Energy Transfer LP
Q2 2020 Earnings Call Transcript

Published: 5 Aug 2020

[Operator:]

Greetings and welcome to Energy Transfer's Second Quarter Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to today -- to Mr. Tom Long, CFO. Thanks sir. You may begin.

[Tom Long:]

Thank you operator and good afternoon everyone and welcome to the Energy Transfer second quarter 2020 earnings call and thank you for joining us today. I'm also joined today by Kelcy Warren, Mackie McCrea, and other members of the senior management team who are here to help answer your questions after our prepared remarks.

[Tom Mason:]

This is Tom Mason, the General Counsel of Energy Transfer. And I wanted to inform you that, we just received the decision related to our motions to stay from the Court of Appeals. We are still reviewing this decision, but the good news is that the Court of Appeals granted our stay of the portion of the district court order that required Dakota Access to shut the pipeline down and empty it of oil. The Court of Appeals also denied a stay of the other part of the district court order which vacated the easement for the pipeline at Lake Oahe. As a result, no court order stops Dakota Access from continuing to operate the pipeline. The Court of Appeals contemplates further proceedings at the district court following determinations by the Army Corps, under its regulations regarding the continued operation of the pipeline, in light of the easement being vacated. The Court of Appeals also ordered an expedited schedule for determining the merits of the appeal by the Army Corps and Dakota Access as to whether an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. This really is expected by the end of the year. We will continue to review the substance of today's court decision and we will need to run the course with this litigation. We believe our legal positions are strong and we are confident that the pipeline will continue to operate. With this I turn it over to the operator to open our first question.

[Operator:]

Thank you. Our first question is from Shneur Gershuni with UBS. Please proceed with your question.

[Shneur Gershuni:]

Hi, good afternoon everyone. I realize the DAPL news is very fresh and it sounded like your update was pretty straightforward there. So I won't be belabor it. Maybe to pivot a little bit here, the guidance update that you provided today, Tom I was wondering if you can give us a little bit more color on what's moving the guidance down? What are the puts and takes? And was there anything related to DAPL as part of this? I realize the DAPL decision just came in, as you were basically hitting the send button on the press release.

[Tom Long:]

You bet. Let's start with the last part of your question Shneur. First off nothing related to DAPL was pertaining to the guidance -- updated guidance that we had. I will say that, when you really look out at what we were -- what caused or probably what drove the reduction was really the - basically the volumes and the spreads. We were looking at the assumptions and the forward curve when you really look out. So I'd say that probably drove it as much as any. You can see really from crude oil, as well as the intrastate were the two primary segments.

[Shneur Gershuni:]

Okay. Fair enough. And maybe as a follow-up question, the -- heading into this year there was a path for deleveraging, the goal was 4.5x. Obviously COVID and OPEC have kind of derailed that. Can you talk about your path to how you think you'll get there on a go-forward basis? How you're thinking about the distribution versus the investment-grade credit rating if we were to hit that crossroad, just kind of interested in your overall thoughts with respect to both?

[Tom Long:]

You bet. Clearly the investment-grade rating is very important. But I think it's also important to highlight the various levers we have to pull and the CapEx reductions that we announced today were obviously a big part of that. We're going to continue to work with the rating agencies. We're going to continue to work toward bringing our leverage down. And clearly the distributions are a topic when we discuss how to get the leverage down.

[Shneur Gershuni:]

Fair enough. And then maybe one last question just since you brought up the CapEx. I mean, the commentary you put out today was for a very material step down in CapEx for of '21 and into '22 and '23. You've already cut $600 million so far this year. And it sounds like in your prepared remarks Mariner East II is actually moving ahead faster than expected. Is -- I realize that's a lot that you've accomplished, but are there any opportunities to cut CapEx further? And I was sort of thinking along the lines of are contracting and labor costs coming down? Or is there equipment costs -- could there still be a little bit more to go in terms of lower costs and lower CapEx?

[Tom Long:]

We're going to continue to evaluate it, but I would not guide you to lower amounts at this time. But clearly as we continue through the rest of the year, we'll update as we go. But right now I wouldn't guide you to any lower numbers.

[Shneur Gershuni:]

Perfect. We’ll have obviously a lot more questions, but I’ll step back into the queue. Really appreciate your thoughts today and have a safe day.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.

[Jeremy Tonet:]

Hi. Good afternoon here. Just wanted to follow-up with the credit side. And just kind of curious what you calculate your leverage is on a rating agency basis. And want to get better color on kind of the path of how long it takes you to get into that.

