Fundamentals Summer 2019 Cautionary statements Forward-looking - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

fundamentals
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Fundamentals Summer 2019 Cautionary statements Forward-looking - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Fundamentals Summer 2019 Cautionary statements Forward-looking statements The information in this presentation includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of The forward-looking statements made in or in connection with this


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Summer 2019

Fundamentals

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Cautionary statements

The information in this presentation includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking

  • statements. The words “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “budget,” “estimate,” “expect,”

“forecast,” “initial,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements in this presentation relate to, among other things, gas resources, production and costs, infrastructure needs and costs, LNG export and pipeline capacity, LNG bunkering, LNG prices, future demand and supply affecting LNG, and general energy markets and other aspects of our business and our prospects and those of other industry participants. Our forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and analyses made by us in light of our experience and our perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments, and other factors that we believe are appropriate under the circumstances. These statements are subject to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results to be materially different from any future results or performance expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include those described in the “Risk Factors” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and

  • ur other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are incorporated by reference

in this presentation. Many of the forward-looking statements in this presentation relate to events or developments anticipated to occur numerous years in the future, which increases the likelihood that actual results will differ materially from those indicated in such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements made in or in connection with this presentation speak only as of the date hereof. Although we may from time to time voluntarily update our prior forward-looking statements, we disclaim any commitment to do so except as required by securities laws.

Reserves and resources

Estimates of non-proved reserves and resources are based on more limited information, and are subject to significantly greater risk of not being produced, than are estimates of proved reserves.

Forward-looking statements

Disclaimer

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Contents

3

  • Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly
  • U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply
  • Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized
slide-4
SLIDE 4

2019 U.S. dry gas production (bcf/d)

4

9.3 9.7 Jan Jul 9.7 10.0 Jan Jul 9.4 9.9 Jan Jul 4.8 4.8 Jan Jul 10.4 10.5 Jan Jul Midcontinent(1) Permian Eagle Ford Haynesville 30.0 31.3 Jan Jul Appalachia 88.1 90.0 Jan Jul

U.S. Lower-48(2)

Source: IHS Markit. Notes: (1) Includes Anadarko, Fayetteville, Cherokee, Mississippian, Ardmore Woodford, Arkoma Woodford, Cana Woodford, and Granite Wash. (2) Due to relative magnitude of production, production axis not at scale with other basins. The use of this content was authorized in advance. Any further use or redistribution of this content is strictly prohibited without written permission by IHS Markit.

Rockies/Williston

slide-5
SLIDE 5

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

MT per month

LNG demand is growing 13.6% y/y in 2019

Sources: IHS Markit, Tellurian analysis. The use of this content was authorized in advance. Any further use or redistribution of this content is strictly prohibited without written permission by IHS Markit.

5

2019 expected capacity 2018 LNG demand 2019 LNG demand +13.6% y/y LNG demand H1 LNG capacity H1 +13% y/y Utilization rate +600 bps y/y 2019

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Firm LNG capacity forecast

Source: Tellurian Research, Wood Mackenzie.

6 292 318 347 377 408 412 412 412 412 406 401 4 24 35 48 51 67 93 248 264 298 324 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Global LNG capacity and output (mtpa)

Under construction capacity Capacity LNG output

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Firm LNG capacity schedule

mtpa

Source: Tellurian Research, Wood Mackenzie.

7

Project Country Capacity

  • Est. start

date 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Elba Island LNG Export T1-6 US East 1.5 8/1/2019 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Ichthys T2 Australia 4.5 10/1/2019 1.1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vysotsk LNG Russia West 0.7 9/1/2019 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Sengkang LNG Indonesia 0.5 10/1/2020 – 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Freeport Train 1 US East 5.1 9/1/2019 1.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Portovaya LNG Russia West 1.5 9/1/2019 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Elba Island LNG Export T7-10 US East 1.0 1/1/2020 – 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Cameron LNG Export T2 US East 4.0 2/1/2020 – 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Freeport Train 2 US East 5.1 5/1/2020 – 3.4 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Freeport Train 3 US East 5.1 10/30/2020 – 1.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Cameron LNG Export T3 US East 4.0 9/1/2020 – 1.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 PETRONAS FLNG 2 Malaysia 1.5 1/1/2021 – – 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Tangguh Phase 2 Indonesia 3.8 10/1/2021 – – 1.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Coral FLNG Mozambique 3.4 1/1/2022 – – – 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Corpus Christi LNG Train 3 US East 4.5 1/1/2022 – – – 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Tortue FLNG Senegal 2.4 3/1/2022 – – – 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4 Sabine Pass LNG T6 US East 4.7 6/1/2023 – – – – 2.7 4.7 4.7 LNG Canada T1 Canada West 7.0 4/1/2024 – – – – – 5.3 7.0 Golden Pass LNG T1 US East 5.2 5/1/2024 – – – – – 3.5 5.2 Golden Pass LNG T2 US East 5.2 10/30/2024 – – – – – 1.3 5.2 LNG Canada T2 Canada West 7.0 1/1/2025 – – – – – – 7.0 Golden Pass LNG T3 US East 5.2 7/2/2025 – – – – – – 2.6 Mozambique Area 1 T1 Mozambique 6.4 6/1/2024 – – – – – 3.8 6.4 Mozambique Area 1 T2 Mozambique 6.4 1/1/2025 – – – – – – 6.4 4.2 24.0 35.4 48.1 51.3 67.0 93.1

