Form 20-F
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 20-F
(Mark One)
|
|
|
o |
|
REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) or (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
OR
|
|
|
þ |
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
Date
of event requiring this shell company report
For
the transition period from
to .
Commission file number 1- 32479
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
Republic of The Marshall Islands
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda
(Address of principle executive offices)
Mark Cave
4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda
Telephone: (441) 298-2530
Fax: (441) 292-3931
(Contact information for company contact person)
Securities registered, or to be registered, pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.
|
|
|
Title of each class
Common Units
|
|
Name of each exchange on which registered
New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered, or to be registered, pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act.
None
Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.
None
Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each issuers classes of capital or common stock
as of the close of the period covered by the annual report.
55,106,100 Common Units
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in
Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes þ No o
If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is
not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Yes
o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the
registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has
been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes
þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant (1) has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12
months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files).
Yes
o No o
Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated
filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
Large Accelerated Filer þ
|
|
Accelerated Filer o
|
|
Non-Accelerated Filer o |
Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the
financial statements included in this filing:
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. GAAP þ
|
|
International Financial Reporting
Standards as issued by the
International Accounting Standards
Board o
|
|
Other o |
If Other has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which
financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow:
Item 17 o Item 18 o
If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P.
INDEX TO REPORT ON FORM 20-F
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
PART I
This Annual Report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in this report.
Unless otherwise indicated, references in this prospectus to Teekay LNG Partners, we, us and
our and similar terms refer to Teekay LNG Partners L.P. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries,
except that those terms, when used in this Annual Report in connection with the common units
described herein, shall mean specifically Teekay LNG Partners L.P. References in this Annual Report
to Teekay Corporation refer to Teekay Corporation and/or any one or more of its subsidiaries.
In addition to historical information, this Annual Report contains forward-looking statements that
involve risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements relate to future events and our
operations, objectives, expectations, performance, financial condition and intentions. When used in
this Annual Report, the words expect, intend, plan, believe, anticipate, estimate and
variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking
statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, in particular, statements
regarding:
|
|
|
our ability to make cash distributions on our units or any increases in
quarterly distributions; |
|
|
|
our future financial condition and results of operations and our future
revenues and expenses; |
|
|
|
growth prospects of the liquefied natural gas (or LNG) and liquefied petroleum
gas (or LPG) shipping and oil tanker markets; |
|
|
|
LNG, LPG and tanker market fundamentals, including the balance of supply and
demand in the LNG, LPG and tanker markets; |
|
|
|
our ability to conduct and operate our business and the business of our
subsidiaries in a manner than minimizes taxes imposed upon us and our subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
the expected lifespan of a new LNG carrier, LPG carrier and Conventional
tanker; |
|
|
|
the expected source of funds for short-term and long-term liquidity needs; |
|
|
|
estimated capital expenditures and the availability of capital resources to
fund capital expenditures; |
|
|
|
our ability to maintain long-term relationships with major LNG and LPG
importers and exporters and major crude oil companies; |
|
|
|
our ability to leverage to our advantage Teekay Corporations relationships
and reputation in the shipping industry; |
|
|
|
our continued ability to enter into long-term, fixed-rate time-charters with
our LNG and LPG customers; |
|
|
|
our expectation of not earning revenues from voyage charters in the
foreseeable future; |
|
|
|
the recent economic downturn and financial crisis in the global market,
including disruptions in the global credit and stock markets and potential negative effects
on our customers ability to charter our vessels and pay for our services; |
|
|
|
obtaining LNG and LPG projects that we or Teekay Corporation bid on or that
Teekay Corporation has been awarded; |
|
|
|
the expected delivery date, total price and method of financing for the
purchase of Teekay Corporations 33% interest in the four LNG carriers expected to serve
the Angola LNG Project; |
|
|
|
our ability to maximize the use of our vessels, including the re-deployment or
disposition of vessels no longer under long-term charter; |
|
|
|
expected purchases and deliveries of newbuilding vessels and commencement of
service of newbuildings under long-term contracts; |
|
|
|
the expected delivery date and method of financing for the purchase of our LPG
carrier and two Multigas ships from Skaugen and Teekay Corporation; |
|
|
|
the expected timing, amount and method of financing for the purchase of five
of our leased Suezmax tankers; |
|
|
|
our expected financial flexibility to pursue acquisitions and other expansion
opportunities; |
|
|
|
our ability to continue to obtain all permits, licenses, and certificates
material to our operations; |
|
|
|
our ability to obtain safety management certificates for each newbuilding
vessel upon delivery; |
|
|
|
the expected cost of, and our ability to comply with, governmental regulations
and maritime self-regulatory organization standards applicable to our business; |
|
|
|
the expected cost to install ballast water treatment systems on our tankers in
compliance with IMO proposals; |
4
|
|
|
the expected impact of heightened environmental and quality concerns of
insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers; |
|
|
|
the adequacy of our insurance coverage for accident-related risks,
environmental damage and pollution; |
|
|
|
the future valuation of goodwill; |
|
|
|
anticipated taxation of our partnership and its subsidiaries; and |
|
|
|
our business strategy and other plans and objectives for future operations. |
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and are based upon a number of
assumptions and estimates that are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and
contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. Actual results may differ materially from
those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause
actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to those factors discussed in Item
3: Key Information Risk Factors, and other factors detailed from time to time in other reports
we file with or furnish to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (or the SEC).
We do not intend to revise any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any change in our
expectations or events or circumstances that may subsequently arise. You should carefully review
and consider the various disclosures included in this Annual Report and in our other filings made
with the SEC that attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our
business prospects and results of operations.
|
|
|
Item 1. |
|
Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisors |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 2. |
|
Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable |
Not applicable.
Selected Financial Data
Set forth below is selected consolidated financial and other data of Teekay LNG Partners and its
subsidiaries for the fiscal years 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, which have been derived from our
consolidated financial statements. The following table should be read together with, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to, (a) Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and
Prospects, included herein, and (b) the historical consolidated financial statements and the
accompanying notes and the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm therein (which
are included herein), with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
From time to time we purchase vessels from Teekay Corporation. In January 2007, we acquired an LPG
carrier from Teekay Corporation. In April 2008 and March 2010, we acquired two LNG carriers and
three Conventional tankers from Teekay Corporation, respectively. These transactions were deemed
to be business acquisitions between entities under common control. Accordingly, we have accounted
for these transactions in a manner similar to the pooling of interest method whereby our financial
statements prior to the date these vessels were acquired by us are retroactively adjusted to
include the results of these acquired vessels. The periods retroactively adjusted include all
periods that we and the acquired vessels were both under the common control of Teekay Corporation
and had begun operations. As a result, our consolidated statements of income (loss) for the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 reflect the results of operations of these six
vessels, referred to herein as the Dropdown Predecessor, as if we had acquired them when each
respective vessel began operations under the ownership of Teekay Corporation, which were April 1,
2003 (the LPG carrier); December 13 and 14, 2007 (the two LNG carriers); and from May 2009 to
September 2009 (the three Conventional tankers). Please refer to Item 5 Operating and Financial
Review and Prospects: Results of Operations Items Your Should Consider When Evaluating Our
Results of Operations.
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with United States generally
accepted accounting principles (or GAAP).
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per unit and fleet data) |
|
Income Statement Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
$ |
192,353 |
|
|
$ |
257,769 |
|
|
$ |
314,404 |
|
|
$ |
343,048 |
|
|
$ |
374,008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage expenses(1) |
|
|
2,036 |
|
|
|
1,197 |
|
|
|
3,253 |
|
|
|
2,034 |
|
|
|
2,042 |
|
Vessel operating expenses(2) |
|
|
40,977 |
|
|
|
56,863 |
|
|
|
77,113 |
|
|
|
82,374 |
|
|
|
84,577 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
53,076 |
|
|
|
66,017 |
|
|
|
76,880 |
|
|
|
82,686 |
|
|
|
89,347 |
|
General and administrative |
|
|
14,152 |
|
|
|
15,186 |
|
|
|
20,201 |
|
|
|
19,764 |
|
|
|
23,247 |
|
Gain on sale of vessel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
Restructuring charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
110,241 |
|
|
|
139,263 |
|
|
|
181,095 |
|
|
|
190,108 |
|
|
|
195,048 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
82,112 |
|
|
|
118,506 |
|
|
|
133,309 |
|
|
|
152,940 |
|
|
|
178,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(82,099 |
) |
|
|
(145,073 |
) |
|
|
(138,317 |
) |
|
|
(60,457 |
) |
|
|
(49,019 |
) |
Interest income |
|
|
40,162 |
|
|
|
68,329 |
|
|
|
64,325 |
|
|
|
13,873 |
|
|
|
7,190 |
|
Realized and
unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments(3) |
|
|
14,207 |
|
|
|
9,816 |
|
|
|
(99,954 |
) |
|
|
(40,950 |
) |
|
|
(78,720 |
) |
Foreign currency exchange (loss) gain(4) |
|
|
(39,590 |
) |
|
|
(41,241 |
) |
|
|
18,244 |
|
|
|
(10,806 |
) |
|
|
27,545 |
|
Equity (loss) income(5) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(130 |
) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
27,639 |
|
|
|
8,043 |
|
Other (expense) income |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
615 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
(375 |
) |
|
|
(1,155 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
(694 |
) |
|
|
(1,670 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
14,363 |
|
|
|
8,923 |
|
|
|
(21,212 |
) |
|
|
81,937 |
|
|
|
92,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
3,234 |
|
|
|
(16,739 |
) |
|
|
(40,698 |
) |
|
|
29,310 |
|
|
|
3,062 |
|
Dropdown
Predecessors interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
(123 |
) |
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
894 |
|
|
|
5,302 |
|
|
|
2,258 |
|
General Partners interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
1,542 |
|
|
|
9,752 |
|
|
|
11,989 |
|
|
|
5,180 |
|
|
|
8,896 |
|
Limited partners interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
9,710 |
|
|
|
15,390 |
|
|
|
6,603 |
|
|
|
42,145 |
|
|
|
78,728 |
|
Limited partners interest in net income (loss) per: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
0.64 |
|
|
|
0.63 |
|
|
|
0.86 |
|
|
|
1.46 |
|
Subordinated unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
0.66 |
|
|
|
(0.29 |
) |
|
|
0.80 |
|
|
|
2.04 |
|
Total unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
0.36 |
|
|
|
0.85 |
|
|
|
1.48 |
|
Cash distributions declared per unit |
|
|
1.80 |
|
|
|
1.98 |
|
|
|
2.18 |
|
|
|
2.28 |
|
|
|
2.37 |
|
Balance Sheet Data (at end of period): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
29,288 |
|
|
$ |
91,891 |
|
|
$ |
117,641 |
|
|
$ |
108,350 |
|
|
$ |
81,055 |
|
Restricted cash(6) |
|
|
670,758 |
|
|
|
679,229 |
|
|
|
642,949 |
|
|
|
611,520 |
|
|
|
572,138 |
|
Vessels and equipment(7) |
|
|
1,715,662 |
|
|
|
2,065,572 |
|
|
|
2,207,878 |
|
|
|
2,077,604 |
|
|
|
2,019,576 |
|
Net investments in direct financing leases(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
421,441 |
|
|
|
415,695 |
|
Total assets(6) |
|
|
2,928,422 |
|
|
|
3,818,616 |
|
|
|
3,432,849 |
|
|
|
3,578,411 |
|
|
|
3,547,395 |
|
Total debt and capital lease obligations(6) |
|
|
1,854,654 |
|
|
|
2,582,991 |
|
|
|
2,199,952 |
|
|
|
2,257,604 |
|
|
|
2,137,249 |
|
Partners and Dropdown Predecessor equity |
|
|
703,190 |
|
|
|
709,292 |
|
|
|
805,851 |
|
|
|
903,231 |
|
|
|
896,200 |
|
Common units outstanding |
|
|
20,240,547 |
|
|
|
22,540,547 |
|
|
|
33,338,320 |
|
|
|
44,972,563 |
|
|
|
55,106,100 |
|
Subordinated units outstanding |
|
|
14,734,572 |
|
|
|
14,734,572 |
|
|
|
11,050,929 |
|
|
|
7,367,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities |
|
$ |
89,383 |
|
|
$ |
115,450 |
|
|
$ |
149,570 |
|
|
$ |
171,384 |
|
|
$ |
174,970 |
|
Financing activities |
|
|
(266,048 |
) |
|
|
630,395 |
|
|
|
403,262 |
|
|
|
(10,060 |
) |
|
|
(167,746 |
) |
Investing activities |
|
|
169,998 |
|
|
|
(683,242 |
) |
|
|
(527,082 |
) |
|
|
(170,615 |
) |
|
|
(34,519 |
) |
Other Financial Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net voyage revenues(9) |
|
$ |
190,317 |
|
|
$ |
256,572 |
|
|
$ |
311,151 |
|
|
$ |
341,014 |
|
|
$ |
371,966 |
|
EBITDA(10) |
|
|
109,751 |
|
|
|
152,839 |
|
|
|
129,865 |
|
|
|
211,901 |
|
|
|
225,790 |
|
Adjusted EBITDA(10) |
|
|
130,534 |
|
|
|
182,333 |
|
|
|
206,603 |
|
|
|
255,031 |
|
|
|
277,334 |
|
Capital expenditures: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment(11) |
|
|
1,037 |
|
|
|
160,757 |
|
|
|
172,093 |
|
|
|
134,926 |
|
|
|
26,652 |
|
Expenditures for drydocking |
|
|
3,693 |
|
|
|
3,724 |
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
|
|
9,729 |
|
|
|
12,727 |
|
Liquefied Gas Fleet Data:(12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar-ship-days (13) |
|
|
1,887 |
|
|
|
2,897 |
|
|
|
3,701 |
|
|
|
4,637 |
|
|
|
5,051 |
|
Average age
of our fleet (in years at end of period)(14) |
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
Vessels at end of period |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Conventional Fleet Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar-ship-days(13) |
|
|
2,920 |
|
|
|
2,920 |
|
|
|
2,928 |
|
|
|
3,448 |
|
|
|
4,015 |
|
Average age of our fleet (in years at end of period) |
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
Vessels at end of period |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any bunker fuel
expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and
commissions. |
|
(2) |
|
Vessel operating expenses include crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube
oils and communication expenses. |
6
|
|
|
(3) |
|
We entered into interest rate swaps to mitigate our interest rate risk from our floating-rate
debt, leases and restricted cash. We also have entered into an agreement with Teekay
Corporation relating to the Toledo Spirit time-charter contract under which Teekay Corporation
pays us any amounts payable to the charterer as a result of spot rates being below the fixed
rate, and we pay Teekay Corporation any amounts payable to us as a result of spot rates being
in excess of the fixed rate. Changes in the fair value of our derivatives are recognized
immediately into income and are presented as realized and unrealized gain (loss) on derivative
instruments in the consolidated statements of income (loss). Please see Item 18 Financial
Statements: Note 12 Derivative Instruments. |
|
(4) |
|
Substantially all of these foreign currency exchange gains and losses were unrealized and not
settled in cash. Under GAAP, all foreign currency-denominated monetary assets and liabilities,
such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, restricted cash, accounts payable,
accrued liabilities, unearned revenue, advances from affiliates, long-term debt and capital
lease obligations, are revalued and reported based on the prevailing exchange rate at the end
of the period. Our primary source for the foreign currency exchange gains and losses is our
Euro-denominated term loans, which totaled 311.6 million Euros ($411.3 million) at December
31, 2006, 304.3 million Euros ($444.0 million) at December 31, 2007, 296.4 million Euros
($414.1 million) at December 31, 2008, 288.0 million Euros ($412.4 million) at December 31,
2009 and 278.9 million Euros ($373.3 million) at December 31, 2010. |
|
(5) |
|
Equity (loss) income includes unrealized (losses) gains on derivative instruments of ($6.5)
million for the year ended December 31, 2010, $10.9 million for the year ended December 31,
2009 and nil for all the preceding periods. |
|
(6) |
|
We operate certain of our LNG carriers under tax lease arrangements. Under these
arrangements, we borrow under term loans and deposit the proceeds into restricted cash
accounts. Concurrently, we enter into capital leases for the vessels, and the vessels are
recorded as assets on our consolidated balance sheets. The restricted cash deposits, plus the
interest earned on the deposits, will equal the remaining amounts we owe under the capital
lease arrangements, including our obligations to purchase the vessels at the end of the lease
term where applicable. Therefore, the payments under our capital leases are fully funded
through our restricted cash deposits, and our continuing obligation is the repayment of the
term loans. However, under GAAP we record both the obligations under the capital leases and
the term loans as liabilities, and both the restricted cash deposits and our vessels under
capital leases as assets. This accounting treatment has the effect of increasing our assets
and liabilities by the amount of restricted cash deposits relating to the corresponding
capital lease obligations. |
|
(7) |
|
Vessels and equipment consist of (a) our vessels, at cost less accumulated depreciation, (b)
vessels under capital leases, at cost less accumulated depreciation and (c) advances on our
newbuildings. |
|
(8) |
|
The external charters which commenced in 2009 under the Tangguh LNG project have been
accounted for as direct financing leases and as a result, the two LNG vessels relating to this
project are not included as part of vessels and equipment. |
|
(9) |
|
Consistent with general practice in the shipping industry, we use net voyage revenues
(defined as voyage revenues less voyage expenses) as a measure of equating revenues generated
from voyage charters to revenues generated from time-charters, which assists us in making
operating decisions about the deployment of our vessels and their performance. Under
time-charters the charterer pays the voyage expenses, whereas under voyage charter contracts
the ship owner pays these expenses. Some voyage expenses are fixed, and the remainder can be
estimated. If we, as the ship owner, pay the voyage expenses, we typically pass the
approximate amount of these expenses on to our customers by charging higher rates under the
contract or billing the expenses to them. As a result, although voyage revenues from different
types of contracts may vary, the net voyage revenues are comparable across the different types
of contracts. We principally use net voyage revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, because it
provides more meaningful information to us than voyage revenues, the most directly comparable
GAAP financial measure. Net voyage revenues are also widely used by investors and analysts in
the shipping industry for comparing financial performance between companies and to industry
averages. The following table reconciles net voyage revenues with voyage revenues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
192,353 |
|
|
|
257,769 |
|
|
|
314,404 |
|
|
|
343,048 |
|
|
|
374,008 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
(2,036 |
) |
|
|
(1,197 |
) |
|
|
(3,253 |
) |
|
|
(2,034 |
) |
|
|
(2,042 |
) |
Net voyage revenues |
|
|
190,317 |
|
|
|
256,572 |
|
|
|
311,151 |
|
|
|
341,014 |
|
|
|
371,966 |
|
|
|
|
(10) |
|
EBITDA and Adjusted EBIDTA are used as a supplemental financial measure by management and by
external users of our financial statements, such as investors, as discussed below: |
|
|
|
Financial and operating performance. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA assist our
management and investors by increasing the comparability of our fundamental performance
from period to period and against the fundamental performance of other companies in our
