[PPT] - Technical study and CBA for LNG as marine fuel in Malta Meeting PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Meeting with Stakeholders

Technical study and CBA for LNG as marine fuel in Malta

November, 20th 2019

The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein

SLIDE 2

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

In view of the requirements of EU AFID Directive 2014/94/EU for the

development of an LNG bunkering infrastructure for Malta’s TEN-T core ports from 2025, the study identifies the optimal infrastructure solutions in synergy with PCI Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Results will be used to assist the Government of Malta in the adoption of a

national policy for the implementation of the required LNG bunkering facilities in Malta, thus stimulating the LNG uptake as a marine fuel and attract potential investors in this sector.

Activities covered in the study:
Detailed Option Analysis & CBA
Risk Assessment Study
Legislative/Regulatory Analysis
Training Needs Analysis
Project Management, dissemination and public awareness - CEF

Grant Agreement obligation.  Study is 60% funded under CEF-Synergy;  Partners – TM  Contractor: Tractebel Consortium : PWC, Strategy&, Elengy & MamoTCV

SLIDE 3

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

A consortium of advisors has worked in four work-packages

2

Detailed Option Analysis & CBA 1

LNG Bunkering Market Study Technical and Option Analysis CBA and sensitivity scenarios A B C

Risk Assessment 2

Preliminary risk assessment Role requirements & reporting A B

Legislative / Regulatory Analysis 3

Identification of leg., regulator, codes & st. Gap analysis Proposal of Amendments Recommended policy measures A B C D

Training Needs Analysis 4

Training identification Curriculum proposal A B

SLIDE 4

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

The starting point The case of LNG for bunkering Competitive landscape Results of the CBA analysis Appendix - Projected LNG for bunkering future demand in Malta

3

SLIDE 5

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total bunkering activities in Malta have grown in the last years (up to ~1.9 Mton in 2016)

4

1,060 (85.5%) 180 (14.5%)

1,240

2013

1,912

1,302 (81.5%) 217 (17.1%) 390 (20.4%)

1,597

1,521 (79.6%) 296 (18.5%)

1,270 +15.5%

1,053 (82.9%) 2015 2016 2014

Total bunkers handled in Malta – kton/year

HFO MGO # of calls 4383 4321 4559 4596 Avg ton/ #

f calls

283 294 350 416

Likely increasing due to bunkering competiveness

Growth driven by competitive prices

Focus of next slide

Sources: Transport Malta; Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 6

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Going forward, bunkering activities in Malta will likely grow in line with GDP, potentially reaching 3.7 Mton in 2056

5

Bunkering volume projections in Malta based on EU GDP growth – Mton/year of HFO/MGO

2016 1.9 2056 2026 2.3 2.1 3.7 2031 2.5 CAGR +1.7% p.a. 2021

Sources: OECD long-term forecast; Transport Malta; Strategy& analysis.

Based on forecasted by OECD of EU GDP long-term growth, without considering any efficiency gains

2017 - 2020 2021 - 2025 2026 - 2030 2031 - 2056 Average EU GDP growth p.a. – data in % 1.97% 1.91% 1.90% 1.50% Average EU GDP growth for 2017-2056 is ~1.7% p.a. SSS+LSS

SLIDE 7

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Malta is also strategically positioned to become a LNG bunkering hub, especially for LSS ships coming from Suez Canal

North Mediterranean, West, S.W. Mediterranean

Malta has a STRONG geographical advantage as potential hub for long vessels Potential competition from Suez Canal, Crete and Sicily

North West Europe, U.K., Baltic Sea, America, Others

Potentially will pass close to North African coast to avoid ECA zone (from Suez to Gibraltar) To be considered only in case of Mediterranean as full-ECA scenario (IMO)

East , S.E. Mediterranean, Black Sea

Malta has NO geographical advantage as potential hub for long vessels Potential competition from Suez Canal, Turkey, Crete and other Greek ports Sources: www.suezcanal.gov.eg, Strategy& Analysis 6 North Mediterranean West, S.W. Mediterranean East , S.E. Mediterranean; Black sea N.W. Europe; UK; Baltic sea; America; Others

8,703 3,696 1,005 1,659 2,343

Suez Canal

Malta

Number of vessels entering in Med. Sea from Suez Canal - 2016

Total number of vessels passing through Suez Canal is 16,833 (8,703 South/North and 8,130 North/South)

SLIDE 8

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

The starting point The case of LNG for bunkering Competitive landscape Results of the CBA analysis Appendix - Projected LNG for bunkering future demand in Malta

7

SLIDE 9

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC Note: LNG carriers not included Sources: DNV-GL LNG Status Update 2017; LNG World Shipping, Strategy& analysis 8

LNG as fuel for ships is emerging as an attractive and growing alternative

76 97 126 175 209 225 234 238 239 241 241 241 35 54 68 87 100 114 114 114 114 114 114 56 46 35 25 21 5 16 32 66 115

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

LNG ships

355

2025 2026

355

2024

355 2

2022

7

2020

355 341

2023

3 355 355

2021 2019

328

2012

80 132

2013 2011

4 295

2017 2016 2015 2014 2018

309

2009 2010

Worldwide LNG ships – 2009-2026E Typical end-users

Regular, repetitive, stable and fuel intensive engine utilization vessels

Passenger Ships
Cruise Ships
Service & Supply Vessels
Container, Ro-Ro & cargo Ships
Tankers & Bulkers

LNG ships in operation LNG ships on order LNG ready ships

Forecast Out of the 123 ships on

rder at 2017, 8 are

planned to be built in 2017

SLIDE 10

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

In particular, cruise companies are starting to invest in new LNG-fuelled cruise vessels