– 20 40 60 80 100 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Cumulative new LNG capacity by country (mtpa)

US East Mozambique Canada West Indonesia Malaysia Russia West Australia Senegal

slide-8
SLIDE 8

LNG capacity growth should peak in 2019

Incremental LNG capacity (mtpa)

Sources: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian analysis. Notes: (1) Percentage change of incremental volumes compared to previous year’s total capacity expected to be online.

8 26 37 18 9 4 (2) (1) (8) (8) (2) (5) (2) (3) – 3 12 8 8 14 26 3 – – – –

9% 12% 8% 4% 3% (0%) 3% 4% (1%) (0%) (1%) (0%) (1%) (2.0%) – 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% (20.0) (10.0) – 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Existing Under construction Y/Y change 26 40 30 17 12 (2) 13 18 5 (2) (5) (2) (3)

(1)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Contents

9

  • Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly
  • U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply
  • Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized
slide-10
SLIDE 10

82 99 135 17 53

Plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas

10

Production growth and resource base from selected U.S. unconventional basins

Source: EIA 2019 Annual Energy Outlook, DrillingInfo, RBN, Tellurian analysis. Note: (1) RBN high case – extrapolated from 2024 to 2025 by Tellurian.

411 112 74 23 52

Resource size, Tcf Marcellus-Utica < $1.00 Haynesville < $1.50 Eagle Ford $0 - $1.50 Permian < $1.00 Anadarko $0-$1.00

29.2 36.0 2018 2025 3.6 7.4 2018 2025 4.9 7.9 2018 2025 8.6 9.4 2018 2025

Total U.S. lower-48 dry natural gas production Bcf/d EIA RBN(1) 2018 2025 Production growth

9.6 16.9 2018 2025

Basin

Wellhead cost, $/mmBtu

slide-11
SLIDE 11

6 10 14 18 22 26 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Permian gas outlook – range of forecasts

Sources: Rystad, Wood Mackenzie, RSEG, IHS, DrillingInfo, BP, EIA, Tellurian Research. Notes: (1) Estimates based on guidance from Pioneer Energy. See https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ymld4hxz_zriyxkwqxdgmg2. (2) Assumes 20% initial production (“IP”) improvement per year and flat completion activity levels. (3) Assumes flat seasonally adjusted rig drilling and completion activity, and 2% upward shift in basin wide type curve per quarter. (4) Current type curves (no improvement over time) and flat rig count based on current levels.

11

2025 YE production

(Bcf/d)

Pioneer(1) Rystad/BP/EIA Wood Mackenzie/IHS(2) RSEG(3) Scenario – $70/bblWTI(4)

Permian dry gas production

  • Permian gas supply

driven by oil production economics

  • Gas-to-oil ratios in

the Basin are increasing, meaning wells are getting “gassier”

  • Consolidation and

more investment from the majors underpins resilient production outlook

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Permian by the numbers

Sources: Rystad, EIA, World Bank, Platts via Marketview, and BTU Analytics.