industry that provide EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA information. This increased comparability
is achieved by excluding the potentially disparate effects between periods or companies of
interest expense, taxes, depreciation or amortization and realized and unrealized gain
(loss) on derivative instruments relating to interest rate swaps, which items are affected
by various and possibly changing financing methods, capital structure and historical cost
basis and which items may significantly affect net income (loss) between periods. We
believe that including EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA as financial and operating measures
benefits investors in (a) selecting between investing in us and other investment
alternatives and (b) monitoring our ongoing financial and operational strength and health
in assessing whether to continue to hold our common units. |
|
|
|
Liquidity. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA allows us to assess the ability of
assets to generate cash sufficient to service debt, pay distributions and undertake capital
expenditures. By eliminating the cash flow effect resulting from our existing
capitalization and other items such as drydocking expenditures, working capital changes and
foreign currency exchange gains and losses, EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA provides a
consistent measure of our ability to generate cash over the long term. Management uses this
information as a significant factor in determining (a) our proper capitalization (including assessing how much
debt to incur and whether changes to the capitalization should be made) and (b) whether to
undertake material capital expenditures and how to finance them, all in light of our cash
distribution policy. Use of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA as a liquidity measure also permits
investors to assess the fundamental ability of our business to generate cash sufficient to
meet cash needs, including distributions on our common units. |
7
|
|
|
Neither EBITDA nor Adjusted EBITDA, which are non-GAAP measures, should be considered as an
alternative to net income (loss), income from vessel operations, cash flow from operating
activities or any other measure of financial performance or liquidity presented in accordance
with GAAP. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA exclude some, but not all, items that affect net income
(loss) and operating income, and these measures may vary among other companies. Therefore,
EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA as presented in this Report may not be comparable to similarly titled
measures of other companies. |
|
|
|
The following table reconciles our historical consolidated EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to net
income (loss), and our historical consolidated Adjusted EBITDA to net operating cash flow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to
Net income (loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
14,363 |
|
|
|
8,923 |
|
|
|
(21,212 |
) |
|
|
81,937 |
|
|
|
92,944 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
53,076 |
|
|
|
66,017 |
|
|
|
76,880 |
|
|
|
82,686 |
|
|
|
89,347 |
|
Interest expense, net of interest income |
|
|
41,937 |
|
|
|
76,744 |
|
|
|
73,992 |
|
|
|
46,584 |
|
|
|
41,829 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
375 |
|
|
|
1,155 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
694 |
|
|
|
1,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA |
|
|
109,751 |
|
|
|
152,839 |
|
|
|
129,865 |
|
|
|
211,901 |
|
|
|
225,790 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
Foreign currency exchange loss (gain) |
|
|
39,590 |
|
|
|
41,241 |
|
|
|
(18,244 |
) |
|
|
10,806 |
|
|
|
(27,545 |
) |
Gain on sale of vessel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments |
|
|
(23,308 |
) |
|
|
(10,941 |
) |
|
|
84,546 |
|
|
|
3,788 |
|
|
|
34,306 |
|
Realized loss (gain) on interest rate swaps |
|
|
4,501 |
|
|
|
(806 |
) |
|
|
6,788 |
|
|
|
36,222 |
|
|
|
42,495 |
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on interest rate swaps in
joint ventures included in equity (loss) income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,936 |
) |
|
|
6,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA |
|
|
130,534 |
|
|
|
182,333 |
|
|
|
206,603 |
|
|
|
255,031 |
|
|
|
277,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Net
operating cash flow: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating cash flow |
|
|
89,383 |
|
|
|
115,450 |
|
|
|
149,570 |
|
|
|
171,384 |
|
|
|
174,970 |
|
Expenditures for drydocking |
|
|
3,693 |
|
|
|
3,724 |
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
|
|
9,729 |
|
|
|
12,727 |
|
Interest expense, net of interest income |
|
|
41,937 |
|
|
|
76,744 |
|
|
|
73,992 |
|
|
|
46,584 |
|
|
|
41,829 |
|
Change in operating assets and liabilities |
|
|
(1,208 |
) |
|
|
(12,313 |
) |
|
|
(31,962 |
) |
|
|
(26,988 |
) |
|
|
(3,029 |
) |
Equity (loss) income from joint ventures |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(130 |
) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
27,639 |
|
|
|
8,043 |
|
Restructuring charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
Realized loss (gain) on interest rate swaps |
|
|
4,501 |
|
|
|
(806 |
) |
|
|
6,788 |
|
|
|
36,222 |
|
|
|
42,495 |
|
Unrealized (gain) loss on interest rate swaps in
joint ventures included in equity (loss) income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,936 |
) |
|
|
6,453 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
(7,734 |
) |
|
|
(336 |
) |
|
|
(3,887 |
) |
|
|
(1,853 |
) |
|
|
(6,329 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted EBITDA |
|
|
130,534 |
|
|
|
182,333 |
|
|
|
206,603 |
|
|
|
255,031 |
|
|
|
277,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11) |
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment excludes non-cash investing activities. Please read
Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 14 Supplemental Cash Flow Information. |
|
(12) |
|
Fleet data does not include four LNG carriers (or the RasGas 3 LNG Carriers) relating to our
joint venture with QGTC Nakilat (1643-6) Holdings Corporation and two LNG carriers relating to
our joint ventures with Exmar NV which are accounted for under the equity method. |
|
(13) |
|
Calendar-ship-days are equal to the aggregate number of calendar days in a period that our
vessels were in our possession during that period (including six vessels deemed to be in our
possession for accounting purposes as a result of the impact of the Dropdown Predecessor prior
to our actual acquisition of such vessels). |
|
(14) |
|
Includes the newbuildings that have been consolidated in our balance sheets. |
8
RISK FACTORS
We may not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to pay the current level of
quarterly distributions on our common units following the establishment of cash reserves and
payment of fees and expenses.
We may not have sufficient cash available each quarter to pay the current level of quarterly
distributions on our common units. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common units
principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate
based on, among other things:
|
|
|
the rates we obtain from our charters; |
|
|
|
the level of our operating costs, such as the cost of crews and insurance; |
|
|
|
the continued availability of LNG and LPG production, liquefaction and regasification
facilities; |
|
|
|
the number of unscheduled off-hire days for our fleet and the timing of, and number of
days required for, scheduled drydocking of our vessels; |
|
|
|
delays in the delivery of newbuildings and the beginning of payments under charters
relating to those vessels; |
|
|
|
prevailing global and regional economic and political conditions; |
|
|
|
currency exchange rate fluctuations; and |
|
|
|
the effect of governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization
standards on the conduct of our business. |
The actual amount of cash we will have available for distribution also will depend on factors such
as:
|
|
|
the level of capital expenditures we make, including for maintaining vessels, building
new vessels, acquiring existing vessels and complying with regulations; |
|
|
|
our debt service requirements and restrictions on distributions contained in our debt
instruments; |
|
|
|
fluctuations in our working capital needs; |
|
|
|
our ability to make working capital borrowings, including to pay distributions to
unitholders; and |
|
|
|
the amount of any cash reserves, including reserves for future capital expenditures and
other matters, established by Teekay GP L.L.C., our general partner (or the General
Partner) in its discretion. |
The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our profit or loss
for the period, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result of this and the other factors
mentioned above, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and may not
make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.
We make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, which
reduce our cash available for distribution. In addition, each quarter our General Partner is
required to deduct estimated maintenance capital expenditures from operating surplus, which may
result in less cash available to unitholders than if actual maintenance capital expenditures
were deducted.
We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain, over the long term, the operating
capacity of our fleet. These maintenance capital expenditures include capital expenditures
associated with drydocking a vessel, modifying an existing vessel or acquiring a new vessel to the
extent these expenditures are incurred to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet. These
expenditures could increase as a result of changes in:
|
|
|
the cost of labor and materials; |
|
|
|
increases in the size of our fleet; |
|
|
|
governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards relating to
safety, security or the environment; and |
Our significant maintenance capital expenditures reduce the amount of cash we have available for
distribution to our unitholders.
In addition, our actual maintenance capital expenditures vary significantly from quarter to quarter
based on, among other things, the number of vessels drydocked during that quarter. Our partnership
agreement requires our General Partner to deduct estimated, rather than actual, maintenance capital
expenditures from operating surplus (as defined in our partnership agreement) each quarter in an
effort to reduce fluctuations in operating surplus. The amount of estimated maintenance capital
expenditures deducted from operating surplus is subject to review and change by the conflicts
committee of our General Partners board of directors at least once a year. In years when estimated
maintenance capital expenditures are higher than actual maintenance capital expenditures as we
expect will be the case in the years we are not required to make expenditures for mandatory
drydockings the amount of cash available for distribution to unitholders will be lower than if
actual maintenance capital expenditures were deducted from operating surplus. If our General Partner underestimates the appropriate level
of estimated maintenance capital expenditures, we may have less cash available for distribution in
future periods when actual capital expenditures begin to exceed our previous estimates.
9
We will be required to make substantial capital expenditures to expand the size of our fleet. We
generally will be required to make significant installment payments for acquisitions of
newbuilding vessels prior to their delivery and generation of revenue. Depending on whether we
finance our expenditures through cash from operations or by issuing debt or equity securities, our
ability to make required payments on our debt securities and cash distributions on our common
units may be diminished or our financial leverage could increase or our unitholders could be
diluted.
We make substantial capital expenditures to increase the size of our fleet. As of the date of this
Report, we have agreed to purchase from Teekay Corporation its 100% interest in two newbuilding
Multigas vessels and its 33% interest in four LNG vessels and from I.M. Skaugen ASA (or Skaugen)
one LPG carrier. Teekay Corporation is obligated to offer to us its interests in additional
vessels. Please read Item 5 Operating and Financial Review and Prospects, for additional
information about some of these pending and proposed acquisitions. In addition, we are obligated to
purchase five of our leased Suezmax tankers and one of our leased LNG carrier upon the termination
of the related capital leases, which may occur at various times in late 2011.
We and Teekay Corporation regularly evaluate and pursue opportunities to provide the marine
transportation requirements for new or expanding LNG and LPG projects. The award process relating
to LNG transportation opportunities typically involves various stages and takes several months to
complete. Neither we nor Teekay Corporation may be awarded charters relating to any of the projects
we or it pursues. If any LNG and LPG project charters are awarded to Teekay Corporation, it must
offer them to us pursuant to the terms of an omnibus agreement entered into in connection with our
initial public offering. If we elect pursuant to the omnibus agreement to obtain Teekay
Corporations interests in any projects Teekay Corporation may be awarded, or if we bid on and are
awarded contracts relating to any LNG and LPG project, we will need to incur significant capital
expenditures to buy Teekay Corporations interest in these LNG and LPG projects or to build the LNG
and LPG carriers.
To fund the remaining portion of existing or future capital expenditures, we will be required to
use cash from operations or incur borrowings or raise capital through the sale of debt or
additional equity securities. Use of cash from operations will reduce cash available for
distributions to unitholders. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets
for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or
offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general
economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to
obtain the funds for necessary future capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on
our business, results of operations and financial condition and on our ability to make cash
distributions. Even if we are successful in obtaining necessary funds, the terms of such financings
could limit our ability to pay cash distributions to unitholders. In addition, incurring additional
debt may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage, and issuing additional
equity securities may result in significant unitholder dilution and would increase the aggregate
amount of cash required to maintain our level of quarterly distributions to unitholders, which
could have a material adverse effect on our ability to make cash distributions.
A shipowner typically is required to expend substantial sums as progress payments during
construction of a newbuilding, but does not derive any income from the vessel until after its
delivery. If we were unable to obtain financing required to complete payments on any future
newbuilding orders, we could effectively forfeit all or a portion of the progress payments
previously made.
Our ability to grow may be adversely affected by our cash distribution policy.
Our cash distribution policy, which is consistent with our partnership agreement, requires us to
distribute all of our available cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) each quarter.
Accordingly, our growth may not be as fast as businesses that reinvest their available cash to
expand ongoing operations.
Our substantial debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing and in
pursuing other business opportunities.
As at December 31, 2010, our consolidated debt, capital lease obligations and advances from
affiliates totaled $2.3 billion and we had the capacity to borrow an additional $378.6 million
under our credit facilities. These facilities may be used by us for general partnership purposes,
except $40 million which is specifically linked to the purchase of the Multigas unit. If we are
awarded contracts for new LNG or LPG projects, our consolidated debt and capital lease obligations
will increase, perhaps significantly. We will continue to have the ability to incur additional
debt, subject to limitations in our credit facilities. Our level of debt could have important
consequences to us, including the following:
|
|
|
our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital
expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be
available on favorable terms; |
|
|
|
we will need a substantial portion of our cash flow to make principal and interest
payments on our debt, reducing the funds that would otherwise be available for operations,
future business opportunities and distributions to unitholders; |
|
|
|
our debt level may make us more vulnerable than our competitors with less debt to
competitive pressures or a downturn in our industry or the economy generally; and |
|
|
|
our debt level may limit our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic
conditions. |
Our ability to service our debt depends upon, among other things, our future financial and
operating performance, which is affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business,
regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating results are
not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions
such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions,
investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt, or
seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to effect any of
these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.
10
Financing agreements containing operating and financial restrictions may restrict our business and
financing activities.
The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our financing arrangements and any future
financing agreements for us could adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or
capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities. For example, the arrangements
may restrict our ability to:
|
|
|
incur or guarantee indebtedness; |
|
|
|
change ownership or structure, including mergers, consolidations, liquidations and
dissolutions; |
|
|
|
make dividends or distributions when in default of the relevant loans; |
|
|
|
make certain negative pledges and grant certain liens; |
|
|
|
sell, transfer, assign or convey assets; |
|
|
|
make certain investments; and |
|
|
|
enter into a new line of business. |
In addition, some of our financing arrangements require us to maintain a minimum level of tangible
net worth and a minimum level of aggregate liquidity, a maximum level of leverage and require one
of our subsidiaries to maintain restricted cash deposits. Our ability to comply with covenants and
restrictions contained in debt instruments may be affected by events beyond our control, including
prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions
deteriorate, compliance with these covenants may be impaired. If restrictions, covenants, ratios or
tests in the financing agreements are breached, a significant portion of the obligations may become
immediately due and payable, and the lenders commitment to make further loans may terminate. We
might not have or be able to obtain sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. In
addition, our obligations under our existing credit facilities are secured by certain of our
vessels, and if we are unable to repay debt under the credit facilities, the lenders could seek to
foreclose on those assets.
Restrictions in our debt agreements may prevent us from paying distributions.
The payment of principal and interest on our debt and capital lease obligations reduces cash
available for distribution to us and on our units. In addition, our financing agreements prohibit
the payment of distributions upon the occurrence of the following events, among others:
|
|
|
failure to pay any principal, interest, fees, expenses or other amounts when due; |
|
|
|
failure to notify the lenders of any material oil spill or discharge of hazardous
material, or of any action or claim related thereto; |
|
|
|
breach or lapse of any insurance with respect to vessels securing the facility; |
|
|
|
breach of certain financial covenants; |
|
|
|
failure to observe any other agreement, security instrument, obligation or covenant
beyond specified cure periods in certain cases; |
|
|
|
default under other indebtedness; |
|
|
|
bankruptcy or insolvency events; |
|
|
|
failure of any representation or warranty to be materially correct; |
|
|
|
a change of control, as defined in the applicable agreement; and |
|
|
|
a material adverse effect, as defined in the applicable agreement. |
We derive a substantial majority of our revenues from a limited number of customers, and the loss
of any customer, time-charter or vessel could result in a significant loss of revenues and cash
flow.
We have derived, and believe that we will continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues
and cash flow from a limited number of customers. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note
4 Segment Reporting.
11
We could lose a customer or the benefits of a time-charter if:
|
|
|
the customer fails to make charter payments because of its financial inability,
disagreements with us or otherwise; |
|
|
|
the customer exercises certain rights to terminate the charter, purchase or cause the
sale of the vessel or, under some of our charters, convert the time-charter to a bareboat
charter (some of which rights are exercisable at any time); |
|
|
|
the customer terminates the charter because we fail to deliver the vessel within a fixed
period of time, the vessel is lost or damaged beyond repair, there are serious deficiencies
in the vessel or prolonged periods of off-hire, or we default under the charter; or |
|
|
|
under some of our time-charters, the customer terminates the charter because of the
termination of the charterers sales agreement or a prolonged force majeure event affecting
the customer, including damage to or destruction of relevant facilities, war or political
unrest preventing us from performing services for that customer. |
For example, the charters for the Angola LNG Project allow the charterer to terminate the charter
upon 120 days notice and payment of a termination fee, or terminate for other customary reasons.
In addition, we will assume a credit risk by entering a charter agreement with Angola LNG Supply
Services L.L.C., an unrated entity who will pay us from revenue generated from its sale of gas.