1

9 Sources: Public articles and news, Strategy& analysis

2 4 4 2 17 1 Total 2019 1 2018 2020 2021 2022 2023 1 2024 2026 2025 1 1

Number of LNG-fuelled cruise ships on order – delivery dates

Represents ~ 25% of all 73 cruise tonnage

n order in 2017

SLIDE 11

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 10

The LNG market has mainly developed in the North/ Baltic Sea region, with Wärtsilä as leading engine maker

LNG-fuelled ships by region in 2017 LNG-fuelled ships by engine maker

Note: LNG carriers not included Sources: DNV-GL LNGi Status Update 2017; LNG World Shipping, Strategy& analysis

44 28 16 35 10 15 59 7 7

14 17

2

22 75 2

Unnamed Others

79 32

4 In operation On order 60 13 22 15 8 15 7 55 37 6

Other global

2

Europe

13 1

Oceania

77

Middle East Asia America

68 28 52

Norway

On order In operation

SLIDE 12

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

In fact, an LNG bunkering market has first emerged in Norway, also supported by Governments’ incentive scheme

An LNG bunkering market has emerged in the last

year in Nordics, after the Baltic and North Sea became an ECA

The Norwegian NOx Fund was established in

2008 with the objective of reducing Norwegian NOx emissions by financing concrete measures for ships, offshore installations and land-based industry

The fund is financed by its members

‒ Ferries and cargo vessels pay on the one hand 0.5 € per kilo NOx(1) to the fund, and … ‒ … in return, they can receive support for investments aimed to reduce NOx

LNG-fuelled ships are eligible for 19€ per kg NOx

yearly emission reductions, limited to 75% of the additional cost (e.g. CAPEX) of LNG propulsion

One of the most effective NOx-reduction

measures for ships is switching to LNG fuel, which reduces the NOx emissions by 85-90%

There are 60 ships operating on LNG fuel in

Norway (+8 in order)

The NOx Fund has granted support to over 60

ships converted to LNG or new ships (in

peration and on order)
The total funding to LNG projects amounts to

more than 110M€ in the last three years

11

Norway’s NOx Fund Background Results

1) 57 gr NOx per kg HFO Sources: Internet research, LNG as a ship fuel report (DNV-GL), Norwegian NOx Fund as a driving force for LNG use (Viking Line Seminar), Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 13

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

LNG infrastructure

Total LNG fleet by type Existing plus on-order until 2018

11 7 2 20 4 24 Car/passenger ferry Other PSV General Cargo Ro-Ro RoPax

Norway is pioneer in LNG for bunkering (68 vessels by 2018)

12

8 8 4 5 12 5 10 3 6 6 1

68 69 84 69 65 68 70 63 74 72 72 68 5 10 15 20

20 40 60 80 100 # new ships 2018 2016 # new LNG ships 2017 2008 2011 2014 2012 2015 2009 2010 2013 % of penetration 1.4% 9.5% 8.6% 4.4% 15.4% 7.2% 7,2% 5,8% 14.3%

Norway case – LNG ships evolution

1) Penetration rate is obtained dividing new LNG ships by total new ships every year Note: average registration from 2013 to 2016 are used to compute the penetration rate from 2017, which is assumed constant Sources: DNV-GL LNGi Status Update 2017 ; LNG as a ship fuel report (DNV-GL), GIE Small Scale LNG Map, World Shipping Register, Strategy& analysis

11% 11% New LNG ships New ships (all types) Total 68 ships

Most LNG Vessels are operated on fixed routes, in relative close range

f home (availability
f LNG)

SLIDE 14

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Different business models for LNG bunkering have been developed in Norway

Bunkering Local LNG Production/Storage Transportation Supply

Onshore Terminal-to-Ship

Commonly used in

Norway (8 ports)

Permanent piping

and loading arms

Truck-to-Ship

Used in Norway
Night bunkering
Truck’s capacity

limits, several trucks are required for bunkering(2)

15 LNG bunkering terminals in operation, 2 decided, 6

under discussion

5 LNG terminals
26 small truck terminals
8 ship terminal tanks
Transportation by LNG carrier (e.g., Pioneer Knutsen

1.1k m3) or by truck

Ship-to-Ship (offshore)

Started in 2015

with the offshore bunkering of a chemical tanker by an LNG bunker vessel (Skangas) 500-700 m3 35-55 m3 5800 m3 1.1k m3 35-55 m3 Small LNG Local Plants

1

Secondary distribution

is done by a new small scale LNG vessel(1)

Transportation from

source by LNG carriers

Anthony Veder’s Coral Methane

Zeebrugge 261k m3 – 4 storages 7.5 – 15k m3 150k m3 Re-Export from LNG Terminal

2

1

13 1) Currently 1 LNG vessel for transportation from Zeebrugge (7.5k m3) – 1 additional LNG carrier already ordered (15k m3) – 2 additional LNG vessels planned (10k m3) 2) Four truck loads are required for each bunkering operation if the LNG storage on the ferry (125m3) is empty – 1.5 hours each Sources: Internet research, Strategy& analysis

Portable tank transfer is not adopted in Norway

SLIDE 15

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 14

Based on our experience, main drivers for bunkering LNG uptake are international regulation and TCO

Drivers Key Trends Relative Importance Regulation

IMO and governments play a key role for LNG uptake via emission regulations, excise tax, or

subsidies (like the NOx fund in Norway)

Overall favourable context: Med basin coasts will became an ECA zone in 2020 – Only when Med

will be an ECA, regulation will allow 3 main technologies: Heavy fuel + scrubber, Low Sulphur Fuel and LNG