12

2.5-4.0

Gas-to-oil ratio (“GOR”)

~1

bcf/d

4.1

million bpd

Average GOR in the Permian with higher GORs in the Delaware, the recipient

  • f most investment

One of the most prolific oil basins in the world with extremely low oil breakevens and negative breakevens for gas production Estimated natural gas flared in the Permian Basin every day in Q2 2019 The United States is among the top 4 flaring countries, behind Russia, Iran, and Iraq

  • $0.90

$/mmBtu 3-year avg. basis

3-year average basis for gas prices in West Texas compared to Henry Hub; as of August 2019, forward curve averaging -$0.55 mmBtu for 2023

#4

ranking

slide-13
SLIDE 13

+7 +4 +7 +1 +3

Looming challenge of U.S. gas oversupply

13

U.S. natural gas must be exported

Sources: DrillingInfo, EIA, Tellurian analysis. Note: (1) Assumes $70/bbl oil price and $3/mmBtu Henry Hub price; incremental supply comes from Permian, Scoop/Stack, Haynesville, Eagle Ford, and Appalachia. (2) Assumes U.S. natural gas demand grows 0.6% p.a. and that the 7.4 bcf/d of LNG terminals under construction produce at a 90% utilization rate. (3) Assumes new LNG terminals produce at a 90% utilization rate. (4) Assumes new liquefaction capacity costs $1,000 per tonne plus an additional $70 billion of pipeline infrastructure to transport gas supply to the terminal.

Bcf/d total gas supply growth(1) Bcf/d excess gas supply(2) mtpa LNG capacity required(3)

+100

~$150 - $225 billion(4) of investment required to build 100-150 mtpa of LNG and supportive pipeline infrastructure to export excess U.S. gas supply

+12 +22

2018-2025:

Legend Operating/under construction LNG Future infrastructure required Incremental gas supply by 2025 (bcf/d) +X

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Contents

14

  • Short-term fundamentals – updated monthly
  • U.S. natural gas – plentiful, low-cost U.S. natural gas supply
  • Global LNG – global gas market is growing and becoming commoditized
slide-15
SLIDE 15

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Global LNG demand pull

Sources: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian Research. Notes: (1) Assumes 86.5% utilization rate. (2) Assuming sustained 2015-2018 demand growth rate of ~9.3% p.a. post-2019. (3) Assumes estimate of 5.0% p.a. demand growth rate post-2020.

15

Under construction In operation Capacity required(1)

9.3%(2) 5%(3)

~100 mtpa ~250 mtpa

9.3% p.a. growth rate

Key drivers

China India Europe New markets

slide-16
SLIDE 16

170 97 208 885 Liquid maritime fuels (HFO) Oil burned for power generation (ex-North America) Coal burned for power generation (EU + JKT) Coal burned for power generation (China + India)

2018 fuel consumption (mtpa LNG equivalent)

$ 0 $ 2 $ 4 $ 6 $ 8 $ 10 $ 12 $ 14 $ 16 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Jan 2017 Apr 2017 Jul 2017 Oct 2017 Jan 2018 Apr 2018 Jul 2018 Oct 2018 Jan 2019 Apr 2019 Jul 2019 JKM Brent Newcastle

Latent LNG demand from fuel substitution

There is substantial latent demand for LNG, which is competitive with oil prices and cleaner than coal

Source: ICE via Marketview, BP Statistical Review, Oxford Energy Institute Tellurian analysis. Notes: (1) Newcastle coal includes a $15 per tonne shipping fee and is heat rate adjusted. (2) Assumes a 7,800 average heat rate for global gas-fired power plants. (3) Includes Central America, Europe, Middle East, and Asian markets.

16

LNG prices trade between oil and coal prices

~1,359 mtpa LNG equivalent latent LNG demand

Gas is cheaper than oil Gas is cleaner than coal Coal-to-gas switching point

(1) (2) (3)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Natural gas demand linked to renewables

Source: UK Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (2019), Lazard.

17

Natural gas share in UK’s power mix grew to ~50% as higher CO2 prices incentivized dispatch of cleaner fuels

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 mtoe

UK power generation by fuel

Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro (natural flow) Wind Solar

100 200 Gas CCGT Nuclear Coal PV Rooftop PV Utility scale Wind Levelized cost ($/MWh) Unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE)

Gas-fired power generation is a cleaner, more affordable, and reliable backup to renewables

slide-18
SLIDE 18

LNG required to offset Groningen declines

Global LNG

Netherlands capping production from the Groningen field requires ~10 mtpa of LNG

Source: NAM, Energy Aspects.

18 Gas fields Earthquakes

54 42 28 28 24 22 15 12 12 12 8 4 3 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 bcm

Groningen yearly production

Netherlands

Mandated production cap Forecast

slide-19
SLIDE 19

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000

  • 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 GDP/capita

Emerging consumption: China and India

Population and economic growth imply significant upside to gas consumption in China and India

Sources: IHS Markit, SIA Energy, EIA, CIA World Factbook, BP Energy Outlook.

