 1987 Jul 1987 Jan 1988 Jul 1988 Jan 1989 Jul 1989 Demand, floaters Real oil price (2014 USD) Source: ODS Petrodata, Macrobond, Swedbank Research 40 15 Jan 1986 Jul 1986 Jan 1987 Jul 1987 Jan 1988 Jul 1988 Jan 1989 Jul 1989 Active utilization floaters Real oil price (2014 USD) 36 Re-pricing always happens before market recovery Shares normally find their way to trough valuations amid ‘peak concerns’, which typically takes place close to 1 year prior to the low point for rig market utilization Offshore rig stocks vs. floater rig utilization 100% 80s downturn 90s recession 9/11 sell-off Asia crisis Mkt downturn 10 000 Macondo Credit crisis 90% 1 000 80% 70% 100 60% 50% Jan-85 14 m 11 m 11 m 9m 12 m 7m 10 Jan-90 Jan-95 Tota l uti liz atio n flo ater ri gs % Source: Infront, ODS Petrodata, Swedbank Research Jan-00 Ma rke te d u ti li zati on flo a ter rig s % Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15 Index R IG, ATW, DO, ESV, NE , R DC (rhs ) 37 Disclaimer Recommendation structure and definitions Information barriers Swedbank Large Corporates & Institutions Equity Research department operates with 5 recommendation categories based on expected absolute return for the security 12 months forward. The absolute return includes share appreciation and dividend yield combined. Swedbank relies on information barriers ("Chinese walls") to control the flow of information contained in one or more areas within Swedbank, into other areas or units within Swedbank. Swedbank is organised in accordance with relevant legislation and in accordance with the guidelines given by the Norwegian Securities Dealers Association. The analyst(s) involved in the preparation of this report has not at the same time been involved in corporate assignments for companies described by him or her. Strong Buy: Buy: Neutral: Reduce: Sell: Share price target The absolute return is estimated to be in excess of 15% The absolute return is estimated between 5% and 25% The absolute return is estimated between 0% and 10% The absolute return is estimated between 5% and -10% The absolute return is estimated to be less than -5% All share price targets are based on a 12 month horizon Analyst certification I/we hereby certify that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject securities and issuers. I/we also certify that no part of my compensation was, is or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report. Analyst compensation may relate to the revenues of Swedbank as a whole. Model for value evaluation Disclosures Swedbank Large Corporates & Institutions Equity Research department bases the recommendations on a variety of standard valuation models. Shares are commonly valued on a DCF-basis, except financial companies. Price-to-book value relative to long term historical empirical averages and/or relative to Return on equity are commonly deployed as are Net Asset Value models for companies with liquid markets for their assets. Shorter-term considerations are often included in the form of relative Price-to-Earnings ratios and Enterprise Valueto-Earnings before amortization, depreciation, interest and taxes. This document has been prepared by Swedbank Large Corporates & Institutions Norway Branch, an investment banking firm domiciled in Norway, under the supervision of The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet), and member of The Oslo Stock Exchange. This document has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines from the Norwegian Securities Dealers Association. Swedbank AB disseminates this document produced by Swedbank Large Corporates & Institutions Norway Branch. Swedbank AB has not altered the document. Swedbank AB is under the supervision of The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finansinspektionen). This document is being distributed in the United States by Swedbank First Securities LLC ('Swedbank LLC'), which accepts responsibility for its contents - any United States institutional investor receiving the report, who wishes to obtain further information or to effect a transaction in any security discussed in the report, should do so only through Swedbank LLC. Swedbank LLC is a U.S. broker-dealer, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. http://www.swedbankfs.com/disclaimer/index.htm . Swedbank AS disseminates this report in Estonia. Swedbank AS is under the supervision of the Estonian Financial Supervisory Authority (Finantsinspektsioon). “Swedbank” AB disseminates the report in Lithuania. “Swedbank” AB is under the supervision of the Lithuanian Financial Supervisory Authority (Lietuvos Respublikos vertybinių popierių komisija) in Lithuania. Swedbank AS disseminates this report in Latvia. Swedbank AS is under the supervision of the Latvian Financial Supervisory Authority (Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija). In no instances is the report altered before dissemination. Recommendation at the 17 March 2016 No of shares Part of total Part of MCAP Strong Buy 1 1% 0% Buy 52 48% 51% Neutral 41 38% 40% Reduce 12 11% 2% Sell 2 2% 0% Total distribution of recommendations Redu ce 11% Sell 2% Buy 48% Neutr al 38% Source: SWB Research Stron g Buy 1% Distribution of recommendations for Companies that Swedbank has delivered investment services: Redu ce 15% Sell 8% Stron g Buy 0% Buy 42% Additional disclaimer Neutr al 35% This document is intended for use only by those investors to whom it is made available by Swedbank and no part of this report may be reproduced in any manner, or used other than as intended, without the prior written permission of Swedbank. The information contained in this document has been taken from sources deemed to be reliable. Swedbank makes every effort to use reliable, comprehensive information but we do not represent that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied on as such. Any opinions expressed herein reflect our judgement at this date and are subject to change. Swedbank has no obligation to notice changes of judgements or opinions expressed herein. The opinions contained herein are based on numerous assumptions as described in the document. Different assumptions could result in materially different results. Furthermore, the assumptions may not be realized. This document does not provide individually tailored investment advice and all recipients of this document are advised to seek the advice of a financial advisor before deciding on an investment or an investment strategy. Swedbank accept no liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential loss rising from the use of this document or its contents. This document does not constitute or form part of any offer for sale or subscription of or solicitation or invitation of any offer to buy or subscribe for any securities nor shall it or any part of it form the basis of or be relied on in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever. The distribution of this document may be restricted by law in certain jurisdictions and person into whose possession this document comes should inform themselves about, and observe, any such restriction. Any failure to comply with these restrictions may constitute a violation of the laws of any such jurisdiction. Swedbank shall not have any responsibility for any such violations 38