If we lose a key LNG or LPG time-charter, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on terms
as favorable to us due to the long-term nature of most LNG and LPG time-charters and the lack of an
established LNG spot market. If we are unable to re-deploy a LNG carrier, we will not receive any
revenues from that vessel, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel
in proper operating condition. In addition, if a customer exercises its right to purchase a vessel,
we would not receive any further revenue from the vessel and may be unable to obtain a substitute
vessel and charter. This may cause us to receive decreased revenue and cash flows from having fewer
vessels operating in our fleet. Any compensation under our charters for a purchase of the vessels
may not adequately compensate us for the loss of the vessel and related time-charter.
If we lose a key Conventional tanker customer, we may be unable to obtain other long-term
Conventional charters and may become subject to the volatile spot market, which is highly
competitive and subject to significant price fluctuations. If a customer exercises its right under
some charters to purchase or force a sale of the vessel, we may be unable to acquire an adequate
replacement vessel or may be forced to construct a new vessel. Any replacement newbuilding would
not generate revenues during its construction and we may be unable to charter any replacement
vessel on terms as favorable to us as those of the terminated charter.
The loss of certain of our customers, time-charters or vessels, or a decline in payments under our
charters, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition and our ability to make cash distributions.
We depend on Teekay Corporation to assist us in operating our business, competing in our
markets, and providing interim financing for certain vessel acquisitions.
Pursuant to certain services agreements between us and certain of our operating subsidiaries, on
the one hand, and certain subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation, on the other hand, the Teekay
Corporation subsidiaries provide to us administrative services and to our operating subsidiaries
significant operational services (including vessel maintenance, crewing for some of our vessels,
purchasing, shipyard supervision, insurance and financial services) and other technical, advisory
and administrative services. Our operational success and ability to execute our growth strategy
depend significantly upon Teekay Corporations satisfactory performance of these services. Our
business will be harmed if Teekay Corporation fails to perform these services satisfactorily or if
Teekay Corporation stops providing these services to us.
Our ability to compete for the transportation requirements of LNG, LPG and oil projects and to
enter into new time-charters and expand our customer relationships depends largely on our ability
to leverage our relationship with Teekay Corporation and its reputation and relationships in the
shipping industry. If Teekay Corporation suffers material damage to its reputation or relationships
it may harm our ability to:
|
|
|
renew existing charters upon their expiration; |
|
|
|
successfully interact with shipyards during periods of shipyard construction
constraints; |
|
|
|
obtain financing on commercially acceptable terms; or |
|
|
|
maintain satisfactory relationships with our employees and suppliers. |
If our ability to do any of the things described above is impaired, it could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to
make cash distributions.
Teekay Corporation is also incurring all costs for the construction and delivery of certain
newbuildings, which we refer to as warehousing. Upon their delivery, we will purchase all of the
interest of Teekay Corporation in the vessels at a price that will reimburse Teekay Corporation for
these costs and compensate it for its average weighted cost of capital on the construction
payments. We may enter into similar arrangements with Teekay Corporation or third parties in the
future. If Teekay Corporation or any such third party fails to make construction payments for these
newbuildings or other vessels warehoused for us, we could lose access to the vessels as a result of
the default or we may need to finance these vessels before they begin operating and generating
voyage revenues, which could harm our business and reduce our ability to make cash distributions.
12
Our main growth depends on continued growth in demand for LNG and LPG shipping.
Our growth strategy focuses on continued expansion in the LNG and LPG shipping sectors.
Accordingly, our growth depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for LNG and LPG
shipping, which could be negatively affected by a number of factors, such as:
|
|
|
increases in the cost of natural gas derived from LNG relative to the cost of natural
gas generally; |
|
|
|
increase in the cost of LPG relative to the cost of naphtha and other competing
petrochemicals; |
|
|
|
increases in the production of natural gas in areas linked by pipelines to consuming
areas, the extension of existing, or the development of new, pipeline systems in markets we
may serve, or the conversion of existing non-natural gas pipelines to natural gas pipelines
in those markets; |
|
|
|
decreases in the consumption of natural gas due to increases in its price relative to
other energy sources or other factors making consumption of natural gas less attractive; |
|
|
|
additional sources of natural gas, including shale gas; |
|
|
|
availability of new, alternative energy sources, including compressed natural gas; and |
|
|
|
negative global or regional economic or political conditions, particularly in LNG and
LPG consuming regions, which could reduce energy consumption or its growth. |
Reduced demand for LNG and LPG shipping would have a material adverse effect on our future growth
and could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Growth of the LNG market, and as a consequence, the LPG market, may be limited by
infrastructure constraints and community environmental group resistance to new LNG
infrastructure over concerns about the environment, safety and terrorism.
A complete LNG/LPG project includes production, liquefaction, regasification, storage and
distribution facilities and LNG/LPG carriers. Existing LNG/LPG projects and infrastructure are
limited, and new or expanded LNG/LPG projects are highly complex and capital-intensive, with new
projects often costing several billion dollars. Many factors could negatively affect continued
development of LNG/LPG infrastructure or disrupt the supply of LNG/LPG, including:
|
|
|
increases in interest rates or other events that may affect the availability of
sufficient financing for LNG/LPG projects on commercially reasonable terms; |
|
|
|
decreases in the price of LNG/LPG, which might decrease the expected returns relating to
investments in LNG/LPG projects; |
|
|
|
the inability of project owners or operators to obtain governmental approvals to
construct or operate LNG/LPG facilities; |
|
|
|
local community resistance to proposed or existing LNG/LPG facilities based on safety,
environmental or security concerns; |
|
|
|
any significant explosion, spill or similar incident involving an LNG/LPG facility or
LNG carrier; and |
|
|
|
labor or political unrest affecting existing or proposed areas of LNG/LPG production. |
If the LNG/LPG supply chain is disrupted or does not continue to grow, or if a significant LNG/LPG
explosion, spill or similar incident occurs, it could have a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.
Our growth depends on our ability to expand relationships with existing customers and obtain new
customers, for which we will face substantial competition.
One of our principal objectives is to enter into additional long-term, fixed-rate LNG, LPG and oil
time-charters. The process of obtaining new long-term time-charters is highly competitive and
generally involves an intensive screening process and competitive bids, and often extends for
several months. Shipping contracts are awarded based upon a variety of factors relating to the
vessel operator, including:
|
|
|
shipping industry relationships and reputation for customer service and
safety; |
|
|
|
shipping experience and quality of ship operations (including cost
effectiveness); |
|
|
|
quality and experience of seafaring crew; |
|
|
|
the ability to finance carriers at competitive rates and financial stability
generally; |
|
|
|
relationships with shipyards and the ability to get suitable berths; |
|
|
|
construction management experience, including the ability to obtain on-time
delivery of new vessels according to customer specifications; |
|
|
|
willingness to accept operational risks pursuant to the charter, such as
allowing termination of the charter for force majeure events; and |
|
|
|
competitiveness of the bid in terms of overall price. |
13
We compete for providing marine transportation services for potential energy projects with a number
of experienced companies, including state-sponsored entities and major energy companies affiliated
with the energy project requiring energy shipping services. Many of these competitors have
significantly greater financial resources than we do or Teekay Corporation does. We anticipate that
an increasing number of marine transportation companies including many with strong reputations
and extensive resources and experience will enter the energy transportation sector. This
increased competition may cause greater price competition for time-charters. As a result of these
factors, we may be unable to expand our relationships with existing customers or to obtain new
customers on a profitable basis, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our
business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.
Delays in deliveries of newbuildings could harm our operating results and lead to the termination
of related time-charters.
We have agreed to purchase various newbuilding vessels. The delivery of these vessels, or any other
newbuildings we may order or otherwise acquire, could be delayed, which would delay our receipt of
revenues under the time-charters for the vessels. In addition, under some of our charters if our
delivery of a vessel to our customer is delayed, we may be required to pay liquidated damages in
amounts equal to or, under some charters, almost double, the hire rate during the delay. For
prolonged delays, the customer may terminate the time-charter and, in addition to the resulting
loss of revenues, we may be responsible for additional, substantial liquidated damages.
Our receipt of newbuildings could be delayed because of:
|
|
|
quality or engineering problems; |
|
|
|
changes in governmental regulations or maritime self-regulatory organization standards; |
|
|
|
work stoppages or other labor disturbances at the shipyard; |
|
|
|
bankruptcy or other financial crisis of the shipbuilder; |
|
|
|
a backlog of orders at the shipyard; |
|
|
|
political or economic disturbances where our vessels are being or may be built; |
|
|
|
weather interference or catastrophic event, such as a major earthquake or fire; |
|
|
|
our requests for changes to the original vessel specifications; |
|
|
|
shortages of or delays in the receipt of necessary construction materials, such as
steel; |
|
|
|
our inability to finance the purchase of the vessels; or |
|
|
|
our inability to obtain requisite permits or approvals. |
If delivery of a vessel is materially delayed, it could adversely affect our results or operations
and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.
We may have more difficulty entering into long-term, fixed-rate LNG time-charters if an active
short-term or spot shipping market develops.
LNG shipping historically has been transacted with long-term, fixed-rate time-charters, usually
with terms ranging from 20 to 25 years. One of our principal strategies is to enter into additional
long-term, fixed-rate LNG time-charters. In recent years the number of spot and short-term LNG
charters which we defined as charters under four years has been increasing. In 2009 they accounted
for approximately 16% of global LNG trade.
If an active spot or short-term market continues to develop, we may have increased difficulty
entering into long-term, fixed-rate time-charters for our LNG vessels and, as a result, our cash
flow may decrease and be less stable. In addition, an active short-term or spot LNG market may
require us to enter into charters based on changing market prices, as opposed to contracts based on
a fixed rate, which could result in a decrease in our cash flow in periods when the market price
for shipping LNG is depressed or insufficient funds are available to cover our financing costs for
related vessels.
Over time vessel values may fluctuate substantially and, if these values are lower at a time
when we are attempting to dispose of a vessel, we may incur a loss.
Vessel values for LNG and LPG carriers and Conventional tankers can fluctuate substantially over
time due to a number of different factors, including:
|
|
|
prevailing economic conditions in natural gas, oil and energy markets; |
|
|
|
a substantial or extended decline in demand for natural gas, LNG, LPG or oil; |
|
|
|
increases in the supply of vessel capacity; and |
|
|
|
the cost of retrofitting or modifying existing vessels, as a result of
technological advances in vessel design or equipment, changes in applicable environmental
or other regulation or standards, or otherwise. |
14
Vessel values have declined considerably between the third quarter of 2008 and early 2011. If a
charter terminates, we may be unable to re-deploy the vessel at attractive rates and, rather than
continue to incur costs to maintain and finance it, may seek to dispose of it. Our inability to
dispose of the vessel at a reasonable value could result in a loss on its sale and adversely affect
our results of operations and financial condition.
We may be unable to make or realize expected benefits from acquisitions, and implementing our
growth strategy through acquisitions may harm our business, financial condition and operating
results.
Our growth strategy includes selectively acquiring existing LNG carriers or LNG shipping
businesses. Historically, there have been very few purchases of existing vessels and businesses in
the LNG shipping industry. Factors that may contribute to a limited number of acquisition
opportunities in the LNG/LPG industries in the near term include the relatively small number of
independent LNG/LPG fleet owners and the limited number of LNG/LPG carriers not subject to existing
long-term charter contracts. In addition, competition from other companies could reduce our
acquisition opportunities or cause us to pay higher prices.
Any acquisition of a vessel or business may not be profitable to us at or after the time we acquire
it and may not generate cash flow sufficient to justify our investment. In addition, our
acquisition growth strategy exposes us to risks that may harm our business, financial condition and
operating results, including risks that we may:
|
|
|
fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings
or cash flow enhancements; |
|
|
|
be unable to hire, train or retain qualified shore and seafaring personnel to manage and
operate our growing business and fleet; |
|
|
|
decrease our liquidity by using a significant portion of our available cash or borrowing
capacity to finance acquisitions; |
|
|
|
significantly increase our interest expense or financial leverage if we incur additional
debt to finance acquisitions; |
|
|
|
incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with the business
or vessels acquired; or |
|
|
|
incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible
assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges. |
Unlike newbuildings, existing vessels typically do not carry warranties as to their condition.
While we generally inspect existing vessels prior to purchase, such an inspection would normally
not provide us with as much knowledge of a vessels condition as we would possess if it had been
built for us and operated by us during its life. Repairs and maintenance costs for existing vessels
are difficult to predict and may be substantially higher than for vessels we have operated since
they were built. These costs could decrease our cash flow and reduce our liquidity.
Terrorist attacks, piracy, increased hostilities or war could lead to further economic
instability, increased costs and disruption of our business.
Terrorist attacks, piracy, and the current conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and other
current and future conflicts, may adversely affect our business, operating results, financial
condition, ability to raise capital and future growth. Continuing hostilities in the Middle East
may lead to additional armed conflicts or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the
United States, or elsewhere, which may contribute further to economic instability and disruption of
LNG/LPG and oil production and distribution, which could result in reduced demand for our services.
In addition, LNG, LPG and oil facilities, shipyards, vessels, pipelines and oil and gas fields
could be targets of future terrorist attacks and our vessels could be targets of pirates or
hijackers. Any such attacks could lead to, among other things, bodily injury or loss of life,
vessel or other property damage, increased vessel operational costs, including insurance costs, and
the inability to transport LNG, LPG, natural gas and oil to or from certain locations. Terrorist
attacks, war, piracy, hijacking or other events beyond our control that adversely affect the
distribution, production or transportation of LNG, LPG or oil to be shipped by us could entitle our
customers to terminate our charter contracts, which would harm our cash flow and our business. We
anticipate beginning to serve the Angola LNG Project in the fall of 2011. Angola is affected by
political instability, a poor economy, poor infrastructure and high unemployment, any of which
could lead to one or more of these harms.
Terrorist attacks, or the perception that LNG/LPG facilities and carriers are potential terrorist
targets, could materially and adversely affect expansion of LNG/LPG infrastructure and the
continued supply of LNG/LPG to the United States and other countries. Concern that LNG/LPG
facilities may be targeted for attack by terrorists has contributed to significant community and
environmental resistance to the construction of a number of LNG/LPG facilities, primarily in North
America. If a terrorist incident involving an LNG/LPG facility or LNG/LPG carrier did occur, in
addition to the possible effects identified in the previous paragraph, the incident may adversely
affect construction of additional LNG facilities in the United States and other countries or lead
to the temporary or permanent closing of various LNG/LPG facilities currently in operation.
Our substantial operations outside the United States expose us to political, governmental and
economic instability, which could harm our operations.
Because our operations are primarily conducted outside of the United States, they may be affected
by economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we engage in business or
where our vessels are registered. Any disruption caused by these factors could harm our business,
including by reducing the levels of oil exploration, development and production activities in these
areas. We derive some of our revenues from shipping oil and LNG from politically unstable regions.
Conflicts in these regions have included attacks on ships and other efforts to disrupt shipping.
Hostilities or other political instability in regions where we operate or where we may operate
could have a material adverse effect on the growth of our business, results of operations and
financial condition and ability to make cash distributions. In addition, tariffs, trade embargoes
and other economic sanctions by the United States or other countries against countries to which we
trade may limit trading activities with those countries, which could also harm our business and
ability to make cash distributions. Finally, a government could requisition one or more of our
vessels, which is most likely during war or national emergency. Any such requisition would cause a
loss of the vessel and could harm our cash flow and financial results.
15
Marine transportation is inherently risky, and an incident involving significant loss of or
environmental contamination by any of our vessels could harm our reputation and business.
Our vessels and their cargoes are at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as:
|
|
|
grounding, fire, explosions and collisions; |
An accident involving any of our vessels could result in any of the following:
|
|
|
death or injury to persons, loss of property or environmental damage; |
|
|
|
delays in the delivery of cargo; |
|
|
|
loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts; |
|
|
|
governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business; |
|
|
|
higher insurance rates; and |
|
|
|
damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally. |
Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
operating results.
Our insurance may be insufficient to cover losses that may occur to our property or result from
our operations.
The operation of LNG and LPG carriers and oil tankers is inherently risky. Although we carry hull
and machinery (marine and war risks) and protection and indemnity insurance, all risks may not be
adequately insured against, and any particular claim may not be paid. In addition, only certain of
our LNG carriers carry insurance covering the loss of revenues resulting from vessel off-hire time
based on its cost compared to our off-hire experience. Any claims covered by insurance would be
subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the
aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material. Certain of our insurance coverage is
maintained through mutual protection and indemnity associations, and as a member of such
associations we may be required to make additional payments over and above budgeted premiums if
member claims exceed association reserves.
We may be unable to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the
future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led in the past to increased
costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of
environmental damage or pollution. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could result in
losses that exceed our insurance coverage, which could harm our business, financial condition and
operating results. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business and financial
condition. In addition, our insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain of our
actions, such as our ships failing to maintain certification with applicable maritime
self-regulatory organizations.
Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of
insurance more difficult for us to obtain. In addition, the insurance that may be available may be
significantly more expensive than our existing coverage.
The marine energy transportation industry is subject to substantial environmental and other
regulations, which may significantly limit our operations or increase our expenses.
Our operations are affected by extensive and changing international, national and local
environmental protection laws, regulations, treaties and conventions in force in international
waters, the jurisdictional waters of the countries in which our vessels operate, as well as the
countries of our vessels registration, including those governing oil spills, discharges to air and
water, and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. Many of these requirements
are designed to reduce the risk of oil spills and other pollution. In addition, we believe that the
heightened environmental, quality and security concerns of insurance underwriters, regulators and
charterers will lead to additional regulatory requirements, including enhanced risk assessment and
security requirements and greater inspection and safety requirements on vessels. We expect to incur
substantial expenses in complying with these laws and regulations, including expenses for vessel
modifications and changes in operating procedures.