4

TCO and convenience for end users

Price spread between LNG and other fuels will be a key determinant for the LNG bunkering uptake
Assuming current price scenarios, LNG has similar ΔTCO of LNG vs HFO + Scrubber, while has

always a positive ΔTCO against MGO technology

Incentives on CAPEX and bonus/malus on pollution are key to make LNG “in the money” (as

Norway)

3

Infrastructure

Addressable market is generally concentrated in main ports – Investment are high, but market can

scale-up in shorter term, therefore returns could be interesting (only in case of regulatory support and guaranteed demand)

Most LNG vessels are operated on fixed routes, in relative close range of home (availability of

LNG)

Truck-to-ship, implying limited investments, will be the most common initially; in the medium-long

run ship-to-ship bunkering will diffuse and is the preferred option for ship-owners

2

OEM’s

ffering
Technology in place -- main OEM in Europe of LNG engines are Wartsila, MAN and Rolls Royce
Mainly applicable to new ships – Retrofitting is very costly
Dual fuel is the most promising technology ensuring flexibility to ship owners

1

Green image

Not a key driver for the ship owner (guided by regulation and TCO)
Increasing impacts for cruise ships, but no major investment in communication yet (e.g. Carnival)

1

Source: Strategy& analysis

1

Details in the next pages

2

SLIDE 16

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

A E B C D F G I H

15

Regulation is a pre-requisite for LNG bunkering: part of Mediterranean Sea will be an ECA zone starting from 2020

IMO’s world map for ECAs (Emission Control Areas)

Current ECA Possible future ECA

Sources: IMO, Strategy& analysis

5 10 15 20 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

1 2 3 4 5 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Global SECA

SOx % Limits

NOx - Nitrogen Limit IMO Regulation to NECA and Global Area SOx - Sulphur Content % Limit in Marine Fuels IMO Regulation to SECA and Global Area

Tier I Tier III Tier II Global Only NECA

NOx Limits, g/kWh

1 Regulation

Engine’s rated speed (rpm)

Rpm 130 Rpm 2000

SLIDE 17

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Regulatory changes will affect LNG bunker uptake – Experts confirm 0.5% Sulphur cap likely to be enforced in 2020

Sulphur limits ECA (1) 1,0% 1,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1%

Whole Med as ECA? 200 miles off coast?

Global 4,5% 3,5% 3,5% 0,5% (2) 0,5% (2)

Enforced in EU Med? Or whole Med?

NOx limits ECA (1)

Tier II on new builds (3) Tier III on new builds (US only from 2016) (3) Tier III on new builds (2021) (3)

Global

16

Overview of regulatory framework – impact in EU and Med

7/2010 1/2012 1/2015 1/2020 1/2025 >2025

Note 1) EU ECAs (Emission Control Areas): North and Baltic Sea Note 2) Enforcement date review by IMO –in 2018 - will depend also on low sulphur fuel availability by refineries to match the emission requirements, but the consensus in the shipping worlds is for 2020 Note 3) Tier II: avg NOx at 9.6 g/kWh in fuel, Tier III: avg NOx at 2.3 g/kWh in fuel Sources: Marine Service Gmbh 2014 report, DNV GL 2012 report, Industry news, International Chamber of Shipping, Experts interviews; Strategy& analysis

1 Regulation

SLIDE 18

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 17

Only at that time regulation will call for the adoption of three main technologies…

Continue to use conventional fuel, which today is

used as the main fuel…

… with the addition of an exhaust scrubber (specific

regulations to be detailed)

Requires sizable modifications to the ship and

presents waste management issues

Often referred to Marine Gas Oil (MGO) and

includes transport fuels such as gasoline and diesel

This is where refiners make their margins
If price gap between fuel oil and MGO increases

(higher oil demand), scrubbing becomes economic

It is the simplest to implement
LNG could be an alternative to conventional fuel

(potentially dual fuel)

Today LNG is used in selected ECAs (Norway/

Baltic, USA, Japan) - Global acceptance requires infrastructure in relevant harbours

LNG is gaining momentum with vessel and OEMs
Mainly applicable to new ships (some conversion

trials in Canada)

Conventional Fuel (HFO) +Scrubber Low Sulphur Fuel (e.g. MGO) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

20 30 40 50 10 LNG Fuel Scrubber Low Sulphur Fuel Conventional Fuel

SOx Emissions

Tonnes per year

CO2 Emissions

Tonnes per year

4,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 LNG Fuel Conventional Fuel Scrubber Low Sulphur Fuel 200 160 40 80 120 Scrubber Conventional Fuel Low Sulphur Fuel LNG Fuel 10 8 6 4 2 Scrubber Low Sulphur Fuel LNG Fuel Conventional Fuel

NOx Emissions

Tonnes per year

Particle Emissions

Tonnes per year

Overview of alternative technologies Environmental emissions (*)

Note (*): Considering a typical Baltic Sea cargo ship of approximately 2,700 gross tonnes, 3,300 kW main engine and 5,250 yearly sailing hours Sources: DNV “Greener Shipping in the Baltic Sea” – June 2010; WPCI; Strategy& analysis

1 Regulation

SLIDE 19

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

… ship owners will investigate on pros and cons of available alternatives

18

CAPEX Fuel Cost Fuel Availability Operating costs Emissions Comments

Conventional Fuel (HFO) + Scrubber

++

++

?
Significant alterations on-board: tanks, pipes,

pumps and water treatment system

Slight increase of power consumption

Low Sulphur Fuel (e.g. MGO)

++

-
++

+

Limited availability of MGO at adequate specs
No treatment on board
Minor modifications to existing fuel system on

board Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

-

? ? + ++

Difficult logistics
Significant alterations required, such as reduced

cargo capacity – New hull integrated tanks are expected to simplify this issue

Longer / more complex bunkering operations

(HSE issues, especially for passenger ships)

Mainly applicable to new ships – difficult

retrofitting

Well proven technology in selected ECA zones

Choice of Fuel/ Technology in ECA zones

Sources: Interviews, Strategy& analysis

1 Regulation

Strongly Favourable Favourable

Legend

Strongly Unfavourable Unfavourable Unclear

++ +

-
?

