$GLNG It’s annoying to see how the market is mispricing this company. I mean, it’s true the company should be viewed as an infrastructure play—a kind of bond proxy—and its valuation should reflect rising interest rates. But the current valuation is just silly. It has $17bn in contracted EBITDA over the next 20 years with strong counterparties. That EBITDA represents free cash flow before debt service and interest, as the business requires virtually no taxes or maintenance capex, yet the company is trading at around $4.5bn. That’s before adding the fourth FLNG, which has already reached FID and could significantly increase run-rate EBITDA from $800m to $1.1bn–$1.2bn. It’s also before considering the 20-year commodity upside option Golar signed into its contracts, which could generate free cash flow equivalent to the market cap in a year like this one—and multiple times that amount if we look at 2022. Is the market so silly? I think so… As I’ve argued, I don’t expect Goldman Sachs’ strategic review to end in a sale, and that’s likely been weighing on Golar’s share price recently. I can see Goldman bringing in a strategic partner to develop and accelerate the strong pipeline, but I don’t think any capable external player could both fund and execute that growth pipeline. After meeting Tor Olav Troim at my office this week, I’m even more confident that Golar has four or five highly credible projects it could sign soon. Recent reports from TradeWinds and Africa Intelligence confirm that these projects are moving ahead—and that only Golar can deliver. 1) TradeWinds reported that Eni and Repsol are moving ahead with Venezuela’s FLNG project. Golar LNG, BW LNG, Bumi Armada, SBM Offshore, Samsung Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean, and Saipem have reportedly submitted EOIs, with a full invitation to tender expected later this year. 2) Africa Intelligence reported that Trident Energy is looking to monetize its 1 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in Congo, with Golar and Exmar currently competing for the contract. With all due respect to the companies mentioned in the news, nobody can really compete with Golar. Only Samsung and Exmar have ever built an FLNG vessel. That’s no simple undertaking, so I don’t expect any of them to take on more than $2bn in risk to get started. As for Exmar, it built a very small liquefaction vessel called Tango, which performed so-so for a while before Eni bought it in 2022. Exmar’s accounts are public, and it’s well known that the company doesn’t have the funding capacity to carry out a project of this size. I know Exmar very well, as we recently funded $12m out of a $150m bond. Finally, Samsung has experience, but it’s a shipyard, and financing a customer over 20 years isn’t its business. I don’t expect it to change its business model now. Gas is hot right now, and demand is expected to grow considerably. After the conflicts involving Russia and the Middle East, every country realized it needs to diversify its supply; it can’t rely only on the US, Russia, or Qatar. This is a great time for Golar to capitalize on the current environment, which is why it’s building a $2.5bn FLNG on spec. I expect we’ll have a contract within the next six months, and thereafter, Golar will find another compelling project for the fifth. I may be overthinking this, and the current weakness could simply be driven by its association with shipping—which seems silly nowadays, given its legacy as a shipping company. Or even some HF exiting as they are forced to cut leverage because interest rates are rising… But to be fair, I just struggle to understand why Golar is so cheap, even without factoring in growth or commodity upside.