16
These requirements can affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels, require a reduction
in cargo capacity, ship modifications or operational changes or restrictions, lead to decreased
availability of insurance coverage for environmental matters or result in the denial of access to
certain jurisdictional waters or ports, or detention in, certain ports. Under local, national and
foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material
liabilities, including cleanup obligations, in the event that there is a release of petroleum or
other hazardous substances from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our operations. We
could also become subject to personal injury or property damage claims relating to the release of or exposure to hazardous materials associated with our operations. In addition,
failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil
penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations, including, in
certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels. For further information about regulations
affecting our business and related requirements on us, please read Item 4 Information on the
Partnership: C. Regulations.
Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and
markets.
Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are
considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These
regulatory measures include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes,
increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. Compliance with
changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change could increase our costs
related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls,
acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a
greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also
be adversely affected.
Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change may also adversely affect
demand for our services. Although we do not expect that demand for oil and gas will lessen
dramatically over the short term, in the long term climate change may reduce the demand for oil and
gas or increased regulation of greenhouse gases may create greater incentives for use of
alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry
could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot
predict with certainty at this time.
Exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations will result in fluctuations in our cash flows and
operating results.
We are paid in Euros under some of our charters, and certain of our vessel operating expenses and
general and administrative expenses currently are denominated in Euros, which is primarily a
function of the nationality of our crew and administrative staff. We also make payments under two
Euro-denominated term loans. If the amount of our Euro-denominated obligations exceeds our
Euro-denominated revenues, we must convert other currencies, primarily the U.S. Dollar, into Euros.
An increase in the strength of the Euro relative to the U.S. Dollar would require us to convert
more U.S. Dollars to Euros to satisfy those obligations, which would cause us to have less cash
available for distribution. In addition, if we do not have sufficient U.S. Dollars, we may be
required to convert Euros into U.S. Dollars for distributions to unitholders. An increase in the
strength of the U.S. Dollar relative to the Euro could cause us to have less cash available for
distribution in this circumstance. We have not entered into currency swaps or forward contracts or
similar derivatives to mitigate this risk.
Because we report our operating results in U.S. Dollars, changes in the value of the U.S. Dollar
relative to the Euro also result in fluctuations in our reported revenues and earnings. In
addition, under U.S. accounting guidelines, all foreign currency-denominated monetary assets and
liabilities such as cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, restricted cash, accounts
payable, long-term debt and capital lease obligations, are revalued and reported based on the
prevailing exchange rate at the end of the period. This revaluation historically has caused us to
report significant non-monetary foreign currency exchange gains or losses each period. The primary
source for these gains and losses is our Euro-denominated term loans.
Many of our seafaring employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements and the failure to
renew those agreements or any future labor agreements may disrupt our operations and adversely
affect our cash flows.
A significant portion of our seafarers, and the seafarers employed by Teekay Corporation and its
other affiliates that crew some of our vessels, are employed under collective bargaining
agreements. While most of our labor agreements have recently been renewed, crew compensation
levels under future collective bargaining agreements may exceed existing compensation levels, which
would adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows. We may be subject to labor
disruptions in the future if our relationships deteriorate with our seafarers or the unions that
represent them. Our collective bargaining agreements may not prevent labor disruptions,
particularly when the agreements are being renegotiated. Any labor disruptions could harm our
operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.
Teekay Corporation may be unable to attract and retain qualified, skilled employees or crew
necessary to operate our business, or may have to pay substantially increased costs for its
employees and crew.
Our success depends in large part on Teekay Corporations ability to attract and retain highly
skilled and qualified personnel. In crewing our vessels,
we require technically skilled employees with specialized training who can perform physically
demanding work. Competition to attract and retain qualified crew members is intense and crew manning costs continue to increase.
If we are not able to increase our rates to compensate for any crew cost increases, our financial
condition and results of operations may be adversely affected. Any inability we experience in the
future to hire, train and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees could impair our
ability to manage, maintain and grow our business.
Due to our lack of diversification, adverse developments in our LNG, LPG or oil marine
transportation businesses could reduce our ability to make distributions to our unitholders.
We rely exclusively on the cash flow generated from our LNG and LPG carriers and Conventional oil
tankers that operate in the LNG, LPG and oil marine transportation business. Due to our lack of
diversification, an adverse development in the LNG, LPG or oil shipping industry would have a
significantly greater impact on our financial condition and results of operations than if we
maintained more diverse assets or lines of business.
17
Teekay Corporation and its affiliates may engage in competition with us.
Teekay Corporation and its affiliates, including Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. (or Teekay
Offshore), may engage in competition with us. Pursuant to an omnibus agreement between Teekay
Corporation, Teekay Offshore, us and other related parties, Teekay Corporation, Teekay Offshore and
their respective controlled affiliates (other than us and our subsidiaries) generally have agreed
not to own, operate or charter LNG carriers without the consent of our General Partner. The omnibus agreement, however, allows Teekay Corporation, Teekay
Offshore or any of such controlled affiliates to:
|
|
|
acquire LNG carriers and related time-charters as part of a business if a
majority of the value of the total assets or business acquired is not attributable to the
LNG carriers and time-charters, as determined in good faith by the board of directors of
Teekay Corporation or the board of directors of Teekay Offshores general partner; however,
if at any time Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore completes such an acquisition, it must
offer to sell the LNG carriers and related time-charters to us for their fair market value
plus any additional tax or other similar costs to Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore
that would be required to transfer the LNG carriers and time-charters to us separately from
the acquired business; or |
|
|
|
own, operate and charter LNG carriers that relate to a bid or award for a
proposed LNG project that Teekay Corporation or any of its subsidiaries has submitted or
hereafter submits or receives; however, at least 180 days prior to the scheduled delivery
date of any such LNG carrier, Teekay Corporation must offer to sell the LNG carrier and
related time-charter to us, with the vessel valued at its fully-built-up cost, which
represents the aggregate expenditures incurred (or to be incurred prior to delivery to us)
by Teekay Corporation to acquire or construct and bring such LNG carrier to the condition
and location necessary for our intended use, plus a reasonable allocation of overhead costs
related to the development of such a project and other projects that would have been
subject to the offer rights set forth in the omnibus agreement but were not completed. |
If we decline the offer to purchase the LNG carriers and time-charters described above, Teekay
Corporation or Teekay Offshore may own and operate the LNG carriers, but may not expand that
portion of its business.
In addition, pursuant to the omnibus agreement, Teekay Corporation, Teekay Offshore or any of their
respective controlled affiliates (other than us and our subsidiaries) may:
|
|
|
acquire, operate or charter LNG carriers if our General Partner has previously advised
Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore that the board of directors of our General Partner
has elected, with the approval of the conflicts committee of its board of directors, not to
cause us or our subsidiaries to acquire or operate the carriers; |
|
|
|
acquire up to a 9.9% equity ownership, voting or profit participation interest in any
publicly traded company that owns or operate LNG carriers; and |
|
|
|
provide ship management services relating to LNG carriers. |
If there is a change of control of Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore, the non-competition
provisions of the omnibus agreement may terminate, which termination could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash
distributions.
Our General Partner and its other affiliates have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary
duties, which may permit them to favor their own interests to those of unitholders.
Teekay Corporation, which owns and controls our General Partner, indirectly owns the 2% General
Partner interest and as at December 31, 2010 owned a 44.8% limited partner interest in us.
Conflicts of interest may arise between Teekay Corporation and its affiliates, including our
General Partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders, on the other hand. As a result of
these conflicts, our General Partner may favor its own interests and the interests of its
affiliates over the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the
following situations:
|
|
|
neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires our General Partner
or Teekay Corporation to pursue a business strategy that favors us or utilizes our assets,
and Teekay Corporations officers and directors have a fiduciary duty to make decisions in
the best interests of the stockholders of Teekay Corporation, which may be contrary to our
interests; |
|
|
|
the executive officers and three of the directors of our General Partner also currently
serve as executive officers or directors of Teekay Corporation; |
|
|
|
our General Partner is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other than
us, such as Teekay Corporation, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of
limiting its fiduciary duty to our unitholders; |
|
|
|
our General Partner has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties under the
laws of the Marshall Islands, while also restricting the remedies available to our
unitholders, and as a result of purchasing common units, unitholders are treated as having
agreed to the modified standard of fiduciary duties and to certain actions that may be
taken by our General Partner, all as set forth in our partnership agreement; |
|
|
|
our General Partner determines the amount and timing of our asset purchases and sales,
capital expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional partnership securities and
reserves, each of which can affect the amount of cash that is available for distribution to
our unitholders; |
|
|
|
in some instances our General Partner may cause us to borrow funds in order to permit
the payment of cash distributions, even if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to
make incentive distributions to affiliates to Teekay Corporation; |
|
|
|
our General Partner determines which costs incurred by it and its affiliates are
reimbursable by us; |
|
|
|
our partnership agreement does not restrict our General Partner from causing us to pay
it or its affiliates for any services rendered to us on terms that are fair and reasonable
or entering into additional contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our
behalf; |
|
|
|
our General Partner controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by it and its
affiliates; and |
|
|
|
our General Partner decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or others to
perform services for us. |
18
Certain of our lease arrangements contain provisions whereby we have provided a tax
indemnification to third parties.
We and a joint venture partner are the lessee under 30-year capital lease arrangements with a third
party for three LNG carriers. Under the terms of these capital lease arrangements, the lessor
claims tax depreciation on the capital expenditures it incurred to acquire these vessels. As is
typical in these leasing arrangements, tax and change of law risks are assumed by the lessee. The
rentals payable under the lease arrangements are predicated on the basis of certain tax and
financial assumptions at the commencement of the leases. If an assumption proves to be incorrect or
there is a change in the applicable tax legislation, the lessor is entitled to increase the rentals
so as to maintain its agreed after-tax margin. However, the terms of the lease arrangements enable
us and our joint venture partner to terminate the lease arrangement on a voluntary basis at any
time. In the event of an early termination of the lease arrangements, the joint venture may be
obliged to pay termination sums to the lessor sufficient to repay its investment in the vessels and
to compensate it for the tax effect of the terminations, including recapture of tax depreciation,
if any.
In addition, the subsidiaries of another joint venture formed to service the Tangguh LNG project in
Indonesia have entered into lease arrangements with a third party for two LNG carriers. We
purchased Teekay Corporations interest in this joint venture in 2009. The terms of the lease
arrangements provide similar tax and change of law risk assumption by this joint venture as we have
with the three LNG carriers above.
United States common unitholders will be required to pay U.S. taxes on their share of our income
even if they do not receive any cash distributions from us.
U.S. citizens, residents or other U.S. taxpayers will be required to pay U.S. federal income taxes
and, in some cases, U.S. state and local income taxes on their share of our taxable income, whether
or not they receive cash distributions from us. U.S. common unitholders may not receive cash
distributions from us equal to their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax
liability that results from their share of our taxable income.
Because distributions may reduce a common unitholders tax basis in our common units, common
unitholders may realize greater gain on the disposition of their units than they otherwise may
expect, and common unitholders may have a tax gain even if the price they receive is less than
their original cost.
If common unitholders sell their common units, they will recognize gain or loss for U.S. federal
income tax purposes that is equal to the difference between the amount realized and their tax basis
in those common units. Prior distributions in excess of the total net taxable income allocated
decrease a common unitholders tax basis and will, in effect, become taxable income if common units
are sold at a price greater than their tax basis, even if the price received is less than the
original cost. Assuming we are not treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, a
substantial portion of the amount realized on a sale of units, whether or not representing gain,
may be ordinary income.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tidewater Inc. v.
United States creates some uncertainty as to whether we will be classified as a partnership for
U.S. federal income tax purposes.
In order for us to be classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, more than
90% of our gross income each year must be qualifying income under Section 7704 of the U.S.
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code). For this purpose, qualifying income
includes income from providing marine transportation services to customers with respect to crude
oil, natural gas and certain products thereof but does not include rental income from leasing
vessels to customers.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tidewater Inc. v.
United States, 565 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2009) held that income derived from certain time chartering
activities should be treated as rental income rather than service income for purposes of a foreign
sales corporation provision of the Code. However, the Internal Revenue Service (or IRS) stated in
an Action on Decision (AOD 2010-001) that it disagrees with, and will not acquiesce to, the way
that the rental versus services framework was applied to the facts in the Tidewater decision, and
in its discussion stated that the time charters at issue in Tidewater would be treated as producing
services income for purposes of the passive foreign investment company provisions of the Code. The
IRSs statement with respect to Tidewater cannot be relied upon or otherwise cited as precedent by
taxpayers. Consequently, in the absence of any binding legal authority specifically relating to the
statutory provisions governing qualifying income under Section 7704 of the Code, there can be no
assurance that the IRS or a court would not follow the Tidewater decision in interpreting the
qualifying income provisions under Section 7704 of the Code. Nevertheless, we intend to take the
position that our time charter income is qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704(d)
of the Code. No assurance can be given, however, that the IRS, or a court of law, will accept our
position. As such, there is some uncertainty regarding the status of our time charter income as
qualifying income and therefore some uncertainty as to whether we will be classified as a
partnership for federal income tax purposes. Please read Item 10 Additional Information
Taxation United States Tax Consequences Classification as a Partnership.
19
The after-tax benefit of an investment in the common units may be reduced if we are not treated as
a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
The anticipated after-tax benefit of an investment in common units may be reduced if we are not
treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If we are not treated as a
partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would be treated as a corporation for such
purposes, and common unitholders could suffer material adverse tax or economic consequences,
including the following:
|
|
|
The ratio of taxable income to distributions with respect to common units would increase
because items would not be allocated to account for any differences between the fair market value
and the basis of our assets at the time our common units are issued. |
|
|
|
Common unitholders may recognize income or gain on any change in our status from a
partnership to a corporation that occurs while they hold units. |
|
|
|
We would not be permitted to adjust the tax basis of a secondary market purchaser in our
assets under Section 743(b) of the Code. As a result, a person who purchases common units from a
common unitholder in the secondary market after this offering may realize materially more taxable
income each year with respect to the units. This could reduce the value of common unitholders
common units. |
|
|
|
Common unitholders would not be entitled to claim any credit against their U.S. federal
income tax liability for non-U.S. income tax liabilities incurred by us. |
|
|
|
As to the U.S. source portion of our income attributable to transportation that begins or
ends (but not both) in the United States, we will be subject to U.S. tax on such income on a gross
basis (that is, without any allowance for deductions) at a rate of 4%. The imposition of this tax
would have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased cash available for
distribution to common unitholders. |
|
|
|
We also may be considered a passive foreign investment company (or PFIC) for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to an adverse U.S. federal income tax
regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the
PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their interests in
the PFIC. |
Please read Item 10 Additional Information Taxation United States Tax Consequences
Possible Classification as a Corporation..
U.S. tax-exempt entities and non-U.S. persons face unique U.S. tax issues from owning common units
that may result in adverse U.S. tax consequences to them.
Investments in common units by U.S. tax-exempt entities, including individual retirement accounts
(known as IRAs), other retirements plans and non-U.S. persons raise issues unique to them. Assuming
we are classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, virtually all of our
income allocated to organizations exempt from U.S. federal income tax will be unrelated business
taxable income and generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax. In addition, non-U.S.
persons may be subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax on the U.S. source portion of our gross
income attributable to transportation that begins or ends (but not both) in the United States, or
distributions to them may be reduced on account of withholding of U.S. federal income tax by us in
the event we are treated as having a fixed place of business in the United States or otherwise earn
U.S. effectively connected income, unless an exemption applies and they file U.S. federal income
tax returns to claim such exemption.
The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital or profits interests in any
12-month period will result in the termination of our partnership for U.S. federal income tax
purposes.
We will be considered to have been terminated for U.S. federal income tax purposes if there is a
sale or exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital or profits within any
12-month period. Our termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable
year for all unitholders and could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in
computing our taxable income. Please read Item 10 Additional Information Taxation United
States Tax Consequences Disposition of Common Units Constructive Termination.
Some of our subsidiaries that are classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes
might be treated as passive foreign investment companies, which could result in additional taxes
to our unitholders.
Certain of our subsidiaries that are classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax
purposes could be treated as passive foreign investment companies (or PFICs) for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to an adverse U.S. federal income tax
regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the
PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their interests in
the PFIC. We have received a ruling from the IRS that our subsidiary Teekay LNG Holdco L.L.C. will
be classified as a CFC rather than a PFIC as long as it is wholly-owned by a U.S. partnership and
we have restructured our subsidiaries Arctic Spirit L.L.C. and Polar Spirit L.L.C. such that they
are also owned by our U.S. partnership. We intend to take the position that these subsidiaries
should also be treated as CFCs rather than PFICs following this restructuring. Moreover, we
believe and intend to take the position that these subsidiaries were not PFICs at any time prior to
the restructuring. No assurance can be given, however, that the IRS, or a court of law, will
accept this position. Please read Item 10 Additional Information Taxation United States
Tax Consequences Taxation of our Subsidiary Corporations.
Teekay Corporation owns less than 50% of our outstanding equity interests, which could cause
certain of our subsidiaries and us to be subject to additional tax.
Certain of our subsidiaries are classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As
such, these subsidiaries will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on the U.S. source portion of
our income attributable to transportation that begins or ends (but not both) in the United States
if they fail to qualify for an exemption from U.S. federal income tax (the Section 883 Exemption).
Teekay Corporation indirectly owns less than 50% of certain of our subsidiaries and our
outstanding equity interests. Consequently, we expect these subsidiaries failed to qualify for the
Section 883 Exemption in 2010 and will fail to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption in subsequent
tax years. Any resulting imposition of U.S. federal income taxes will result in decreased cash
available for distribution to common unitholders. Please read Item 10 Additional Information
Taxation United States Tax Consequences Taxation of our Subsidiary Corporations.
In addition, if we are not treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we expect
that we also would fail to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption in subsequent tax years and that
any resulting imposition of U.S. federal income taxes would result in decreased cash available for
distribution to common unitholders.
20
The Internal Revenue Service (or IRS) may challenge the manner in which we value our assets in
determining the amount of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to the unitholders, which
could adversely affect the value of the common units.