SLIDE 20

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Engine size kW kW kW

Main

14,100 13,000 8,000

Auxiliaries

1,650 2,300 1,100 Consumption Tons/d Tons/d Tons/d

HFO 100%

47.2 39.4 27.7

MGO 100%

42.9 35.8 25.1

LNG 100%

35.5 29.7 20.9 Operating days d/year d/year d/year

Main

280 160 280

19

In last year scenario, LNG seems attractive vs both MGO and HFO + scrubber

TCO for Malta (LNG vs. alternative fuels, in M€)

General Cargo (Ro-Ro) Passenger (Ro-Pax) Container/Feeder (GT<20k)

Note: Maintenance for LNG and MGO assumed equal Sources: www.shipandbunker.com; Interviews; Strategy& TCO model and analysis

HFO+SCR MGO LNG

5

80 55

71 8 4 5 5 50 42 7

62

Capex Maintenance Fuel cost

1.8

MGO LNG HFO+SCR

24

36 49 40

6 4 29 7 4 41 3 5

MGO HFO+SCR LNG

34

42

38

3 3

48

3 30 4 5 6 25 Pay-back

2 TCO

Based on 2017 average prices (source: www.shipandbunker.com - last 12 months): LNG (commodity): 5.5$/mmbtu; HFO: 320 €/ton; MGO: 502 €/ton 3.5 2.7 3.7 2.2 2.6 Payback period of LNG compared to (HFO + SCR) and MGO respectively – focus of next slide

SLIDE 21

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 20

Payback period has been calculated considering LNG solution compared to (HFO + Scrubber) and MGO respectively

Note: Values of Capex and Opex shown in the graphs have been already discounted assuming a 7% discount factor Sources: Strategy& TCO model and analysis

2 TCO

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6,000 2,000 4,000 $ in Thousands

Capex LNG - Capex (HFO + Scrubber) Cumulative Opex (HFO + Scrubber) - Cumulative Opex LNG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10,000 5,000 15,000 $ in Thousands

LNG vs (HFO + Scrubber) LNG vs MGO

GENERAL CARGO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2,000 1,000 3,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1,000 3,000 2,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 PASSENGER CONTAINER FEED Time (years) Time (years) 3.5 Yrs 1.8 Yrs 3.7 Yrs 2.7 Yrs 2.6 Yrs 2.2 Yrs

Capex LNG - Capex MGO Cumulative Opex MGO - Cumulative Opex LNG

SLIDE 22

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Retrofitting requires significant investment both in Opex and Capex…

2 TCO

21

CAPEX

LNG SYSTEM

LNG tanks

OPEX

ENGINE ROOM MID-BODY SECTION

Main costs of retrofitting

Gas supply system Retrofit of engines Modification of machinery systems Prefabrication & transportation of new section Cabins / common spaces, etc.

Retrofitting - Illustrative

CONSUMABLES

Lubricants

MAINTENANCE FUEL

Gas supply system Engine maintenance intervals LNG supply system maintenance Cost of having the ship off- hire should also be taken into consideration

Sources: DNV GL study: “Retrofitting cruise ships to LNG by elongation – A crazy idea?”; Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 23

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

… that results overall in an expensive solution if compared with alternatives (e.g. scrubber)

2 TCO

22

7 7 31 8 21 74

LNG tanks and systems Outfitting Engineering cost Steel cost Total Cost - Excluding off-hire 4 x DF engine retrofit

High level cost estimate for retrofit vs scrubber system for a cruise ship – Million USD

Retrofit Hybrid scrubber 5 20 15

Equipment Yard Total Cost

Note: Maintenance for LNG and MGO assumed equal Sources: DNV GL study: “Retrofitting cruise ships to LNG by elongation – A crazy idea?”; Strategy& analysis

Considering a ship with the following characteristics: – Beam: 32m – Length overall: 300m – Ship GT: 75,000 – Engines: 4x MAN 12V48/60 at 12,600kW Considering to install a hybrid system on the ship using 4 scrubbers, one per engine

SLIDE 24

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

The starting point The case of LNG for bunkering Competitive landscape Results of the CBA analysis Appendix - Projected LNG for bunkering future demand in Malta

23

SLIDE 25

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Malta increased its bunkering activities also thanks to competitive pricing

Bunkering in Malta - kton/year

Sources: Transport Malta; Ship & Bunkering, Strategy& analysis

2013 1,240 2016 1,912 +54%

Average prices of HFO and MGO Dec ‘16 – Dec ‘17 - $/ton

320 503 323 514 328 539 333 548 335 532 385 509

HFO (IFO 380) MGO

Valletta Piraeus Algeciras Augusta Genoa Istanbul Valletta Piraeus Algeciras Augusta Genoa Istanbul

24

SLIDE 26

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 25

Majority of lines passing by Malta come from Italy, Egypt, Spain and Greece - Piraeus is the most frequent port

Number of 1st last port calls in 2017 – by port

Sources: Transport Malta – Extract of port calls ; Strategy& analysis

10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 13 14 15 15 19 20 20 22 22 23 27 31 42 564