19

China 7 mcf/capita India 2 mmcf/capita United States 87 mcf/capita Size indicates relative volume of gas consumed per capita in 2018 (mcf/capita) Argentina 38 mcf/capita Natural gas’ share of 2018 energy mix 6% 7% 23% 31% 49% India China EU U.S. Argentina European Union 38 mcf/capita Population (millions)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

203 330 391 74 108 120 2018 2025 2030

Growing demand in China

Economic growth and emerging environmental policy drives demand growth

Source: SIA.

20

277 438 510 LNG Domestic production & pipeline imports Chinese gas demand billion cubic meters per year

6.1% CAGR (2018-2030) 4.5% CAGR (2018-2030)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

668 721 751 777 830 850 868 26 29 30 34 39 40 42 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number of importing countries Global regas capacity (mtpa)

Growing number of importers accessing LNG

The number of LNG importing nations has grown by ~60% in the last 7 years

Source: GIIGNL, IGU (2019), IHS Markit. Notes: Includes Lampung, Nusantara, and Tanjung Benoa (all in Indonesia) and Northeast Gateway (United States).

21

33 total floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) represent ~130 mtpa of global regasification capacity as

  • f May 2019
slide-22
SLIDE 22

New demand from LNG bunkering

  • LNG offers shippers a smart way to meet existing

and upcoming maritime emissions regulations

  • LNG bunkering expected to grow substantially
  • ver the long term as marine and transport

sectors seek a cleaner fuel alternative ― Unlike conventional marine fuels, LNG emits near-trace levels of SOx, NOx, and PM

  • Total addressable market of 170 mtpa, based on

today’s global marine fuel oil consumption

  • Over 120 LNG-fueled vessels already in
  • peration, with over 130 on order or under

construction Cleaner burning LNG is becoming more popular as a fuel for marine vessels for IMO 2020

Sources: OIES 2018, DNV-GL.

22 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2025 2030 2035 2040 mtpa

Comparison of LNG bunkering forecasts

IEA Sustainable Development IEA New Policies ENGIE/PWC Lloyds Register max Wood Mackenzie

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Physical and financial liquidity is growing

Financial derivatives Physical liquidity

Sources: Platts, GIIGNL.

23

59.2 65.0 69.6 68.4 74.6 77.6 99.3 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Spot and short-term LNG trade

Total trade (mtpa) Share of total trade (%) 25% 28% 28% 29% 28% 27% 32% 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YTD 2019 JKM futures traded (10,000 mmBtu/lot) Lots 2019 annualized JKM swaps JKM swaps Mtpa LNG equivalent 0.06 0.08 0.35 0.58 2.60 9.62 35.2 41.1

slide-24
SLIDE 24

U.S. emerges as the world’s largest LNG exporter

Based on firm capacity

Source: Wood Mackenzie, Tellurian Research. Notes: Includes existing and under construction projects.

24

Triangle of low- cost supply 30.6 88.8 77.8 Current capacity (mtpa) (producing and under construction) 92.4

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Current LNG buildout has experienced cost overruns

Announced total capex cost increases for selected Australia and Papua New Guinea projects Announced liquefaction EPC cost increases for selected existing and under-construction U.S. projects

Source: IHS Markit, Tellurian Research.

25

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Queensland Curtis LNG T1-2 Pluto LNG T1 GLNG T1-2 PNG LNG T1-2 APLNG T1-2 Gorgon LNG T1-3 Wheatstone LNG T1-2 Ichthys LNG T1-2

Total capital costs ($ per tonne)

Cost at FID Cost increase – 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Sabine Pass LNG T3-4 Sabine Pass T1-2 Corpus Christi LNG T3 Sabine Pass LNG T5 Corpus Christi LNG T1-2 Freeport LNG T3 Freeport LNG T1-2 Cameron LNG T1-3 Cove Point LNG Golden Pass LNG

Total capital costs ($ per tonne)

Estimated sunk regas costs Cost at FID Cost increase

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Natural gas and LNG To: 1 billion cubic meters of natural gas (bcm) 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas (bcf) 1 million metric tonnes LNG (mt) 1 trillion British thermal units (tBtu) 1 million tonnes

  • f oil equivalent

(mtoe) From Multiply by 1 billion cubic meters of natural gas (bcm) 1 35.3 0.72 35.7 0.9 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas (bcf) 0.028 1 0.021 1.01 0.025 1 million tonnes LNG (mt) 1.38 48.7* 1 52 1.22 1 trillion British thermal units (mmBtu) 0.028 0.99 0.019 1 0.025 1 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) 1.11 39.2 0.82 39.7 1

Conversion factors

Conversion factors 26 *includes 6.3% losses in transportation for international LNG trade

1 MWh = 3,412 mmBtu = 3.412 mmcf