A unitholders taxable income or loss with respect to a common unit each year will depend upon a
number of factors, including the nature and fair market value of our assets at the time the holder
acquired the common unit, whether we issue additional units or whether we engage in certain other
transactions, and the manner in which our items of income, gain, loss and deduction are allocated
among our partners. For this purpose, we determine the value of our assets and the relative amounts
of our items of income, gain, loss and deduction allocable to our unitholders and our general
partner as holder of the incentive distribution rights by reference to the value of our interests,
including the incentive distribution rights. The IRS may challenge any valuation determinations
that we make, particularly as to the incentive distribution rights, for which there is no public
market. In addition, the IRS could challenge certain other aspects of the manner in which we
determine the relative allocations made to our unitholders and to the general partner as holder of
our incentive distribution rights. A successful IRS challenge to our valuation or allocation
methods could increase the amount of net taxable income and gain realized by a unitholder with
respect to a common unit. Any such IRS challenge, whether or not successful, could adversely affect
the value of our common units.
Common unitholders may be subject to income tax in one or more non-U.S. countries, including
Canada, as a result of owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are
considered to be carrying on business there. Such laws may require common unitholders to file a
tax return with, and pay taxes to, those countries. Any foreign taxes imposed on us or any of our
subsidiaries will reduce our cash available for distribution to common unitholders.
We intend that our affairs and the business of each of our subsidiaries is conducted and operated
in a manner that minimizes foreign income taxes imposed upon us and our subsidiaries or which may
be imposed upon you as a result of owning our common units. However, there is a risk that common
unitholders will be subject to tax in one or more countries, including Canada, as a result of
owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are considered to be carrying on
business there. If common unitholders are subject to tax in any such country, common unitholders
may be required to file a tax return with, and pay taxes to, that country based on their allocable
share of our income. We may be required to reduce distributions to common unitholders on account of
any withholding obligations imposed upon us by that country in respect of such allocation to common
unitholders. The United States may not allow a tax credit for any foreign income taxes that common
unitholders directly or indirectly incur. Any foreign taxes imposed on us or any of our
subsidiaries will reduce our cash available for common unitholders.
|
|
|
Item 4. |
|
Information on the Partnership |
A. Overview, History and Development
Overview and History
Teekay LNG Partners L.P. is an international provider of marine transportation services for LNG,
LPG and crude oil. We were formed in 2004 by Teekay Corporation (NYSE: TK), the worlds largest
owner and operator of medium sized crude oil tankers, to expand its operations in the LNG shipping
sector. Our primary growth strategy focuses on expanding our fleet of LNG and LPG carriers under
long-term, fixed-rate charters. We intend to continue our practice of acquiring LNG and LPG
carriers as needed for approved projects only after the long-term charters for the projects have
been awarded to us, rather than ordering vessels on a speculative basis. In executing our growth
strategy, we may engage in vessel or business acquisitions or enter into joint ventures and
partnerships with companies that may provide increased access to emerging opportunities from global
expansion of the LNG and LPG sectors. We seek to leverage the expertise, relationships and
reputation of Teekay Corporation and its affiliates to pursue these opportunities in the LNG and
LPG sectors and may consider other opportunities to which our competitive strengths are well
suited. Although we may acquire additional crude oil tankers from time to time, we view our
Conventional tanker fleet primarily as a source of stable cash flow as we seek to continue to
expand our LNG and LPG operations.
As of March 1, 2011, our fleet, excluding newbuildings, consisted of 17 LNG carriers (including the
four RasGas 3 LNG Carriers and the two LNG carriers jointly owned with Exmar), 10 Suezmax-class
crude oil tankers, one Handymax product tanker and two LPG carriers, all of which are
double-hulled. Our fleet is young, with an average age of approximately six years for our LNG
carriers, approximately six years for our Conventional tankers, and approximately one year for our
LPG carriers, compared to world averages of 10, 8 and 16 years, respectively, as of December 31,
2010.
Our vessels operate under long-term, fixed-rate charters primarily with major energy and utility
companies and Teekay Corporation. The average remaining term for these charters is approximately 16
years for our LNG carriers, approximately 9 years for our Conventional tankers (Suezmax and
Handymax), and approximately 14 years for our LPG carriers, subject, in certain circumstances, to
termination or vessel purchase rights.
Our fleet of existing LNG carriers currently has approximately 2.6 million cubic meters of total
capacity. The aggregate capacity of our Conventional tanker fleet, including our recently acquired
tankers, is approximately 1.6 million deadweight tonnes (dwt). Upon delivery of the three remaining
LPG newbuilding carriers, the total capacity of our fleet of LPG carriers will increase to
approximately 54,000 cubic meters.
Our original fleet was established by Naviera F. Tapias S.A. (or Tapias), a private Spanish company
founded in 1991 to ship crude oil. Tapias began shipping LNG with the acquisition of its first LNG
carrier in 2002. Teekay Corporation acquired Tapias in April 2004 and changed its name to Teekay
Shipping Spain S.L. (or Teekay Spain). As part of the acquisition, Teekay Spain retained its senior
management, including its chief executive officer, and other personnel who continue to manage the
day-to-day operations of Teekay Spain with input on strategic decisions from our General Partner.
Teekay Spain also obtains strategic consulting, advisory, ship management, technical and
administrative services from affiliates of Teekay Corporation.
We were formed in connection with our initial public offering. Upon the closing of that offering on
May 10, 2005, we acquired Teekay Spain and other assets, and began operating as a publicly-traded
limited partnership.
We are incorporated under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands as Teekay LNG Partners
L.P. and maintain our principal executive headquarters at 4th Floor, Belvedere Building,
69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08, Bermuda. Our telephone number at such address is (441)
298-2530.
21
B. Operations
Our Charters
We generate revenues by charging customers for the transportation of their LNG, LPG and crude oil
using our vessels. These services are provided through either a time-charter or bareboat charter
contract, where vessels are chartered to customers for a fixed period of time at rates that are
generally fixed but may contain a variable component based on inflation, interest rates or current
market rates.
Currently, all our vessels are employed on long-term charters. We do not anticipate earning
revenues from voyage charters in the foreseeable future.
Hire rate refers to the basic payment from the customer for the use of a vessel. Hire is payable
monthly, in advance, in U.S. Dollars or Euros, as specified in the charter. The hire rate
generally includes two components a capital cost component and an operating expense component.
The capital component typically approximates the amount we are required to pay under vessel
financing obligations and, for five of our existing Conventional tankers, adjusts for changes in
the floating interest rates relating to the underlying vessel financing. The operating component,
which adjusts annually for inflation, is intended to compensate us for vessel operating expenses
and provide us a profit.
In addition, we may receive additional revenues beyond the fixed hire rate when current market
rates exceed specified amounts under our time-charter for four Suezmax tankers, the Teide Spirit,
Algeciras Spirit, Huelva Spirit and Tenerife Spirit.
Hire payments may be reduced or, under some charters, we must pay liquidated damages, if the vessel
does not perform to certain of its specifications, such as if the average vessel speed falls below
a guaranteed speed or the amount of fuel consumed to power the vessel under normal circumstances
exceeds a guaranteed amount. Historically, we have had few instances of hire rate reductions and
none that have had a material impact on our operating results.
When a vessel is off-hireor not available for servicegenerally the customer is not required
to pay the hire rate and we are responsible for all costs. Prolonged off-hire may lead to vessel
substitution or termination of the time-charter. A vessel will be deemed to be off-hire if it is in
drydock. We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for inspection, repairs and maintenance
and any modifications to comply with industry certification or governmental requirements. In
addition, a vessel generally will be deemed off-hire if there is a loss of time due to, among other
things: operational deficiencies; equipment breakdowns; delays due to accidents, crewing strikes,
certain vessel detentions or similar problems; or our failure to maintain the vessel in compliance
with its specifications and contractual standards or to provide the required crew.
Liquefied Gas Segment
LNG Carriers
The LNG carriers in our liquefied gas segment compete in the LNG market. LNG carriers are usually
chartered to carry LNG pursuant to time-charter contracts, where a vessel is hired for a fixed
period of time, usually between 20 and 25 years, and the charter rate is payable to the owner on a
monthly basis. LNG shipping historically has been transacted with long-term, fixed-rate
time-charter contracts. LNG projects require significant capital expenditures and typically involve
an integrated chain of dedicated facilities and cooperative activities. Accordingly, the overall
success of an LNG project depends heavily on long-range planning and coordination of project
activities, including marine transportation. Most shipping requirements for new LNG projects
continue to be provided on a long-term basis, though the level of spot voyages (typically
consisting of a single voyage) and short-term time-charters of less than 12 months duration have
grown in the past few years.
In the LNG market, we compete principally with other private and state-controlled energy and
utilities companies that generally operate captive fleets, and independent ship owners and
operators. Many major energy companies compete directly with independent owners by transporting LNG
for third parties in addition to their own LNG. Given the complex, long-term nature of LNG
projects, major energy companies historically have transported LNG through their captive fleets.
However, independent fleet operators have been obtaining an increasing percentage of charters for
new or expanded LNG projects as some major energy companies have continued to divest non-core
businesses.
LNG carriers transport LNG internationally between liquefaction facilities and import terminals.
After natural gas is transported by pipeline from production fields to a liquefaction facility, it
is supercooled to a temperature of approximately negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit. This process
reduces its volume to approximately 1/600th of its volume in a gaseous state. The
reduced volume facilitates economical storage and transportation by ship over long distances,
enabling countries with limited natural gas reserves or limited access to long-distance
transmission pipelines to import natural gas. LNG Carriers include a sophisticated containment
system that holds the LNG and provides insulation to reduce the amount of LNG that boils off
naturally. The natural boil off is either used as fuel to power the engines on the ship or it can
be reliquefied and put back into the tanks. LNG is transported overseas in specially built tanks
on double-hulled ships to a receiving terminal, where it is offloaded and stored in insulated
tanks. In regasification facilities at the receiving terminal, the LNG is returned to its gaseous
state (or regasified) and then shipped by pipeline for distribution to natural gas customers.
With the exception of the Arctic Spirit and Polar Spirit which are the only two ships in the world
that utilise the IHI SPB independent tank technology, the remainder of our fleet makes use of one
of the GTT membrane containment systems. The GTT membrane systems are used in the majority of LNG
tankers now being constructed. New LNG carriers are generally expected to have a lifespan of
approximately 35 to 40 years. Unlike the oil tanker industry, there currently are no regulations
that require the phase-out from trading of LNG carriers after they reach a certain age. As at
December 31, 2010 our LNG carriers had an average age of approximately six years, compared to the
world LNG carrier fleet average age of approximately 10 years. In addition, as at that date, there
were approximately 362 vessels in the world LNG fleet and approximately 22 additional LNG carriers
under construction or on order for delivery through 2014.
22
The following table provides additional information about our LNG vessels as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining |
|
Vessel |
|
Capacity |
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Our Ownership |
|
Charterer |
|
Charter Term(1) |
|
|
|
(cubic meters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating LNG carriers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hispania Spirit |
|
|
137,814 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
100% |
|
Repsol YPF |
|
12 years (3) |
Catalunya Spirit |
|
|
135,423 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
100% |
|
Gas Natural SDG |
|
13 years (3) |
Galicia Spirit |
|
|
137,814 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
100% |
|
Uniòn Fenosa Gas |
|
19 years (4) |
Madrid Spirit |
|
|
135,423 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Capital lease(2) |
|
Repsol YPF Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
14 years (3) |
Al Marrouna |
|
|
149,539 |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
Capital lease(2) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd. Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
16 years (5) |
Al Areesh |
|
|
148,786 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
Capital lease(2) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd. Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
16 years (5) |
Al Daayen |
|
|
148,853 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
Capital lease(2) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd. The Tangguh Production |
|
16 years (5) |
Tangguh Hiri |
|
|
151,885 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
69% |
|
Sharing Contractors The Tangguh Production |
|
18 years |
|
Tangguh Sago |
|
|
155,000 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
69% |
|
Sharing Contractors Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
18 years |
|
Al Huwaila |
|
|
214,176 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
40%(6) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd.(3) Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
22 years (3) |
Al Kharsaah |
|
|
214,198 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
40%(6) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd.(3) Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
22 years (3) |
Al Shamal |
|
|
213,536 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
40%(6) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd.(3) Ras Laffan Liquefied |
|
22 years (3) |
Al Khuwair |
|
|
213,101 |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
40%(6) |
|
Natural Gas Company Ltd.(3) |
|
23 years (3) |
Arctic Spirit |
|
|
87,305 |
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
99% |
|
Teekay Corporation |
|
7 years (5) |
Polar Spirit |
|
|
87,305 |
|
|
|
1993 |
|
|
99% |
|
Teekay Corporation |
|
7 years (5) |
Excelsior |
|
|
138,087 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
50%(7) |
|
Excelerate Energy LP |
|
14 years (3) |
Excalibur |
|
|
138,000 |
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
50%(7) |
|
Excelerate Energy LP |
|
11 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capacity: |
|
|
2,606,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Each of our time-charters are subject to certain termination and purchase provisions. |
|
(2) |
|
We lease the vessel under a tax lease arrangement. Please read Item 18 Financial
Statements: Note 5 Leases and Restricted Cash. |
|
(3) |
|
The charterer has two options to extend the term for an additional five years each. |
|
(4) |
|
The charterer has one option to extend the term for an additional five years. |
|
(5) |
|
The charterer has three options to extend the term for an additional five years each. |
|
(6) |
|
The RasGas 3 LNG Carriers are accounted for under the equity method. |
|
(7) |
|
The Excelsior and Excalibur LNG carriers are accounted for under the equity method. |
The following table presents the percentage of consolidated voyage revenues for customers
that accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated voyage revenues during 2010, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Company Ltd. |
|
|
18 |
% |
|
20% |
|
22% |
Repsol YPF, S.A. |
|
|
14 |
% |
|
15% |
|
18% |
The Tangguh Production Sharing Contractors |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
Less than 10% |
|
|
Teekay Corporation |
|
|
10 |
% |
|
11% |
|
Less than 10% |
No other LNG customer accounted for 10% or more of our revenues during any of these periods. The
loss of any significant customer or a substantial decline in the amount of services requested by a
significant customer could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Each LNG carrier that is owned by us (or that we have agreed to purchase from Teekay Corporation),
is encumbered by a mortgage relating to the vessels financing. Each of the Madrid Spirit, Al
Marrouna, Al Areesh and Al Daayen is considered to be a capital lease. Please read Item 18
Financial Statements: Note 5 Leases and Restricted Cash.
LPG Carriers
LPG shipping involves the transportation of three main categories of cargo: liquid petroleum gases
including propane, butane and ethane; petrochemical gases including ethylene, propylene and
butadiene; and ammonia.
As of December 31, 2010, the worldwide LPG tanker fleet consisted of approximately 1,189 vessels
with an average age of approximately 16 years and approximately 121 additional LPG vessels were on
order for delivery through 2014. LPG carriers range in size from approximately 500 to approximately
70,000 cubic meters. Approximately 55% of the worldwide fleet is less than 5,000 cubic meters (in
terms of vessel numbers). New LPG carriers are generally expected to have a lifespan of
approximately 30 to 35 years.
23
LPG carriers are mainly chartered to carry LPG on time-charters, on contracts of affreightment or
spot voyage charters. The two largest consumers of LPG are residential users and the petrochemical
industry. Residential users, particularly in developing regions where electricity and gas pipelines
are not developed, do not have fuel switching alternatives and generally are not LPG price
sensitive. The petrochemical industry, however, has the ability to switch between LPG and other
feedstock fuels depending on price and availability of alternatives.
The following table provides additional information about our LPG carriers as of December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vessel |
|
Capacity |
|
|
Delivery / Expected Delivery |
|
|
Ownership |
|
|
Charterer |
|
|
Remaining Charter Term |
|
|
|
(cubic meters) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating LPG carriers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norgas Pan(1) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
I.M. Skaguen ASA |
|
13 years |
Norgas Cathinka(1) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
I.M. Skaguen ASA |
|
14 years |
Newbuildings: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norgas Camilla(1) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.M. Skaguen ASA |
|
15 years |
Dingheng Jiangsu 1(2) |
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.M. Skaguen ASA |
|
15 years |
Dingheng Jiangsu 2 (2) |
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.M. Skaguen ASA |
|
15 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capacity: |
|
|
54,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In December 2006, we agreed to acquire three LPG carriers from Skaugen (or the
Skaugen LPG Carriers) upon their deliveries for approximately $33 million per vessel. Two
vessels were delivered in April and November 2009 and the third vessel is scheduled to be
delivered in 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
In July 2008, subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation (or the Skaugen Multigas
Subsidiaries) purchased two technically advanced 12,000-cubic meter newbuilding Multigas
ships from Skaugen subsidiaries and we will acquire the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries from
Teekay Corporation upon their deliveries for approximately $53 million per vessel. Both
vessels are expected to be delivered in 2011. |
We sold the 7,392-cubic meter LPG vessel, the Dania Spirit, in November 2010.
Conventional Tanker Segment
Oil has been the worlds primary energy source for decades. Seaborne crude oil transportation is a
mature industry. The two main types of oil tanker operators are major oil companies (including
state-owned companies) that generally operate captive fleets, and independent operators that
charter out their vessels for voyage or time-charter use. Most conventional oil tankers controlled
by independent fleet operators are hired for one or a few voyages at a time at fluctuating market
rates based on the existing tanker supply and demand. These charter rates are extremely sensitive
to this balance of supply and demand, and small changes in tanker utilization have historically led
to relatively large short-term rate changes. Long-term, fixed-rate charters for crude oil
transportation, such as those applicable to our Conventional tanker fleet, are less typical in the
industry. As used in this discussion, conventional oil tankers exclude those vessels that can
carry dry bulk and ore, tankers that currently are used for storage purposes and shuttle tankers
that are designed to transport oil from offshore production platforms to onshore storage and
refinery facilities.