Las Palmas Other 234 ports Antwerpen Siracusa Genova Piraeus Catania Le Havre Port Said Palermo Koper Alexandria Valencia Singapore Palma de Mallorca Porto Nogaro Augusta Algiers Aliaga Barcelona Suez Tanger Med Damietta

Number of 1st last port calls in 2017 – by country

Total # of calls for the extract received by TM in 2017 is 943

266 10 10 10 12 16 24 26 27 28 29 36 40 68 72 77 192

NET BEL Other ALG ASIA MOR TUN CRO SLO LIB MAL TUR EGY SPA FRA ITA GRE

Represent ~43% of total calls reported in the extract Top three ports by # of port calls in 2017 “Other” includes other countries as well as ports with less than two port calls in 2017

SLIDE 27

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 26

Most frequent countries of destination are Italy, Egypt, Algeria and Turkey – Piraeus and Salerno are the most frequent ports

Sources: Transport Malta - Extract of port calls; Strategy& analysis

Number of next port calls in 2017 – by port

11 11 11 11 11 11 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 17 22 30 31

Palermo Nemrut Bay Singapore Valencia Skikda Misurata

593

Other 243 Ports Tripoli Livorno Genova Barcelona Algiers Catania Port Said Salalah Suez Damietta Algeciras Salerno Tanger Med Alexandria Beirut Piraeus

Number of next port calls in 2017 – by country

Total # of calls for the extract received by TM in 2017 is 943

332 9 10 11 13 14 17 19 21 27 29 47 47 49 50 66 182

ALG ITA EGY Other CRO SAU UAE TUN ASIA LEB LIB OMA SPA UK MOR GRE TUR

Represent ~37% of total calls reported in the extract “Other” includes other countries as well as ports with less than two port calls in 2017 Top three ports by # of port calls in 2017

SLIDE 28

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 27

Today, in the Med area there are 20 LNG terminals in operation and 10 planned or under construction

Existing and planned LNG terminals in the Mediterranean basin

Fos Tonkin Elengy (1972) Porto Levante Adriatic LNG (2009) Panigaglia GNL Italia (1971) Revithussa Desfa (2000) Cartagena Enagas (1989) Sagunto Saggas (2006) Barcelona Enagas (1968) Huelva Enagas (1988)

3 4

Marmara Botas (1994)

1 2

Fos Cavaou Fosmax (2010) Olt Offshore Olt (2013)

5 6

Planned/ under evaluation LNG Terminal

Falconara Marittima – Api Nova energia

(2018)

Oristano – 3xEdison (2018), IVI , Higas
Gioia Tauro1 – LNG Medgas Terminal

(2019)

Krk Island FSRU – LNG Hrvatska (2019)
Eagle LNG FSRU – Burns (2020)
Alexandroupolis FSRU – Gas Trade (2018)
Saros FSRU – Botas (2019)
Vassilikos – export terminal 2022
Iskenderun FSRU– Botas 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aliaga Ege Gas (2006)

7 8

Aliaga Etkiliman (2006)

9

1) Gioia Tauro terminal will be connected to the national gas grid. The project foresees the initial construction of two storage tanks for the regasification activities (send-out of 8 Bcm/y), the construction of an additional tank in a following phase (total send-out of 12 Bcm/y) and the construction of a storage tank fully dedicated to the alternative uses of LNG (bunkering and truck loading) Sources: GIE Small Scale LNG Map 2017, Strategy& analysis Arzew-Bethioua Sonatrach Skikda Sonatrach 6 LNG export terminal

#

14 LNG Terminal in operation Planned LNG Terminal Damietta Segas Edku Egyptian LNG Hadera Ingl

Legend:

Turkey Albania Croatia

SLIDE 29

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

The starting point The case of LNG for bunkering Competitive landscape Results of the CBA analysis Appendix - Projected LNG for bunkering future demand in Malta

28

SLIDE 30

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 29

Cost Benefit Analysis has been performed considering market demand as forecasted in the MID Scenario

102 129 139 151 234 291 312 339 53 549 589 640

2043 2024 2020 2026 2027 2032 2028 2030 2034 2036 2039 2035 2038 2040 2042 2052 2044 2046 2048 2022 2054 2056 2041 2045 2021 2037 2023 2025 2029 2031 2049 2033 2047 2051 2053 2055 2050 438 31 11

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta – [ktpa]

LOW MID (Base Scenario) HIGH 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 31

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 30

The analysis has been focused on four alternative solutions

Source: Strategy& analysis

Phase I Phase II ext. Phase III Volumes captured (ktpa) 2020-2025 2026-2030 2031-2056 CoD 2030 2040 2056 No investments Iso- containers On-shore Tank

31

234 339 Onshore Liquefaction Plant FSRU FSU 1 2 3 4

# Solution considered

SLIDE 32

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 31

The CBA analysis has followed three steps, in line with European requirements

Sources: Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects; Strategy& analysis

Phase

CBA analysis overview

Sensitivity analysis and Risk assessment Socio-economic analysis Financial analysis

Financial analysis from the project perspective (no grants / subsidies) Financial analysis from promoter perspective (with grants / subsidies) Financial sustainability analysis Identification of the factors affecting the financial / socio-economic analysis Sensitivity analysis and identification of the critical factors 1 2 3 Identification of the socio- economic benefits Socio-economic analysis Process steps Objective

Assess the project profitability and sustainability from a financial perspective Stress test the solidity of the financial and socio-economic analysis Assess the benefits of the project and its contribution to welfare

KPIs

FNPV (C), FNPV (K)
IRR (C), IRR (K)
Financial Payback (C, K)
FNPV (C), ENPV
ENPV
ERR
Economic payback

Preparation of a risk mitigation plan

SLIDE 33

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 32

The ultimate goal of the CBA has been to confirm whether the project is sustainable for the Society

Sources: Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects; Strategy& analysis

CBA rationale / ultimate goal

Negative CBA outcome Positive CBA outcome

Risk assessment Socio-economic analysis Financial analysis

1 2 3 Financial analysis (FNPV)

Project does not require financial support

>0 <0

Society is better off with the project Society is better off without the project

Sensitivity analysis

  !