[Tom Long:]

Well, as you know, each agency has their own metrics they use for how they calculate that. We -- depending on which agency you look at as you know we're in and around that five number. We're going to continue to look out not just for this year, but for next year. And we're going to highlight the fact that we're running into a free cash flow period for 2021 with the CapEx I announced. So I think when you look at it, you can see that any dollars that are left over will be allocated toward debt paydown, and that's what we're looking at, which will then bring that leverage down. But I would calibrate you to the five-ish range depending on which -- 5 to 5.5 depending on which agency you're looking at.

[Jeremy Tonet:]

Got it. That's helpful. Thanks. And then just want to make sure as we're thinking about it for modeling purposes. When you think about kind of contango or other opportunistic gains you might have recognized in the quarter, did they all show up in 2Q? Or could they show up over the balance of the year as well? Just trying to think of how that might be booked.

[Mackie McCrea:]

Yes, Jeremy. This is Mackie. No. We did recognize some of the contango in the second quarter. However, there's substantially more contango that we will recognize the second half of this year. And there's also some contango as Tom mentioned in his remarks around some new storage facilities that we're taking advantage of at Mont Belvieu around -- May take advantage of those later this year if the opportunity arises. Otherwise, those will -- we'll take advantage of those in the first quarter of next year.

[Jeremy Tonet:]

Great. That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Ujjwal Pradhan with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question.

[Ujjwal Pradhan:]

Good afternoon guys. This is Ujjwal, Bank of America. Thanks for taking my question. First one wanted to touch on cost savings. You noted approximately $400 million in savings that you expect to realize in 2020. Just wanted to get a sense of how much of that is a function of just lower volume-driven expenses. Really trying to get at how much of that would be ratable going forward?

[Tom Long:]

You bet. When you really look at it, it's a combination of both G&A as well as operational expenses. As far as being able to continue with that, clearly, that's what our plans are is to be able to look at this. But as the assets continue to ramp up as we look into next year, et cetera, the operational expenses will go along with that. But I would say that I want to commend all the Energy Transfer team and what they've done to be able to bring down these costs. But it is a blend of both like, I said, G&A as well as operation expense.

[Ujjwal Pradhan:]

Got it. And second question trying to get your thoughts on asset monetizations at this point as one of the levers for delevering. Assets like Rover, which have been under consideration in the past does keep the profile of nat gas pipelines that have recently treated. Would you be able to comment on what your thoughts are and how you see the market today and your level of interest in using this tool?

[Tom Long:]

We will not comment on specific assets like that. But I will say, we've been pretty open about our compression -- investment in USA Compression. We're not going to do anything that would ever harm the value of the units, but that is something that we continue to evaluate as far as that position goes the units that we hold as well as the general partner. But overall, we don't have really a long other list of assets that we're working on that we're evaluating from that standpoint.

[Ujjwal Pradhan:]

Understood. Thanks and very helpful.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Pearce Hammond with Simmons Energy. Please proceed with your question.

[Pearce Hammond:]

Good afternoon and thanks for taking my question. I just want to follow-up on the prior question. But more specifically in light of the Berkshire Hathaway, Dominion transaction, do you see an attractive environment to divest assets? Is there more interest, or is kind of COVID throwing a wet blanket on that?

[Tom Long:]

It's interesting because prior to the downturn that we've experienced, the COVID impact we've had there was clearly a lot of calls that came in with various levels of interest around assets. But I will tell you that that has slowed. I think multiples have come down as far as assets and what they trade for at least from what we're seeing.

[Pearce Hammond:]

Okay. Thank you. And then as a follow-up, are you hearing from your customers? Are they actively looking to blend and extend contracts? And so what's the environment like for that?

[Mackie McCrea:]

This is Mackie. There are some of those out there and we've made it public that we've been pretty aggressive over the last year or two of doing that. That hit us a little bit in this year, because we took away a little bit of the revenue this year for extended contracts that were ending in the next year or two and extended those out seven or eight years. But I would say that we're not as focused on that right now. Our primary focus right now from a commercial standpoint is getting all these assets online in the Northeast and in Nederland and filling them up as quickly as possible. So we're really not looking at a lot of the blend and extend at this point in time.

[Pearce Hammond:]

Thank you, Mackie.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Jean Salisbury with Bernstein. Please proceed with your question.

[Jean Salisbury:]

Hi. The release referenced a reduction of $117 million in the crude segment in the quarter due to the Bakken pipeline. But I was under the impression that DAPL was almost fully contracted. Is that impression wrong? Or were the well shut-ins I guess a valid reason to not pay on take or pay?

[Mackie McCrea:]

This is Mackie again. No, your impression is correct. We -- the 570,000 barrels a day we have sold that out. However, it has different components to it. It does have an MVC component. And it also has a flex component for a lot of our foundation shippers. And then, of course, it has the walk-up capacity. And then the way our -- it impacts our revenues is depending on how the customers use that flex capacity, it does have some impact from quarter-to-quarter depending on the amount of volume that they actually flow.