Oil tanker demand is primarily a function of several factors, primarily the locations of oil
production, refining and consumption and world oil demand and supply, while oil tanker supply is
primarily a function of new vessel deliveries, vessel scrapping and the conversion or loss of
tonnage.
The majority of crude oil tankers range in size from approximately 80,000 to approximately 320,000
dwt. Suezmax tankers, which typically range from 120,000 to 200,000 dwt, are the mid-size of the
various primary oil tanker types. As of December 31, 2010, the world tanker fleet included 376
conventional Suezmax tankers, representing approximately 13% of worldwide oil tanker capacity,
excluding tankers under 10,000 dwt.
As of December 31, 2010 our Conventional tankers had an average age of approximately six years,
compared to the average age of eight years for the world conventional tanker fleet. New
Conventional tankers generally are expected to have a lifespan of approximately 25 to 30 years,
based on estimated hull fatigue life.
The following table provides additional information about our Conventional oil tankers as of
December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanker(1) |
|
Capacity |
|
|
Delivery |
|
|
Our Ownership |
|
|
Charterer |
|
|
Remaining Charter Term |
|
|
|
(dwt) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Conventional tankers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tenerife Spirit |
|
|
149,999 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Capital lease |
(2) |
|
CEPSA |
|
10 years |
(3) |
Algeciras Spirit |
|
|
149,999 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Capital lease |
(2) |
|
CEPSA |
|
10 years |
(3) |
Huelva Spirit |
|
|
149,999 |
|
|
|
2001 |
|
|
Capital lease |
(2) |
|
CEPSA |
|
11 years |
(3) |
Teide Spirit |
|
|
149,999 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Capital lease |
(2) |
|
CEPSA |
|
14 years |
(3) |
Toledo Spirit |
|
|
159,342 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Capital lease |
(2) |
|
CEPSA |
|
15 years |
(3) |
European Spirit |
|
|
151,849 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
ConocoPhillips |
|
5 years |
(4) |
African Spirit |
|
|
151,736 |
|
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
ConocoPhillips |
|
5 years |
(4) |
Asian Spirit |
|
|
151,693 |
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
ConocoPhillips |
|
5 years |
(4) |
Bermuda Spirit |
|
|
159,000 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Centrofin |
|
10 years |
(5) |
Hamilton Spirit |
|
|
159,000 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Centrofin |
|
10 years |
(5) |
Alexander Spirit |
|
|
40,083 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
100% |
|
Caltex Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. |
|
9 years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capacity: |
|
|
1,572,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Conventional tankers listed in the table are all Suezmax tankers, with the
exception of the Alexander Spirit which is a Handymax tanker. |
|
(2) |
|
We are the lessee under a capital lease arrangement and are required to purchase the
vessel after the end of their respective lease terms for a fixed price. The purchase of
these vessels may occur in late-2011. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 5
Leases and Restricted Cash. |
|
(3) |
|
Compania Espanole de Petroleos, S.A. (or CEPSA) has the right to terminate the
time-charter 13 years after the original delivery date. |
|
(4) |
|
The term of the time-charter is 12 years from the original delivery date, which may
be extended at the customers option for up to an additional six years. In addition, the
customer has the right to terminate the time-charter upon notice and payment of a
cancellation fee. Either party also may require the sale of the vessel to a third party at
any time, subject to the other partys right of first refusal to purchase the vessel. |
|
(5) |
|
Centrofin Management Inc. has the option to purchase the two vessels, exercisable
after the end of five years and every year after until the end of the charter agreement.
The purchase option ranges between $53.8 million after five years to $29.4 million at the
end of the charter. |
CEPSA accounted for 12%, 13% and 21% of our 2010, 2009 and 2008 Conventional tanker revenues,
respectively. No other Conventional tanker customer accounted for 10% or more of our revenues
during any of these periods. The loss of any significant customer or a substantial decline in the
amount of services requested by a significant customer could harm our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
Business Strategies
Our primary business objective is to increase distributable cash flow per unit by executing the
following strategies:
|
|
|
Acquire new LNG and LPG carriers built to project specifications after
long-term, fixed-rate time-charters have been awarded for the LNG and LPG projects. Our LNG
and LPG carriers are built or will be built to customer specifications included in the
related long-term, fixed-rate time-charters for the vessels. We intend to continue our
practice of acquiring LNG and LPG carriers as needed for approved projects only after the
long-term, fixed-rate charters for the projects have been awarded, rather than ordering
vessels on a speculative basis. We believe this approach is preferable to speculative
newbuilding because it: |
|
|
|
eliminates the risk of incremental or duplicative expenditures to alter
our LNG and LPG carriers to meet customer specifications; |
|
|
|
facilitates the financing of new LNG and LPG carriers based on their
anticipated future revenues; and |
|
|
|
ensures that new vessels will be employed upon acquisition, which should
generate more stable cash flow. |
|
|
|
Expand our LNG and LPG operations globally. We seek to capitalize on opportunities
emerging from the global expansion of the LNG and LPG sector by selectively targeting: |
|
|
|
long-term, fixed-rate time-charters wherever there is significant growth
in LNG and LPG trade; |
|
|
|
joint ventures and partnerships with companies that may provide
increased access to opportunities in attractive LNG and LPG importing and exporting
geographic regions; and |
|
|
|
strategic vessel and business acquisitions. |
|
|
|
Provide superior customer service by maintaining high reliability, safety,
environmental and quality standards. LNG and LPG project operators seek LNG and LPG
transportation partners that have a reputation for high reliability, safety, environmental
and quality standards. We seek to leverage our own and Teekay Corporations operational
expertise to create a sustainable competitive advantage with consistent delivery of
superior customer service. |
|
|
|
Manage our Conventional tanker fleet to provide stable cash flows. The
remaining terms for our existing long-term Conventional tanker charters are 5 to 15 years.
We believe the fixed-rate time-charters for our tanker fleet provide us stable cash flows
during their terms and a source of funding for expanding our LNG and LPG operations.
Depending on prevailing market conditions during and at the end of each existing charter,
we may seek to extend the charter, enter into a new charter, operate the vessel on the spot
market or sell the vessel, in an effort to maximize returns on our Conventional tanker
fleet while managing residual risk. |
25
Safety, Management of Ship Operations and Administration
Teekay Corporation, through its subsidiaries, assists us in managing our ship operations. Safety
and environmental compliance are our top operational priorities. We operate our vessels in a manner
intended to protect the safety and health of the employees, the general public and the environment.
We seek to manage the risks inherent in our business and are committed to eliminating incidents
that threaten the safety and integrity of our vessels, such as groundings, fires, collisions and
petroleum spills. In 2007, Teekay Corporation introduced a behavior-based safety program called
Safety in Action to further enhance the safety culture in our fleet. We are also committed to
reducing our emissions and waste generation. In 2008, Teekay Corporation introduced the Quality
Assurance and Training Officers (or QATO) Program to conduct rigorous internal audits of our
processes and provide the seafarers with onboard training.
Teekay Corporation has achieved certification under the standards reflected in International
Standards Organizations (or ISO) 9001 for Quality Assurance, ISO 14001 for Environment Management
Systems, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Services 18001 for Occupational Health and Safety,
and the IMOs International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution
Prevention on a fully integrated basis. As part of Teekay Corporations compliance with the
International Safety Management (or ISM) Code, all of our vessels safety management certificates
are maintained through ongoing internal audits performed by our certified internal auditors and
intermediate external audits performed by the classification society Det Norske Veritas. Subject to
satisfactory completion of these internal and external audits, certification is valid for five
years.
We have established key performance indicators to facilitate regular monitoring of our operational
performance. We set targets on an annual basis to drive continuous improvement, and we review
performance indicators monthly to determine if remedial action is necessary to reach our targets.
In addition to our operational experience, Teekay Corporations in-house global shore staff
performs, through its subsidiaries, the full range of technical, commercial and business
development services for our LNG and LPG operations. This staff also provides administrative
support to our operations in finance, accounting and human resources. We believe this arrangement
affords a safe, efficient and cost-effective operation.
Critical ship management functions that Teekay Corporation provides to us through its Teekay Marine
Services division located in various offices around the world include:
|
|
|
financial management services. |
These functions are supported by onboard and onshore systems for maintenance, inventory, purchasing
and budget management.
In addition, Teekay Corporations day-to-day focus on cost control is applied to our operations. In
2003, Teekay Corporation and two other shipping companies established a purchasing cooperation
agreement called the TBW Alliance, which leverages the purchasing power of the combined fleets,
mainly in such commodity areas as marine lubricants, coatings and chemicals and gases. Through our
arrangements with Teekay Corporation, we benefit from this purchasing alliance.
We believe that the generally uniform design of some of our existing and newbuilding vessels and
the adoption of common equipment standards provides operational efficiencies, including with
respect to crew training and vessel management, equipment operation and repair, and spare parts
ordering.
Risk of Loss, Insurance and Risk Management
The operation of any ocean-going vessel carries an inherent risk of catastrophic marine disasters,
death or injury of persons and property losses caused by adverse weather conditions, mechanical
failures, human error, war, terrorism, piracy and other circumstances or events. In addition, the
transportation of crude oil, petroleum products, LNG and LPG is subject to the risk of spills and
to business interruptions due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, labor
strikes and boycotts. The occurrence of any of these events may result in loss of revenues or
increased costs.
We carry hull and machinery (marine and war risks) and protection and indemnity insurance coverage
to protect against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business. Hull
and machinery insurance covers loss of or damage to a vessel due to marine perils such as
collision, grounding and weather. Protection and indemnity insurance indemnifies us against
liabilities incurred while operating vessels, including injury to our crew or third parties, cargo
loss and pollution. The current available amount of our coverage for pollution is $1 billion per
vessel per incident. We also carry insurance policies covering war risks (including piracy and
terrorism) and, for some of our LNG carriers, loss of revenues resulting from vessel off-hire time
due to a marine casualty. We believe that our current insurance coverage is adequate to protect
against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business and that we
maintain appropriate levels of environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage. However, we
cannot guarantee that all covered risks are adequately insured against, that any particular claim
will be paid or that we will be able to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially
reasonable rates in the future. More stringent environmental regulations have resulted in increased
costs for, and may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental
damage or pollution.
We use in our operations Teekay Corporations thorough risk management program that includes, among
other things, computer-aided risk analysis tools, maintenance and assessment programs, a seafarers
competence training program, seafarers workshops and membership in emergency response
organizations. We believe we benefit from Teekay Corporations commitment to safety and
environmental protection as certain of its subsidiaries assist us in managing our vessel
operations.
Teekay Corporation has achieved certification under the standards reflected in International
Standards Organizations (or ISO) 9001 for quality assurance, ISO 14001 for environment management
systems, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Services 18001, and the IMOs International
Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention on a fully integrated
basis.
26
Classification, Audits and Inspections
The hull and machinery of all our vessels is classed by one of the major classification
societies: Det Norske Veritas or Lloyds Register of Shipping, or American Bureau of Shipping.
The classification society certifies that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance
with its rules. Each vessel is inspected by a classification society surveyor annually, with
either the second or third annual inspection being a more detailed survey (or an Intermediate
Survey) and the fifth annual inspection being the most comprehensive survey (or a Special Survey).
The inspection cycle resumes after each Special Survey. Vessels also may be required to be
drydocked at each Intermediate and Special Survey for inspection of the underwater parts of the
vessel in addition to a more detailed inspection of the hull and machinery. Many of our vessels
have qualified with their respective classification societies for drydocking every five years in
connection with the Special Survey and are no longer subject to drydocking at Intermediate Surveys.
To qualify, we were required to enhance the resiliency of the underwater coatings of each vessel
and mark the hull to accommodate underwater inspections by divers.
The vessels flag state, or the vessels classification society if nominated by the flag state,
also inspects our vessels to ensure they comply with applicable rules and regulations of the
country of registry of the vessel and the international conventions of which that country is a
signatory. Port state authorities, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, also inspect our vessels when they
visit their ports.
In addition to the classification inspections, many of our customers regularly inspect our vessels
as a condition to chartering, and regular inspections are standard practice under long-term
charters.
We believe that our relatively new, well-maintained and high-quality vessels provide us with a
competitive advantage in the current environment of increasing regulation and customer emphasis on
quality of service.
Our vessels are also regularly inspected by our seafaring staff, who perform much of the necessary
routine maintenance. Shore-based operational and technical specialists also inspect our vessels at
least twice a year. Upon completion of each inspection, action plans are developed to address any
items requiring improvement. All plans are monitored until they are completed. The objectives of
these inspections are to:
|
|
|
ensure adherence to our operating standards; |
|
|
|
maintain the structural integrity of the vessel; |
|
|
|
maintain machinery and equipment to give full reliability in service; |
|
|
|
optimize performance in terms of speed and fuel consumption; and |
|
|
|
ensure the vessels appearance will support our brand and meet customer expectations. |
To achieve our structural integrity objective, we use a comprehensive Structural Integrity
Management System developed by Teekay Corporation. This system is designed to closely monitor the
condition of our vessels and to ensure that structural strength and integrity are maintained
throughout a vessels life.
Teekay Corporation, which assists us in managing our ship operations through its subsidiaries, has
obtained approval for its safety management system as being in compliance with the ISM Code. Our
safety management system has also been certified as being compliant with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and
OSHAS 18001 standards. To maintain compliance, the system is audited regularly by either the
vessels flag state or, when nominated by the flag state, a classification society. Certification
is valid for five years subject to satisfactorily completing internal and external audits.
We believe that the heightened environmental and quality concerns of insurance underwriters,
regulators and charterers will generally lead to greater inspection and safety requirements on all
vessels in the LNG and LPG carrier and oil tanker markets and will accelerate the scrapping of
older vessels throughout these markets.
C. Regulations
General
Our business and the operation of our vessels are significantly affected by international
conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which our
vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. Because these
conventions, laws and regulations change frequently, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of
compliance or their impact on the resale price or useful life of our vessels. Additional
conventions, laws, and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business or
increase the cost of our doing business and that may materially adversely affect our operations. We
are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain permits, licenses
and certificates with respect to our operations. Subject to the discussion below and to the fact
that the kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required for the operations of the vessels we
own will depend on a number of factors, we believe that we will be able to continue to obtain all
permits, licenses and certificates material to the conduct of our operations.
International Maritime Organization (or IMO)
The IMO is the United Nations agency for maritime safety. IMO regulations relating to pollution
prevention for oil tankers have been adopted by many of the jurisdictions in which our tanker fleet
operates. Under IMO regulations and subject to limited exceptions, a tanker must be of double-hull
construction, be of a mid-deck design with double-side construction or be of another approved
design ensuring the same level of protection against oil pollution. All of our tankers are double
hulled.
Many countries, but not the United States, have ratified and follow the liability regime adopted by
the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage,
1969, as amended (or CLC). Under this convention, a vessels registered owner is strictly liable
for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of
persistent oil (e.g. crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil), subject to certain
defenses. The right to limit liability to specified amounts that are periodically revised is
forfeited under the CLC when the spill is caused by the owners actual fault or when the spill is
caused by the owners intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to contracting states must
provide evidence of insurance covering the limited liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where
the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative regimes or common law governs, and liability is
imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to the CLC.
27
IMO regulations also include the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (or SOLAS),
including amendments to SOLAS implementing the International Security Code for Ports and Ships (or
ISPS), the ISM Code, the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, and, specifically with
respect to LNG and LPG carriers, the International Code for Construction and Equipment of Ships
Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (the IGC Code). SOLAS provides rules for the construction of and
equipment required for commercial vessels and includes regulations for safe operation. Flag states
which have ratified the convention and the treaty generally employ the classification societies,
which have incorporated SOLAS requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm
compliance.
SOLAS and other IMO regulations concerning safety, including those relating to treaties on training
of shipboard personnel, lifesaving appliances, radio equipment and the global maritime distress and
safety system, are applicable to our operations. Non-compliance with IMO regulations, including
SOLAS, the ISM Code, ISPS and the IGC Code, may subject us to increased liability or penalties, may
lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial
of access to or detention in some ports. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard and European Union
authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from
trading in U.S. and European Union ports. The ISM Code requires vessel operators to obtain a
safety management certification for each vessel they manage, evidencing the shipowners development
and maintenance of an extensive safety management system. Each of the existing vessels in our fleet
is currently ISM Code-certified, and we expect to obtain safety management certificates for each
newbuilding vessel upon delivery.
LNG and LPG carriers are also subject to regulation under the IGC Code. Each LNG and LPG carrier
must obtain a certificate of compliance evidencing that it meets the requirements of the IGC Code,
including requirements relating to its design and construction. Each of our LNG and LPG carriers is
currently IGC Code certified, and each of the shipbuilding contracts for our LNG newbuildings, and
for the LPG newbuildings that we have agreed to acquire from Skaugen and Teekay Corporation,
requires IGC Code compliance prior to delivery.
Annex VI to the IMOs International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (or Annex
VI) became effective on May 19, 2005. Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide
emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits emissions of ozone depleting substances, emissions of
volatile compounds from cargo tanks and the incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also
includes a world-wide cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be
established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. Annex VI came into force in the
United States on January 8, 2009. We operate our vessels in compliance with Annex VI.
In addition, the IMO has proposed that all tankers of the size we operate that are built starting
in 2012 contain ballast water treatment systems, and that all other such tankers install treatment
systems by 2016. When this regulation becomes effective, we estimate that the installation of
ballast water treatment systems on our tankers may cost between $2 million and $3 million per
vessel.
European Union (or EU)
Like the IMO, the EU has adopted regulations phasing out single-hull tankers. All of our tankers
are double-hulled.
The EU has also adopted legislation (directive 2009/16/Econ Port State Control) that: bans
manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as vessels that have been detained twice by EU port
authorities, in the preceding two years, after July 2003) from European waters; creates obligations
on the part of EU member port states to inspect at least 24% of vessels using these ports annually; provides
for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine
environment; and provides the European Union with greater authority and control over classification
societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies.