Socio-economic analysis (ENPV)

>0 <0

Project requires financial support Identification of the EU financial support

!

SLIDE 34

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 33

To perform the analysis, we have created a flexible and user friendly model which can simulate different scenarios

CONTROL PANEL DASHBOARD / RESULTS

Technical solution

1 RESULTS 1.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Return on Investment (CAPEX excl. Contingencies) FNPV(C) Mn €

42

FRR (C) % 4.2% Return on National Capital (CAPEX incl. Contingencies)

Market scenario

FNPV(K) Mn €

28

FRR (K) % 4.8% F-Payback years 24.6 1.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Financial Discount Rate

ENPV Mn € 345 ERR % 13.2% B/C RATIO

2.58

E-Payback years 16.8 Opportunity to chose among different

ptions and assumptions

Automatic update of main results

SLIDE 35

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 34

Combination of Isocontainer and Onshore tank shows the highest financial and economic indicators

Summary of CBA results (Mn EUR)

Source: Strategy& analysis

Technical option Financial analysis Economic analysis

Phase II Phase III CAPEX (P.II-III) FNPV(C) @6.5% FRR(C) FNPV(K) @6.5% FRR(K) Operati ng Losses ENPV @5% ERR (%) B/C

ISOCONTAINERS ONSHORE TANK 211 Mn€

56

Mn€ 3.5%

17

Mn€ 5.4%

21

Mn€ 970 Mn€ 21.0% 5.14 LIQUEFACTION PLANT 499 Mn€

425

Mn€ n/a

336

Mn€ n/a

493

Mn€ 372 Mn€ 9.8% 1.67 FSRU 540 Mn€

375

Mn€

10%
278

Mn€ n/a

143

Mn€ 432 Mn€ 9.8% 1.71 FSU 394 Mn€

317

Mn€ n/a

246

Mn€ n/a

201

Mn€ 453 Mn€ 10.9% 1.83

1 2 High Capex for options 2 to 4 have an impact on financial analysis High Opex for options 2 to 4 have an impact on financial sustainability

SLIDE 36

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Possible location

1 3 – Liquefaction Plant 2 & 3 offshore

Located somewhere else in Delimara or in other ports

2 & 3 – Onshore Tanks

35

SLIDE 37

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC 36

SLIDE 38

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Sensitivity analysis has been performed considering critical variables affecting financial and economic results

Identification of critical factors

37

Area Variable Unit

Δ

Variable

Δ

FNPV

Critical? Δ

ENPV Critical?

Volume

Volume ktpa + 1%

2.9%

YES 1.3% YES

Costs

Capex Mn € + 1% 3.4% YES

0.2%

NO Opex (excluding commodity) Mn € + 1% 1.6% YES

0.2%

NO LNG Commodity Cost € / ton + 1% 8.0% YES

0.5%

NO

Price of Fuels

LNG Price in Malta € / ton + 1%

11.4%

YES 0.0% NO LNG Price in in Med Area € / ton + 1% 0.0% NO 0.7% NO Margins on HFO/MGO % + 1% 0.0% NO 0.0% NO

Environment

Price of CO2 € / ton + 1% 0.0% NO 0.1% NO Price of Air Pollutants € / ton + 1% 0.0% NO 0.9% NO

Critical factors Non critical factors Sensitivity analysis to be performed on these factors

1 2 3 4

SLIDE 39

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Results of sensitivity analysis show that economics remain positive in any scenario considered

Sensitivity analysis on critical factors for solution 2

38

Variable Scenario

Δ

FNPV

FNPV Mn € FRR % Δ

ENPV ENPV

Mn €

ERR % Volume LOW

130%
124
3.1%
73%

265 11.3% HIGH +35%

35

5.4% 98% 1930 23.6% Capex +25%

73%
93

2.2%

5%

923 18.7%

25%

+72%

15

5.6% 5% 1030 24.5% Opex +25%

32%
71

2.7%

4%

933 20.2%

25%

+31%

37

4.6% 4% 1020 22.1% LNG Commodity Cost +25%

156%
138
5.2%
12%

859 19.7%

25%

+158% 31 7.8% 12% 1094 22.5% LNG Price +25% +223% 66 9.1% 0% 976 21.1%

25%
223%
174

n/a 0% 976 21.1%

Economics remain positive for every scenario

SLIDE 40

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

The starting point The case of LNG for bunkering Competitive landscape Results of the CBA analysis Appendix - Projected LNG for bunkering future demand in Malta

39

SLIDE 41

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Projected LNG bunkering demand in Malta ranges between ~150 ktpa and 640 ktpa in 2056

102 129 139 151 234 291 312 339 53 549 589 640 2028 2056 2026 2022 2020 2034 2024 2030 2032 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 2052 2054 11 31 438

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta – [ktpa]

LOW MID (Base Scenario) HIGH

40

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 42

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by port in Malta - High Scenario

41

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

HIGH 2039 2054 2051 2048 2027 2026 187 2023 2033 2020 2021 2022 2052 2024 2044 2031 2025 2046 2028 2029 2030 2032 2034 53 2035 2036 2037 2038 2040 2041 2042 2050 2043 2045 9 2047 2049 2053 640 2055 549 2056 69 438 589

