Golar LNG (GLNG) Q4 FY25 earnings call: guidance and Q&A

Asked for specific process details, timing, and whether a company sale is an option.

Tor Olav Troim declined to provide further details, stating the process needs to be kept close to the Board and is not a public process.

“I don't want to give any further comments than what I've effectively already said. I think hopefully, the shareholders have some respect for the fact that these kind of processes kind of needs to be kept a little bit close to the Board and not effectively be a public process.”

asked by John Mackay · answered by Tor Trøim

Asked if the focus is on buybacks and at what point the company switches from investing in the base business to commercializing the next vessel.

Karl Staubo clarified that there's no change in commitment to accretive FLNG growth. The decision to push out investment for new units is due to differing vessel design requirements for various projects and the desire to leverage stronger cash flow post-2028, avoiding speculative capital commitments. Tor Olav Troim added that the strategic review does not influence day-to-day business and aims for cheaper access to capital.

“there's no change in our committed focus to develop attractive FLNG projects and none of the actions taken today will pause the pace of the commercial evolvement of the contracts in discussion.”

asked by John Mackay · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked about counterparties' thinking on GTA expansion given Gimi's strong performance and what data points are needed.

Karl Staubo stated that BP consistently requires 12 to 18 months of well data before deciding on expansion. Gimi's production above contracted amounts suggests upstream and infrastructure are performing well, which should aid an expansion decision.

“what BP has consistently said is that they want 12 to 18 months of well data before a decision is made on expansion, but it has to do with how the wells perform.”

asked by Christopher Robertson · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked about the current cost estimate for Hilli upgrades and redeployment, and if there's cost inflation for new FLNG units, specifically per metric ton.

Karl Staubo confirmed the Hilli conversion budget is $350 million, including all associated costs. He noted cost inflation is primarily on long-lead equipment for topsides, driven by competition from AI data centers, rather than yard scope. Mark I and II conversions still offer a cost advantage (up to 40% lower CapEx per tonne) compared to land-based, but Mark III sees significant cost inflation due to shipyard competition.

“the conversion budget... all in, we estimate $350 million, including a certain level of contingencies.”

asked by Christopher Robertson · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked about factors impacting Gimi's production above contractual base, beyond ambient temperature and gas composition, such as maintenance.

Karl Staubo explained that scheduled maintenance is accounted for in the difference between nameplate (2.7 mtpa) and contractual (2.4 mtpa) capacity. Seasonality due to ambient temperature is expected, with higher production in winter. Gimi is expected to produce well above the contracted amount on an annual average, with optimization ongoing.

“We don't expect to go under the 2.4 in the summer months, and we expect to be meaningfully higher in the winter months. So if you smooth it out on average, we expect to be well above the contracted amount”

asked by Alexander Bidwell · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked about the start-up and commissioning cadence for Hilli and Mark II in Argentina and lessons from Cameroon/GTA.

Karl Staubo expects Hilli's commissioning to be quicker (3-4 months) than Mark II's (up to 6 months) due to Hilli's prior operation. A key lesson is to "arrive cold" (with LNG on tanks) to allow commissioning before pipeline gas flow, saving significant time, a practice used for both Hilli and Gimi.

“we do expect to arrive cold. What that means is that we will arrive or likely will arrive with some LNG on the tanks that allows us to start commissioning before we are reliant on gas flowing through the pipeline.”

asked by Alexander Bidwell · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked if project partners are still interested in debottlenecking Gimi given its strong performance, and what needs to happen.

Karl Staubo stated that debottlenecking is in everyone's interest if it's CapEx accretive to unit economics. He expects such debottlenecking to be very accretive and thus in the interest of all stakeholders.

“it's in everybody's interest to debottleneck provided you can do so and at, call it, CapEx accretive to the CapEx -- to the unit economics of the project.”

asked by Sherif Elmaghrabi · answered by Karl Staubo

Asked to expand on the increasing demand for FLNG infrastructure, whether it's macro-related or specific to FLNG solutions.

Karl Staubo attributed it to two factors: increasing industry recognition of FLNG efficiency (up to 40% CapEx discount to land-based, flexibility) and the attraction of sourcing cheaper gas reserves compared to Henry Hub-linked U.S. projects, which will drive the majority of future LNG supply.

“One of it is the increasing industry recognition of the efficiency of FLNG versus alternative liquefaction solutions... The other key driver is that the vast majority of incremental production of LNG will come out of the U.S. and all U.S. projects or the vast majority of U.S. projects source at Henry Hub.”

asked by Spiro Dounis · answered by Karl Staubo