The EU is also considering the adoption of criminal sanctions for certain pollution events,
including improper cleaning of tanks.
The EU Directive 33/2005 (or the Directive) came into force on January 1, 2010. Under this
legislation, vessels are required to burn fuel with sulphur content below 0.1% while berthed or
anchored in an EU port (also the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will require vessels to
burn fuel with 0.1% sulphur content or less within 24 nautical miles of California as of January 1,
2012. As of January 1, 2015, all vessels operating within Emissions Control Areas (ECA) worldwide
must comply with 0.1% sulphur requirements). Currently, the only grade of fuel meeting this low
sulphur content requirement is low sulphur marine gas oil (or LSMGO). From July 1, 2010, the
reduction of applical sulphur content limits in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and the English
Channel sulphur control areas will be 0.1%. Certain modifications were completed on our Suezmax
tankers in order to optimize operation on LSMGO of equipment originally designed to operate on
Heavy Fuel Oil (or HFO), and to ensure our compliance with this Directive. In addition, LSMGO is
more expensive than HFO and this will impact the costs of operations. However, for vessels
employed on fixed-term business, all fuel costs, including any increases, are borne by the
charterer.
United States
The United States has enacted an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and
cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including discharges of oil cargoes, bunker fuels or
lubricants, primarily through the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (or OPA 90) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (or CERCLA). OPA 90 affects all owners,
bareboat charterers, and operators whose vessels trade to the United States or its territories or
possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which include the U.S. territorial
sea and 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. CERCLA applies to the discharge
of hazardous substances rather than oil and imposes strict joint and several liability upon the
owners, operators or bareboat charterers of vessels for cleanup costs and damages arising from
discharges of hazardous substances. We believe that petroleum products and LNG and LPG should not
be considered hazardous substances under CERCLA, but additives to oil or lubricants used on LNG or
LPG carriers might fall within its scope.
28
Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charters are responsible parties and are
jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the oil spill results solely from the act or
omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war and the responsible party reports the
incident and reasonably cooperates with the appropriate authorities) for all containment and
cleanup costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their
vessels. These other damages are defined broadly to include:
|
|
|
natural resources damages and the related assessment costs; |
|
|
|
real and personal property damages; |
|
|
|
net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and other lost revenues; |
|
|
|
lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resources
damage; |
|
|
|
net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from
fire, safety or health hazards; and |
|
|
|
loss of subsistence use of natural resources. |
OPA 90 limits the liability of responsible parties in an amount it periodically updates. The
liability limits do not apply if the incident was proximately caused by violation of applicable
U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations, including IMO conventions to which the
United States is a signatory, or by the responsible partys gross negligence or willful misconduct,
or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in
connection with the oil removal activities. Liability under CERCLA is also subject to limits unless
the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of certain
regulations. We currently maintain for each of our vessels pollution liability coverage in the
maximum coverage amount of $1 billion per incident. A catastrophic spill could exceed the coverage
available, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Under OPA 90, with limited exceptions, all newly built or converted tankers delivered after January
1, 1994 and operating in U.S. waters must be double-hulled. All of our existing tankers are
double-hulled.
OPA 90 also requires owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the United
States Coast Guard (or Coast Guard) evidence of financial responsibility in an amount at least
equal to the relevant limitation amount for such vessels under the statute. The Coast Guard has
implemented regulations requiring that an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels must demonstrate
evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet
having the greatest maximum limited liability under OPA 90 and CERCLA.Evidence of financial
responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance, guaranty or an
alternate method subject to approval by the Coast Guard. Under the self-insurance provisions, the
shipowner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the
United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount
of financial responsibility. We have complied with the Coast Guard regulations by using
self-insurance for certain vessels and obtaining financial guaranties from a third party for the
remaining vessels. If other vessels in our fleet trade into the United States in the future, we
expect to provide guaranties through self-insurance or obtain guaranties from third-party insurers.
OPA 90 and CERCLA permit individual U. S. states to impose their own liability regimes with regard
to oil or hazardous substance pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some
states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited strict liability for spills. Several
coastal states, such as California and Alaska require state-specific evidence of financial
responsibility and vessel response plans. We intend to comply with all applicable state
regulations in the ports where our vessels call.
Owners or operators of vessels, including tankers operating in U.S. waters are required to file
vessel response plans with the Coast Guard, and their tankers are required to operate in compliance
with their Coast Guard approved plans. Such response plans must, among other things:
|
|
|
address a worst case scenario and identify and ensure, through contract or other
approved means, the availability of necessary private response resources to respond to a
worst case discharge; |
|
|
|
describe crew training and drills; and |
|
|
|
identify a qualified individual with full authority to implement removal actions. |
We have filed vessel response plans with the Coast Guard and have received its approval of such
plans. In addition, we conduct regular oil spill response drills in accordance with the guidelines
set out in OPA 90. The Coast Guard has announced it intends to propose similar regulations
requiring certain vessels to prepare response plans for the release of hazardous substances.
OPA 90 and CERCLA do not preclude claimants from seeking damages resulting from the discharge of
oil and hazardous substances under other applicable law, including maritime tort law. Such claims
could include attempts to characterize the transportation of LNG or LPG aboard a vessel as an
ultra-hazardous activity under a doctrine that would impose strict liability for damages resulting
from that activity. The application of this doctrine varies by jurisdiction.
The United States Clean Water Act also prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in
U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized
discharges. The Clean Water Act imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation
and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA 90 and CERCLA discussed above.
Our vessels that discharge certain effluents, including ballast water, in U.S. waters must obtain a
Clean Water Act permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA) titled the Vessel General
Permit and comply with a range of best management practices, reporting, inspections and other
requirements. The Vessel General Permit incorporates Coast Guard requirements for ballast water
exchange and includes specific technology-based requirements for vessels. Several U.S. states have
added specific requirements to the Vessel General Permit and, in some cases, may require vessels to
install ballast water treatment technology to meet biological performance standards. We believe
that the EPA may add requirements related to ballast water treatment technology to the Vessel
General Permit requirements between 2012 and 2016 to correspond with the IMOs adoption of similar
requirements as discussed above.
29
Since January 2009, several environmental groups and industry associations have filed challenges in U.S.
federal courts to the EPAs issuance of the Vessel General
Permit; these cases were recently settled, and EPA must issue a new Vessel General Permit by November 2011, with the
Final Vessel General Permit issued by November 2012.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation
In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(or the Kyoto Protocol) entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are
required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In December 2009,
more than 27 nations, including the United States, entered into the Copenhagen Accord. The
Copenhagen Accord is non-binding, but is intended to pave the way for a comprehensive,
international treaty on climate change. The IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, which may include market-based instruments or
a carbon tax. The European Union also has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of an
existing EU emissions trading regime to include emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels, and
individual countries in the EU may impose additional requirements. In the United States, the EPA
issued an endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this
finding in itself does not impose any requirements on our industry, it authorizes the EPA to
regulate directly greenhouse gas emissions through a rule-making process. In addition, climate
change initiatives are being considered in the United States Congress and by individual states.
Any passage of new climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European
Union, the United States or other countries or states where we operate that restrict emissions of
greenhouse gases could have a significant financial and operational impact on our business that we
cannot predict with certainty at this time.
Vessel Security
The ISPS was adopted by the IMO in December 2002 in the wake of heightened concern over worldwide
terrorism and became effective on July 1, 2004. The objective of ISPS is to enhance maritime
security by detecting security threats to ships and ports and by requiring the development of
security plans and other measures designed to prevent such threats. The United States implemented
ISPS with the adoption of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (or MTSA), which
requires vessels entering U.S. waters to obtain certification by the Coast Guard of plans to
respond to emergency incidents there, including identification of persons authorized to implement
the plans. Each of the existing vessels in our fleet currently complies with the requirements of
ISPS and MTSA.
D. Properties
Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property.
E. Organizational Structure
Our sole general partner is Teekay GP L.L.C., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teekay
Corporation (NYSE: TK). Teekay Corporation also controls its public subsidiaries Teekay Offshore
Partners L.P. (NYSE: TOO) and Teekay Tankers Ltd. (NYSE: TNK).
The following is a list of our significant subsidiaries as at December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Significant Subsidiary |
|
Ownership |
|
|
State or Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teekay LNG Operating L.L.C. |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Naviera Teekay Gas, SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Naviera Teekay Gas II, SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Teekay Shipping Spain SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Teekay Spain SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Teekay II Iberia SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Naviera Teekay Gas IV, SL |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Spain |
Teekay Luxembourg Sarl |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Luxembourg |
Teekay Nakilat Holdings Corporation |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Teekay Nakilat Corporation |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Teekay Nakilat (II) Limited |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
United Kingdom |
Al Marrouna Inc. |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Al Daayen Inc. |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Al Areesh Inc. |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings Corporation |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
Marshall Islands |
Teekay LNG Holdings L.P. |
|
|
99 |
% |
|
United States |
|
|
|
Item 4A. |
|
Unresolved Staff Comments |
Not applicable.
30
|
|
|
Item 5. |
|
Operating and Financial Review and Prospects |
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
General
Teekay LNG Partners L.P. is an international provider of marine transportation services for
liquefied natural gas (or LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (or LPG) and crude oil. We were formed in
2004 by Teekay Corporation, the worlds largest owner and operator of medium sized crude oil
tankers, to expand its operations in the LNG shipping sector. Our primary growth strategy focuses
on expanding our fleet of LNG and LPG carriers under long-term, fixed-rate charters. We intend to
continue our practice of acquiring LNG and LPG carriers as needed for approved projects only after
the long-term charters for the projects have been awarded to us, rather than ordering vessels on a
speculative basis. In executing our growth strategy, we may engage in vessel or business
acquisitions or enter into joint ventures and partnerships with companies that may provide
increased access to emerging opportunities from global expansion of the LNG and LPG sectors. We
seek to leverage the expertise, relationships and reputation of Teekay Corporation and its
affiliates to pursue these opportunities in the LNG and LPG sectors and may consider other
opportunities to which our competitive strengths are well suited. Although we may acquire
additional crude oil tankers from time to time, we view our conventional tanker fleet primarily as
a source of stable cash flow as we seek to expand our LNG and LPG operations.
Our primary goal is to increase our quarterly distributions to unitholders. During the year ended
December 31, 2010, we increased our quarterly distribution from $0.57 per unit to $0.60 per unit
beginning with the quarterly distribution paid in May 2010. We further increased our quarterly
distribution to $0.63 per unit beginning with the quarterly distribution paid in February 2011.
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN 2010
Acquisition of Three Conventional Tankers
On March 17, 2010, we acquired from Teekay Corporation two 2009-built 159,000 deadweight tonne
Suezmax tankers, the Bermuda Spirit and Hamilton Spirit, and a 2007-built 40,083 deadweight tonne
Handymax Product tanker, the Alexander Spirit, and the associated fixed-rate contracts for a total
cost of $160 million. The remaining charter terms for these vessels as of December 31, 2010 are 10
years, 10 years and 9 years, respectively. We financed the acquisition by assuming $126 million of
debt, borrowing $24 million under existing revolving credit facilities and using $10 million of
cash. In addition, we acquired approximately $15 million of working capital in exchange for a
short-term vendor loan from Teekay Corporation. As a result of these acquisitions, we increased our
quarterly cash distribution by $0.03 per unit beginning with the quarterly distribution paid in May
2010.
Conversion of Subordinated Units
On April 1, 2010, our remaining 7.4 million subordinated units converted to common units on a
one-for-one basis.
Equity Offering
On July 15, 2010, we completed a direct equity placement of approximately 1.7 million common units
at a price of $29.18 per unit, for net proceeds of approximately $51 million, including our general
partners 2% proportionate capital contribution. We used the net proceeds from the offering to
prepay a portion of one of our revolving credit facilities and for general partnership purposes.
Exmar Joint Ventures
On November 4, 2010, we acquired a 50% interest in one regas LNG carrier (or Excelsior Joint
Venture) and a 50% interest in one conventional LNG carrier (or Excalibur Joint Venture) from Exmar
NV for a total purchase price of approximately $72.5 million, net of assumed debt. We financed
$37.3 million of the purchase price by issuing to Exmar NV approximately 1.1 million new common
units with the balance financed by drawing on one of our revolving credit facilities. As part of
the transaction we agreed to guarantee 50% of the $206 million of debt secured by the Excelsior and
Excalibur Joint Ventures. Exmar NV retains the other 50% ownership interest in these joint
ventures. The two vessels acquired are the 2002-built Excalibur, a conventional LNG carrier, and
the 2005-built Excelsior, a specialized gas carrier that can both transport and regasify LNG
onboard. Both vessels are on long-term, fixed-rate charter contracts to Excelerate Energy LP for
firm periods until 2022 and 2025, respectively.
Sale of Dania Spirit
On November 5, 2010, we sold one of our LPG carriers, the Dania Spirit for proceeds of $21.5
million, resulting in a gain of $4.3 million.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS
Skaugen LPG Project
We have an agreement to acquire upon delivery one LPG carrier from Skaugen for a purchase price of
approximately $33 million. The vessel is expected to be delivered in 2011 and upon delivery; the
vessel will be chartered at fixed rates for 15 years to Skaugen.
Skaugen Multigas Carriers
In July 2008, Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries signed contracts for the purchase from Skaugen of two
technically advanced 12,000-cubic meter newbuilding Multigas vessels (or the Skaugen Multigas
Carriers) capable of carrying LNG, LPG or ethylene. We, in turn, agreed to acquire the Skaugen
Multigas Subsidiaries from Teekay Corporation upon delivery for a total cost of approximately $106
million. Both vessels are scheduled to be delivered in 2011. Upon delivery, each vessel will
commence service under 15-year fixed-rate charters to Skaugen.
31
Angola LNG Project
In December 2007, a consortium in which Teekay Corporation has a 33% ownership interest agreed to
charter four newbuilding 160,400-cubic meter LNG carriers to the Angola LNG Project. The Angola LNG
Project involves the collection and transportation of gas from offshore production facilities to an
onshore LNG processing plant at Soyo, located in northwest Angola. The Project is being developed
by subsidiaries of Chevron Corporation, Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola EP, BP Plc,
Total S.A., and Eni SpA. Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and NYK Bulkship (Europe) have 34% and 33% ownership
interests in the consortium, respectively.
Teekay Corporation has offered to us, and we have agreed to purchase, its 33% ownership interest in
these vessels and related charter contract at a total equity purchase price of approximately $73
million (net of assumed debt) subject to adjustment based on actual costs incurred at the time of
delivery. We will acquire the ownership interests and pay a proportionate share of the purchase
price as each vessel is delivered. The vessels are scheduled for delivery during the fall of 2011
and in the first quarter of 2012.
Each of the four newbuilding LNG carriers will be chartered at fixed rates, subject to inflation
adjustments, to the Angola LNG Project for a period of 20 years upon delivery from the shipyard,
with two extension periods for five years each. The charterer has the option to terminate the
charter upon 120 days notice and payment of an early termination fee, which would equal
approximately 50% of the fully built-up cost of the vessel. The charterer may also terminate the
charter under other circumstances typical in our long-term charters, such as excessive off-hire
during which we do not provide a replacement vessel, or certain force majeure events.
Important Financial and Operational Terms and Concepts
We use a variety of financial and operational terms and concepts when analyzing our performance.
These include the following:
Voyage Revenues. Voyage revenues currently include revenues only from time-charters accounted for
under operating and direct financing leases. Voyage revenues are affected by hire rates and the
number of calendar-ship-days a vessel operates. Voyage revenues are also affected by the mix of
business between time and voyage charters. Hire rates for voyage charters are more volatile, as
they are typically tied to prevailing market rates at the time of a voyage.
Voyage Expenses. Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including any
bunker fuel expenses, port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and
commissions. Voyage expenses are typically paid by the customer under time-charters and by us under
voyage charters.
Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues represent voyage revenues less voyage expenses. Because
the amount of voyage expenses we incur for a particular charter depends upon the type of the
charter, we use net voyage revenues to improve the comparability between periods of reported
revenues that are generated by the different types of charters. We principally use net voyage
revenues, a non-GAAP financial measure, because it provides more meaningful information to us about
the deployment of our vessels and their performance than voyage revenues, the most directly
comparable financial measure under GAAP.
Vessel Operating Expenses. We are responsible for vessel operating expenses, which include crewing,
repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils and communication expenses. The two largest
components of vessel operating expenses are crews and repairs and maintenance.
Income from Vessel Operations. To assist us in evaluating our operations by segment, we sometimes
analyze the income we receive from each segment after deducting operating expenses, but prior to
the deduction of interest expense, taxes, foreign currency and derivative gains or losses and other
income and losses. For more information, please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 4
Segment Reporting.
Drydocking. We must periodically drydock each of our vessels for inspection, repairs and
maintenance and any modifications required to comply with industry certification or governmental
requirements. Generally, we drydock each of our vessels every five years. In addition, a shipping
society classification intermediate survey is performed on our LNG and LPG carriers between the
second and third year of a five-year drydocking period. We capitalize a portion of the costs
incurred during drydocking and for the survey and amortize those costs on a straight-line basis
from the completion of a drydocking or intermediate survey over the estimated useful life of the
drydock. We expense as incurred costs for routine repairs and maintenance performed during
drydocking or intermediate survey that do not improve operating efficiency or extend the useful
lives of the assets. The number of drydockings undertaken in a given period and the nature of the
work performed determine the level of drydocking expenditures.
Depreciation and Amortization. Our depreciation and amortization expense typically consists of the
following three components:
|
|
|
charges related to the depreciation of the historical cost of our fleet (less an
estimated residual value) over the estimated useful lives of our vessels; |
|
|
|
charges related to the amortization of drydocking expenditures over the useful life of
the drydock; and |
|
|
|
charges related to the amortization of the fair value of the time-charters acquired in
the 2004 Teekay Spain acquisition (over the remaining terms of the charters). |
Revenue Days. Revenue days are the total number of calendar days our vessels were in our possession
during a period less the total number of off-hire days during the period associated with major
repairs, drydockings or special or intermediate surveys. Consequently, revenue days represents the
total number of days available for the vessel to earn revenue. Idle days, which are days when the
vessel is available to earn revenue, yet is not employed, are included in revenue days. We use
revenue days to explain changes in our net voyage revenues between periods.