1 Valletta Marsaxlokk Outside Harbour

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 43

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by port in Malta - Mid Scenario

42

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

2

2044 2045 2040 2037 2036 2035 106 2038 291 2046 2049 2047 2048 2041 234 2043 2042 2039 2033 2031 31 5 2024 2023 2021 2020 2022 2032 2030 2029 2025 2027 2026 2028 2034 40 339 2056 2055 2054 2053 2050 312 2051 2052

Marsaxlokk Outside Harbour Valletta

MID (Base Scenario) 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 44

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by port in Malta - Low Scenario

43

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

3

151 2050 139 2052 2053 2056 2055 2054 2051 2046 2044 2041 2043 2042 2049 2047 2040 102 2045 129 2039 2048 11 2028 2 2033 2029 2027 2026 15 2024 2025 2037 2034 2030 2036 2020 2021 2035 2032 2023 2022 41 2031 2038

Outside Harbour Marsaxlokk Valletta

LOW 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 45

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by vessel in Malta - High Scenario

44

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

HIGH 2041 2039 2040 438 2038 2036 2037 2056 2054 589 2052 640 2051 2055 2053 2050 2048 2046 2044 2049 2047 2045 549 2043 2042 2035 2030 2023 2028 2026 2024 2033 2031 2022 2021 2020 2034 2029 69 2027 2025 187 2032 53 9

1 Gen Cargo Bulk carrier Tankers Containers RoRo-RoPax

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 46

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by vessel in Malta - Mid Scenario

45

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

2

2037 2040 2042 234 2039 2038 2043 2041 2035 2036 106 2034 2033 312 339 2052 2050 2055 2051 2053 2054 2045 2048 291 2044 2046 2049 2047 2020 2024 2021 2023 2022 2056 40 31 2029 2030 5 2027 2025 2028 2032 2031 2026

Containers RoRo-RoPax Tankers Bulk carrier Gen Cargo

MID (Base Scenario) 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 47

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering demand by vessel in Malta - Low Scenario

46

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

3

2052 2051 2050 2053 2056 139 2055 2054 2046 2047 2049 2048 2045 129 2044 2043 2042 102 2039 2040 2038 2041 2035 2034 2037 2036 41 2030 2031 2032 2033 15 2028 11 2027 2025 151 2029 2 2024 2021 2026 2022 2020 2023

RoRo-RoPax Containers Tankers Gen Cargo Bulk carrier

LOW 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 48

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

In terms of LNG ships equivalent, # of ships in Malta ranges between 19 and 84 in 2056

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

47

19 18 18 12 4 43 39 36 29 11 84 76 70 56 20 2052 2048 2050 2046 2034 2054 2042 2036 2038 2032 2030 2028 2056 2044 2040 2026 2022 2024 2020 1 LOW MID (Base Scenario) HIGH 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 49

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by port - High Scenario

48

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

HIGH 2021 2020 2023 2022 2054 2045 2052 2050 2049 76 70 2051 2053 2044 2056 84 2048 2046 2047 2055 2033 2032 7 2030 4 20 2038 2041 2040 2031 2043 2042 2039 2037 2035 2036 2034 56 2024 2027 2029 2028 2025 2026 1

1 Valletta Marsaxlokk Outside Harbour

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 50

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by port - Mid Scenario

49

2

2054 2056 43 2055 2043 2036 2044 2031 2041 2037 2047 2045 2042 11 2046 2052 2034 2048 36 2033 2032 2049 29 2038 2035 2051 2040 2039 2053 2050 39 2020 2030 2024 2026 2029 3 2 2022 2027 2028 2023 2021 2025

Marsaxlokk Valletta Outside Harbour

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

MID (Base Scenario) 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 51

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by port - Low Scenario

50

3

12 2040 2039 2030 2029 2025 2034 2042 4 2037 2035 2038 2031 1 2027 2044 2028 2026 2043 2041 2036 2033 1 2032 2022 2021 2020 2024 2023 2047 2046 2045 2055 18 2050 2051 19 2048 2056 2054 2053 18 2049 2052

Outside Harbour Marsaxlokk Valletta

LOW

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 52

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of service (SSS/LSS) - High Scenario

51

HIGH 2020 84 2055 2054 2053 2052 2051 2050 2056 2043 2042 2036 2035 2046 2040 2041 76 2039 2034 2033 2032 7 2030 2045 2049 56 70 2047 2037 2031 2044 20 4 2048 2038 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 1 2024 2023 2022 2021

1

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

LSS SSS

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 53

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of service (SSS/LSS) - Mid Scenario

52

29 2041 2040 36 2044 2043 2042 2046 2045 2049 2048 2047 39 2039 43 2056 2055 2052 2051 2050 2054 2053 2022 2036 2037 11 2 2029 2025 2027 2024 2020 3 2026 2030 2028 2033 2035 2032 2038 2034 2031 2023 2021

LSS SSS

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

2

MID (Base Scenario) 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 54

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of service (SSS/LSS) - Low Scenario

53

2045 2048 2043 2042 2051 12 2055 2050 18 2041 2040 2039 2053 18 2056 19 2054 2052 2049 2047 2046 2044 2022 2032 2026 2033 4 2031 1 2029 2028 2027 2037 2025 2024 2023 2030 2020 1 2021 2038 2034 2036 2035 1