[Jean Salisbury:]

Okay. Are they on the hook to pay you for the flex component eventually? Or is that more of a spot sale I guess?

[Mackie McCrea:]

Yes, they have an MVC amount that they're required to pay us whether they flow it or not. But they have the ability to flex it and they can flow it in a month -- or a quarter past the quarter that we're in. But yeah there is a set volume that they're guaranteed to pay on an annual basis regardless of what they flow.

[Jean Salisbury:]

I see. Okay. So some of that flex should hopefully come back in the next couple of quarters.

[Mackie McCrea:]

That's correct.

[Jean Salisbury:]

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. And then I know you -- it sounded like from your commentary that the Satellite project was still on track from the customer side, but I just wanted to confirm that. And also just see how you expect the ethane volumes to ramp over time on their side. My understanding is that they're building one of the crackers this year and then one next year. So it'd be, kind of, a slow ramp on the ethane side, but wanted to confirm that.

[Tom Long:]

Yeah. We're so excited about our ethane projects. You probably saw here three or four days ago, we loaded our first VLEC up at our Marcus Hook facility almost 800,000 barrels of ethane. As far as Satellite goes in Nederland everything is on track. They've done a tremendous job, getting their facilities built, getting their ships ordered and ready to go. So we're very excited about that project. They will have a cracker on by the end of this year. As you heard earlier, we will be commissioning our facility with a ship of theirs in November is our expectations. And then, yeah, latter part of the first quarter or first part of the second quarter, I believe their second cracker's coming on. So as we say every time, what great partners. They've been a pleasure to deal with. They've done everything they said they would do. And now for the first time at Nederland we'll be bringing on 180,000 barrels per day of ethane capacity primarily for them. However, we are chasing other markets. We do anticipate selling ethane to other third parties as early as the first quarter of next year. And we'll do everything we can to fully utilize that facility on a daily basis depending on what Satellite actually pulls on a daily basis.

[Jean Salisbury:]

Perfect. Thanks a lot.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Spiro Dounis with Crédit Suisse. Please proceed with your question.

[Spiro Dounis:]

Good afternoon, guys. First question just want to go back to the 2022-plus capital spending. Wondering how you describe the nature of that spending? Is that part of larger scale multiyear projects that are flowing through those years? Or is it really more blocking-and-tackling-type CapEx? Just trying to get a system – if there's something that can keep the system full of EBITDA or at least flat? Or is it something that can actually grow your EBITDA base?

[Mackie McCrea:]

Yes. This is Mackie again. As you see there's a range there. So there are projects that are in the works and we will be building those. We have contracts that back them. But we also have a cushion there that gives us the ability to grow with some opportunities that we already see out there, some very synergistic opportunities with assets that we already have built. So hence the range of $500 million to $700 million. It's a combination of deals that are already done that are backed by contracts and expectations of new deals.

[Spiro Dounis:]

Got it. And then strong NGL volumes pretty impressive, especially under the circumstances. Are you guys able to quantify how much of that was ethane recovery versus pulling down some inventory? And I guess how ratable would you say that is going forward?

[Mackie McCrea:]

This is Mackie again. Yes. We are so excited about our NGL segment both in the Northeast with Mariner and Marcus Hook franchise up there as well as what's going on at Nederland. As far as the ethane goes, certainly as ethane prices have increased and we've recovered more ethane, it benefits our NGL system. So that no doubt has been a shot in the arm. We have the capability depending on where ethane prices go where we can also reject ethane and that's a benefit to our residue pipelines. But where it makes the most sense is what we'll do and it's made a lot of sense over much of this year to go into full recovery so that we can receive the benefits from both transportation and fractionation of those products and also of the marketing of those products and to tailgate our fracs.

[Spiro Dounis:]

Thanks, Mackie. That’s it for me.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your question.

[Keith Stanley:]

Hi, thank you. First I just wanted to clarify the remarks at the end of the prepared remarks on DAPL. So assuming the Army Corps allows the pipeline to continue operating without an easement, I think I heard you say, could that decision now be challenged by the environmentalists at the district court? Second, on the time line, I just want to confirm, you said you would expect a decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement by the end of the year. And then third just does the Army Corps still work on the EIS in the meantime with the goal of getting it done by the middle of next year? Or are they kind of on pause pending the appeals process?