LSS SSS

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

3

LOW 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 55

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of vessel - High Scenario

54

HIGH 2056 76 2049 84 2055 2053 2052 2054 2051 2050 2048 2047 2046 70 2041 56 4 2034 2043 2031 2030 2039 2037 2035 2033 7 2028 2027 2026 2025 1 2024 2040 2044 2038 2036 2042 20 2029 2032 2020 2022 2023 2021 2045

1 Tankers Containers RoRo-RoPax Bulk carrier Gen Cargo

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 56

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of vessel - Mid Scenario

55

2021 2020 2022 2023 2055 2056 43 2046 2049 2048 39 2045 2052 2043 2042 2051 36 2040 2039 2038 2035 2047 11 2041 2034 2054 29 2053 2033 2050 2044 2031 2037 2036 2032 2030 2 2028 2026 3 2027 2025 2024 2029

Bulk carrier Tankers Containers RoRo-RoPax Gen Cargo

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

2

MID (Base Scenario) 2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 57

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total number of LNG ships by type of vessel - Low Scenario

56

19 2051 2047 2046 2050 2045 18 2044 2043 2042 2052 2056 2055 18 2049 2048 2054 2053 2024 2036 1 2023 2040 2035 1 2038 2034 2033 2028 2031 2037 2026 2025 2032 2041 4 2030 2039 2029 12 2022 2021 2020 2027

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

3

LOW

Gen Cargo Containers Tankers Bulk carrier RoRo-RoPax

2020-2024 2025-2030 2031-2056

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 58

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by port - Mid Scenario

57

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 5 31 106 234 291 312 339 Valletta 2 8 21 28 30 33 Marsaxlokk 4 22 64 80 86 92 100 Outside Harbour 1 7 34 133 176 189 205

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 29 36 39 43 Valletta 1 3 3 4 5 Marsaxlokk 2 6 7 8 8 9 Outside Harbour 4 19 25 27 29

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

MID (Base Scenario)

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 59

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by vessel – Mid Scenario

58

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 5 31 106 234 291 312 339 RoRo-RoPax 2 6 13 17 18 20 Containers 5 25 73 90 97 104 113 Tankers 1 10 52 71 76 83 Gen Cargo 2 16 72 97 105 114 Bulk carrier 1 6 9 9 10

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 29 36 39 43 RoRo-RoPax 1 1 1 2 2 Containers 2 7 8 9 9 10 Tankers 1 7 9 10 11 Gen Cargo 2 12 16 17 19 Bulk carrier 1 1 1 1

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

MID (Base Scenario)

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 60

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by service (SSS/LSS) - Mid Scenario

59

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 5 31 106 234 291 312 339 SSS 5 27 79 103 114 122 132 LSS 4 27 131 177 190 206

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 29 36 39 43 SSS 2 8 9 10 11 12 LSS 3 20 26 28 31

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

MID (Base Scenario)

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 61

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by port - High Scenario

60

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 9 53 187 438 549 589 640 Valletta 1 4 15 42 56 60 66 Marsaxlokk 7 36 106 134 144 155 168 Outside Harbour 1 13 66 262 348 374 406

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 20 56 70 76 84 Valletta 2 5 7 8 8 Marsaxlokk 1 3 10 12 13 14 16 Outside Harbour 1 8 39 50 54 60

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

Source: Strategy& analysis

HIGH

SLIDE 62

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by vessel – High Scenario

61

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 9 53 187 438 549 589 640 RoRo-RoPax 1 4 12 26 34 36 39 Containers 8 41 121 150 162 173 188 Tankers 3 19 105 142 152 165 Gen Cargo 5 32 144 195 209 227 Bulk carrier 3 13 17 18 20

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

HIGH

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 20 56 70 76 84 RoRo-RoPax 1 2 3 3 4 Containers 1 3 11 14 15 16 17 Tankers 2 14 18 20 22 Gen Cargo 1 6 24 32 35 38 Bulk carrier 2 2 2 3

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 63

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by service (SSS/LSS) - High Scenario

62

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 9 53 187 438 549 589 640 SSS 9 45 133 176 195 209 227 LSS 8 54 262 354 380 413

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

HIGH

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 20 56 70 76 84 SSS 1 3 12 16 18 19 21 LSS 1 8 40 52 57 63

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 64

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by port – Low Scenario

63

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 41 102 129 139 151 Valletta 1 4 11 14 15 16 Marsaxlokk 1 7 21 27 29 31 34 Outside Harbour 3 16 64 86 92 100

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 12 18 18 19 Valletta 2 2 2 2 Marsaxlokk 1 2 2 3 3 3 Outside Harbour 2 8 13 13 14

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

LOW

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 65

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by vessel – Low Scenario

64

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 41 102 129 139 151 RoRo-RoPax 1 3 6 8 9 10 Containers 2 8 24 30 32 35 38 Tankers 1 5 26 35 38 41 Gen Cargo 1 8 36 49 52 57 Bulk carrier 1 3 4 5 5

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 12 18 18 19 RoRo-RoPax 1 1 1 1 Containers 1 2 2 3 3 3 Tankers 1 3 5 5 5 Gen Cargo 1 6 8 8 9 Bulk carrier 1 1 1

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

LOW

Source: Strategy& analysis

SLIDE 66

Tractebel - Strategy& | PwC

Total LNG bunkering and new LNG vessels in Malta by service (SSS/LSS) - Low Scenario

65

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 2 11 41 102 129 139 151 SSS 2 9 27 36 41 44 47 LSS 2 13 65 88 95 103

Total LNG bunkering consumption in Malta– [ktpa]

< 2025 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2056

Total 1 4 12 18 18 19 SSS 1 2 3 4 4 4 LSS 2 9 14 14 15

Total number of LNG ships in Malta – number of units

LOW

Source: Strategy& analysis