[Tom Mason:]

As far as the EIS preparation – this is Tom Mason, again. It's the Army Corps' kind of bailiwick to do that work. And at this point, as Dakota Access, we're not certain as to whether they have started that process or not. There's a certain amount of prep work that could have been done but that's – I think we've kind of been waiting for these decisions before really pressing on that. So I think we're still confident that we'll win in the appeal process and then an EIS won't be required. So it really hadn't been on the top of the burner in terms of pushing on that from our perspective. As far as the appeal, itself being heard by the end of the year, I think that's – the briefing schedule that was in the order I think contemplates the decision pretty quickly. And it may well be before the end of the year. So I think that's probably pretty certain. As far as the challenge of the Army Corps' decisions, I think as with all litigation almost everything gets challenged, whoever wins on a motion or a decision. So I think everything is kind of in flux in terms of what's going to happen next. But appeals are just part of the normal process. So does that answer your questions?

[Keith Stanley:]

That does. That's very helpful. Thank you. Second question. I guess the company and Kelcy in particular have emphasized the importance of growth as an MLP. And today you're coming out and giving multiple years of pretty low CapEx numbers. So it's going to be a lot tougher to grow organically with that type of capital budget. So I guess, how do you think about that? And then what are the key criteria you would look for in a potential acquisition candidate? And I guess most importantly, I'm interested if acquisitions are one of the levers you would look at for your balance sheet strategy to reduce leverage. If you were to buy a business or a company that's less levered and can generate synergies from that?

[Kelcy Warren:]

Yes. This is Kelcy. You're right. I mean, the -- as large as we are those growth CapEx numbers are low. And that's frustrating to me, but that's what we need to do. It's the right thing to do at this time due to our credit metrics. However, I want to remind everyone and it's been brought up in these discussions, but the backlog of growth that's going to be coming on in the fourth quarter and into the early part of 2021 is huge. And the dollars that are going to follow that are likewise huge. Mackie addressed some of that with the NGLs, but there's others as well. So we went through a very aggressive growth spurt and it's been painful, because it's lasted longer than we expected and cost more than we expected. But now, it's about over and we're relieved that it is. As far as M&A, I think most people in this sector believe that consolidation is necessary. It is very difficult for us to even contemplate anything really because our units are trading so poorly, it's just hard to do. However, as I said in the last quarter ,it would certainly -- any M&A that we contemplated or ultimately did I guess would need to be deleveraging. We would not undertake anything that was not.

[Keith Stanley:]

Thank you.

[Kelcy Warren:]

Thank you.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Michael Lapides with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.

[Michael Lapides:]

Hi, guys. Just a cash flow question. With the dramatic reduction in CapEx, I mean, $2 billion next year in terms of lower growth CapEx and another big chunk down or a big step down in '22 '23 assuming that's what plays out, how do you think about, how you actually use -- if EBITDA were to remain somewhere in the trajectory of where 2020 EBITDA is, how do you actually use the cash? Like where on the debt side of the balance sheet do you deploy it? What's the most optimal way to deploy it on the debt side of the balance sheet? And is that the right way to think about it?

[Tom Long:]

You bet. That's actually a very, very good question. We're excited to be in a free cash flow status for next year. And I will tell you that that free cash flow is earmarked toward reduction in debt. Michael, did that answer your question? I'm just trying to tell you that the various buckets that you have and it's earmarked for that when you referred to the free cash flow.

[Michael Lapides:]

But same in 2022 and 2023, meaning not just the free cash flow next year. But are you thinking about it that you're in a multiyear deleveraging process assuming EBITDA is -- I know you're not going to give multiyear EBITDA guidance, but let's say we're within the realm of where we are right now. If you had a scenario of flattish EBITDA, are you in two or three years of continuous debt paydown with your free cash? Or do you think of it as a 2021 event and then after that it's let's wait and see?

[Tom Long:]

I see this as more of the multiyear like what you started the question with, meaning that it's 2021 as maturities come up next year. Remind you once again, very manageable maturities for next year of $1.4 billion. But we do have some drawn on the credit facility, so we will likewise bring that balance down. But when you look out at 2022, 2023 I would see that as continuing. A lot of that goes back to the target that we've got on leverage ratio of that 4 to 4.5x.

[Michael Lapides:]

Got it. Thank you, Tom. Much appreciate it.

[Tom Long:]

You bet.

[Operator:]

Our next question comes from Becca Followill with U.S. Capital Advisors. Please proceed with your question.

[Becca Followill:]

Good afternoon. Back on DAPL, assuming that the court maintains the decision that an EIS is required, how do you guys kind of handicap or view the development of an EIS underrate potential by the administration?

[Tom Mason:]

This is Tom Mason again. It's really hard to speculate on that. It's -- everybody probably has different opinions on what might happen. So it's just hard to speculate.

[Becca Followill:]

Okay. Thank you.

[Operator:]

At this time, I would like to turn the call back over to Mr. Tom Long for closing comments.

[Tom Long:]

Once again, we thank all of you for joining us today and we really look forward to answering your questions -- follow-up questions after this call. Thanks so much.

[Operator:]

Thank you. This does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. And thank you for your participation and have a great day.