Calendar-Ship-Days. Calendar-ship-days are equal to the total number of calendar days that our
vessels were in our possession during a period. As a result, we use calendar-ship-days primarily in
explaining changes in vessel operating expenses and depreciation and amortization.
Utilization. Utilization is an indicator of the use of our fleet during a given period, and is
determined by dividing our revenue days by our calendar-ship-days for the period.
32
Restricted Cash Deposits. Under capital lease arrangements for four of our LNG carriers, we (a)
borrowed under term loans and deposited the proceeds into restricted cash accounts and (b) entered
into capital leases, also referred to as bareboat charters, for the vessels. The restricted cash
deposits, together with interest earned on the deposits, will equal the remaining amounts we owe
under the lease arrangements, including our obligation to purchase the vessels at the end of the
lease terms, where applicable. During vessel construction, we borrowed under the term loans and
made restricted cash deposits equal to construction installment payments. For more information,
please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 5 Leases and Restricted Cash.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Items You Should Consider When Evaluating Our Results of Operations
Some factors that have affected our historical financial performance and may affect our future
performance are listed below:
|
|
|
Our financial results reflect the results of the interests in vessels acquired from
Teekay Corporation for all periods the vessels were under common control. In April 2008,
we acquired interests in two LNG carriers, the Arctic Spirit and the Polar Spirit
(collectively, the Kenai LNG Carriers), from Teekay Corporation and in March 2010, we
acquired interests in two Suezmax vessels, the Bermuda Spirit and the Hamilton Spirit
(collectively, the Centrofin Suezmaxes), and a Handymax Product tanker, the Alexander
Spirit, from Teekay Corporation. These transactions were deemed to be business
acquisitions between entities under common control. Accordingly, we have accounted for
these transactions in a manner similar to the pooling of interest method whereby our
financial statements prior to the date these vessels were acquired by us are retroactively
adjusted to include the results of these acquired vessels. The periods retroactively
adjusted include all periods that we and the acquired vessels were both under common
control of Teekay Corporation and had begun operations. As a result, our financial
statements reflect these vessels and their results of operations referred to herein as the
Dropdown Predecessor as if we had acquired them when each respective vessel began
operations under the ownership of Teekay Corporation, which were December 13 and 14, 2007
(the two Kenai LNG Carriers), May 27, 2009 (Bermuda Spirit), June 24, 2009 (Hamilton
Spirit) and September 3, 2009 (Alexander Spirit). |
|
|
|
Our financial results reflect the consolidation of Teekay Tangguh, Teekay
Nakilat (III) and the Skaugen Multigas Carriers prior to our purchase of interests in those
entities that own those vessels. In November 2006, we entered into an agreement with
Teekay Corporation to purchase (a) its 100% interest in Teekay Tangguh Borrower LLC (or
Teekay Tangguh), which owns a 70% interest in Teekay BLT Corporation (or Teekay Tangguh
Joint Venture), and (b) its 100% ownership in Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings Corporation (or
Teekay Nakilat (III)), which owns a 40% interest in Teekay Nakilat (III) Corporation (or
the RasGas 3 Joint Venture). We ultimately acquired 99% of Teekay Corporations interest
in Teekay Tangguh, essentially giving us a 69% interest in the Teekay Tangguh Joint
Venture. We were required to consolidate Teekay Tangguh in our consolidated financial
statements since November 1, 2006, even before we acquired this entity on August 10, 2009,
as it was a variable interest entity and we were its primary beneficiary. We likewise
consolidated in our financial statements Teekay Nakilat (III) as a variable interest entity
of which we were the primary beneficiary from November 1, 2006 until we purchased it on May
6, 2008. Subsequent to May 6, 2008, Teekay Nakilat (III) was no longer a variable interest
entity and we are required to consolidate Teekay Nakilat (III) as we have voting control. |
|
|
|
On July 28, 2008, the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiairies signed contracts for the purchase of the two Skaugen
Multigas Carriers from subsidiaries of Skaugen. As described above, we have agreed to acquire
the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries that own the Skaugen Multigas Carriers from Teekay Corporation upon delivery of
the vessels. Since July 28, 2008, we have consolidated these ship-owning companies in our
financial statements as variable interest entities as we are the primary beneficiary. |
|
|
|
Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Notes 11(e), 11(f) and 11(i) Related Party
Transactions and Note 13(a) Commitments and Contingencies. |
|
|
|
Our financial results are affected by fluctuations in the fair value of our derivative
instruments. The change in fair value of our derivative instruments is included in our net
income (loss) as our derivative instruments are not designated as hedges for accounting
purposes. These changes may fluctuate significantly as interest rates and spot tanker rates
fluctuate relating to our interest rate swaps and to the agreement we have with Teekay
Corporation for the Suezmax tanker Toledo Spirit time-charter contract, respectively.
Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 11(g) Related Party Transactions and
Note 12 Derivative Instruments. The unrealized gains or losses relating to the change in
fair value of our derivative instruments do not impact our cash flows. |
|
|
|
Our financial results are affected by fluctuations in currency exchange rates.
Under GAAP, all foreign currency-denominated monetary assets and liabilities
(including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable, accounts
payable, accrued liabilities, unearned revenue, advances from affiliates, obligations under
capital lease and long-term debt) are revalued and reported based on the prevailing
exchange rate at the end of the period. These foreign currency translations fluctuate based
on the strength of the U.S. dollar relative mainly to the Euro and are included in our
results of operations. The translation of all foreign currency-denominated monetary assets
and liabilities at each reporting date results in unrealized foreign currency exchange
gains or losses but do not impact our cash flows. |
|
|
|
The size of our fleet changes. Our historical results of operations reflect
changes in the size and composition of our fleet due to certain vessel deliveries. Please
read Liquefied Gas Segment below and Other Significant Projects above for further
details about certain prior and future vessel deliveries. |
|
|
|
Four of our Suezmax tankers earns revenues based partly on spot market rates.
The time-charter for four Suezmax tankers, the Teide Spirit, Algeciras Spirit, Huelva
Spirit and Tenerife Spirit contain a component providing for additional revenues to us
beyond the fixed-hire rate when spot market rates exceed certain threshold amounts.
Accordingly, even though declining spot market rates will not result in our receiving less
than the fixed-hire rate, our results at the end of each fiscal year may continue to be
influenced, in part, by the variable component of the charters. |
33
|
|
|
Vessel operating and other costs are facing industry-wide cost pressures. The
oil shipping industry is experiencing a global manpower shortage due to growth in the world
fleet. This shortage resulted in significant crew wage increases during 2008, to a lesser
degree in 2009 and during the first half of 2010. We expect that going forward, there will
be more upward pressure on crew compensation which will result in higher manning costs as
we keep pace with market conditions. In addition, factors such as pressure on raw material
prices and changes in regulatory requirements could also increase operating expenditures.
We continue to take measures to improve operational efficiencies and mitigate the impact of
inflation and price escalations; however, we believe that future operational costs will
increase. |
|
|
|
The amount and timing of drydockings of our vessels can significantly affect
our revenues between periods. Our vessels are off-hire at various points of time due to
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. During the year ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008, we had 197, 70 and 123 off-hire days relating to drydocking, respectively. The
financial impact from these periods of off-hire, if material, is explained in further
detail below. Five vessels are scheduled for drydocking in 2011. |
Year Ended December 31, 2010 versus Year Ended December 31, 2009
Liquefied Gas Segment
Our fleet includes 17 LNG carriers (including our 40% interest in four LNG carriers that are
accounted for under the equity method (or the RasGas 3 LNG Carriers), our 69% interest in the
Tangguh Joint Venture, which owns the Tangguh Hiri and the Tangguh Sago (or the Tangguh LNG
Carriers), our 70% interest in Teekay Nakilat Corporation (or Teekay Nakilat), which is the lessee
under 30-year capital lease arrangements relating to three LNG carriers (or the RasGas II LNG
Carriers), our 99% interest in the Arctic Spirit and Polar Spirit LNG carriers (or the Kenai LNG
Carriers), our 50% interest in the Excelsior Joint Venture and our 50% interest in the Excalibur
Joint Venture) and two LPG carriers. All of our LNG and LPG carriers operate under long-term,
fixed-rate time-charters. We expect our liquefied gas segment to increase due to the following:
|
|
|
We have agreed to acquire an LPG carrier for approximately $33 million upon its delivery
scheduled in 2011. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 13(b) Commitments
and Contingencies. |
|
|
|
We have agreed to acquire the Skaugen Multigas Carriers from Teekay Corporation for a
total cost of approximately $106 million upon the vessel deliveries, which are scheduled
for 2011. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 11(i) Related Party
Transactions and Note 13(a) Commitments and Contingencies. |
|
|
|
We have agreed to acquire Teekay Corporations 33% ownership interest in the consortium
relating to the Angola LNG Project deliveries of the related four newbuilding LNG carriers,
which are scheduled for 2011 and 2012. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note
16(a) Other Information. |
The following tables compare our liquefied gas segments operating results for the years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and compare its net voyage revenues (which is a non-GAAP financial
measure) for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, to voyage revenues, the most directly
comparable GAAP financial measure. The following tables also provide a summary of the changes in
calendar-ship-days and revenue days for our liquefied gas segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except revenue days, |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
calendar-ship-days and percentages) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
264,816 |
|
|
|
252,854 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
(97.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net voyage revenues |
|
|
264,787 |
|
|
|
251,836 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
46,496 |
|
|
|
50,919 |
|
|
|
(8.7 |
) |
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
60,954 |
|
|
|
59,088 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
General and administrative (1) |
|
|
12,239 |
|
|
|
11,033 |
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
Gain on sale of vessel |
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Restructuring charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
149,438 |
|
|
|
129,415 |
|
|
|
15.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Days (A) |
|
|
5,005 |
|
|
|
4,491 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
Calendar-Ship-Days (B) |
|
|
5,051 |
|
|
|
4,637 |
|
|
|
8.9 |
|
Utilization (A)/(B) |
|
|
99.1 |
% |
|
|
96.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes direct general and administrative expenses and indirect general and
administrative expenses (allocated to each segment based on estimated use of resources). |
Our liquefied gas segments operating results included 11 LNG (not including the four RasGas
3 LNG Carriers or the two LNG carriers jointly owned with Exmar that are accounted for under the
equity method) and 3 LPG carriers (including the Dania Spirit that was sold on November 5, 2010)
during the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Our total calendar-ship-days
increased by 9% to 5,051 days in the year ended December 31, 2010 from 4,637 days in the year ended
December 31, 2009 as a result of the Tangguh Sago, Norgas Pan and Norgas Cathinka deliveries in
March, April and November 2009, respectively, partially offset by the sale of the Dania Spirit in
November 2010.
34
During the year ended December 31, 2010, three of our gas carriers, the Arctic Spirit, Dania Spirit
and Hispania Spirit were off-hire for approximately 22 days, 22 days and 2 days, respectively,
relating to scheduled drydockings and in-water surveys, compared to 71 off-hire days in 2009.
Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues increased during 2010 compared to 2009, primarily as a
result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $11.0 million due to the commencement of the time-charter for the Tangguh
Sago in May 2009 and an increase in the time-charter rate for the Tangguh Hiri relating to
the operating element of the time-charter; |
|
|
|
an increase of $4.1 million due to the commencement of the time-charters for the Norgas
Pan and the Norgas Cathinka in April and November 2009, respectively; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $4.0 million due to the Galacia Spirit and Madrid Spirit not having any
off-hire days in 2010, compared to 53 off-hire days in 2009 relating to scheduled
drydockings; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $2.9 million, due to the effect on our Euro-denominated revenues from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar compared to the same periods last year; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.2 million due to a decrease in the hire rates for the Arctic Spirit and
Polar Spirit as compared to the same periods last year as a result of crewing rate
adjustments; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.1 million due to the Arctic Spirit being off-hire for 22 days in the
first quarter of 2010 for a scheduled drydock; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.7 million due to the sale of the Dania Spirit on November 5, 2010. |
Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses decreased during 2010 compared to 2009,
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.7 million due (a) to the Arctic Spirit being without a charter for most
of 2010 and as a result, operating with a reduced number of crew on board and with reduced
repair and maintenance activities and (b) decreased crew and manning costs upon the change
of manning agency services of the Kenai LNG Carriers in October 2009; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.8 million due to our electing to cancel our loss-of-hire insurance in
2009 and self insuring and a reduction in manning levels for certain of our LNG carriers; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.1 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated expenses from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar compared to the same periods last year; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.7 million due to the sale of the Dania Spirit on November 5, 2010; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
an increase of $0.9 million due to additional crew training expenses and crew manning
relating to the delivery of the Tangguh Sago in March 2009 and commencement of its
time-charter contract in May 2009. |
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased during 2010 compared to
2009, primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $1.9 million relating to depreciation of drydock expenditures incurred
during the third and fourth quarters of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.1 million from the delivery of the Norgas Pan and Norgas Cathinka in
April and November 2009, respectively; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.1 million from the delivery of the Tangguh Sago in March 2009, prior to
the commencement of the external time-charter contract in May 2009 which is accounted for
as a direct financing lease; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.3 million due to the sale of the Dania Spirit on November 5, 2010. |
Gain on sale of vessel. The $4.3 million gain on sale of vessel in 2010 relates to the sale of the
Dania Spirit on November 5, 2010 for proceeds of $21.5 million.
Conventional Tanker Segment
Our fleet includes ten Suezmax-class double-hulled conventional crude oil tankers and one Handymax
Product tanker. All of our conventional tankers operate under long-term, fixed-rate time-charters.
On March 17, 2010, we purchased from Teekay Corporation the two 2009-built Centrofin Suezmaxes
and a 2007-built Handymax Product tanker, the Alexander Spirit. These vessels have been included
in our results as if they were acquired on May 27, 2009 (Bermuda Spirit), June 24, 2009 (Hamilton
Spirit) and September 3, 2009 (Alexander Spirit). As a result of these acquisitions, our total
conventional tanker segment calendar ship days increased by 16% to 4,015 days for the year ended
December 31, 2010 from 3,448 days for the year ended December 31, 2009.
35
The following tables compare our conventional tanker segments operating results for the year
ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, and compare its net voyage revenues (which is a non-GAAP
financial measure) for the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 to voyage revenues, the most
directly comparable GAAP financial measure. The following tables also provide a summary of the
changes in calendar-ship-days and revenue days for our conventional tanker segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except revenue days, |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
calendar-ship-days and percentages) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
109,192 |
|
|
|
90,194 |
|
|
|
21.1 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
2,013 |
|
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
98.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net voyage revenues |
|
|
107,179 |
|
|
|
89,178 |
|
|
|
20.2 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
38,081 |
|
|
|
31,455 |
|
|
|
21.1 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
28,393 |
|
|
|
23,598 |
|
|
|
20.3 |
|
General and administrative (1) |
|
|
11,008 |
|
|
|
8,731 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
Restructuring charge |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
1,869 |
|
|
|
(90.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
29,522 |
|
|
|
23,525 |
|
|
|
25.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Days (A) |
|
|
3,864 |
|
|
|
3,426 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
Calendar-Ship-Days (B) |
|
|
4,015 |
|
|
|
3,448 |
|
|
|
16.4 |
|
Utilization (A)/(B) |
|
|
96.2 |
% |
|
|
99.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes direct general and administrative expenses and indirect general and
administrative expenses (allocated to each segment based on estimated use of corporate resources). |
Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues increased during 2010 compared to 2009, primarily as
a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $10.2 million due to the commencement of the time-charters for the two
Centrofin Suezmaxes in May and June 2009; |
|
|
|
an increase of $9.2 million due to the acquisition of the Alexander Spirit in September
2009 by Teekay Corporation; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.2 million relating to higher revenues earned on four Suezmax tankers
(Teide Spirit, Algeciras Spirit, Huelva Spirit and Tenerife Spirit) due to market rates
exceeding specified amounts under our time charter (the time charter for the four Suezmax
vessels contain a component providing for additional revenues to us beyond the fixed hire
rate when spot market rates exceed threshold amounts); |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.0 million relating to higher revenues earned by the Toledo Spirit
relating to the agreement between us and Teekay Corporation for the Toledo Spirit
time-charter contract (however, we had a corresponding increase in our realized loss on
derivatives; therefore this increase and future increases or decreases related to this
agreement did not and will not affect our cash flow or net income (loss)); and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million due to the Teide Spirit being off-hire for 16 days during
2009 for a scheduled drydock; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $3.8 million due to the Tenerife Spirit, Algeciras Spirit and Toledo
Spirit being off-hire for 73, 63 and 15 days, respectively, during 2010 for scheduled
drydockings; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.2 million due to interest-rate adjustments to
the daily charter rates under the time-charter contracts for five Suezmax tankers (however,
under the terms of these capital leases, we also had corresponding decreases in our lease
payments, which are reflected as decreases to interest expense). |
Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses increased during 2010 compared to 2009,
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, from the delivery of
the two Centrofin Suezmaxes in May and June 2009 and the acquisition of the Alexander
Spirit by Teekay Corporation in September 2009; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.6 million due to the change in nationality of some of the seafarers on
certain of our vessels during 2010 and 2009 as part of our restructuring plan. |
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased during 2010 compared to
2009, as a result of the delivery of the two Centrofin Suezmaxes in May and June 2009 and the
acquisition of the Alexander Spirit by Teekay Corporation in September 2009.
36
Other Operating Results
General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses increased 18% to $23.2
million for 2010, from $19.8 million for 2009, primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $2.0 million paid to Teekay Corporation for its support of the successful
purchase of the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures on November 4, 2010; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.8 million attributable to the operations of the Centrofin Suezmaxes
and the Alexander Spirit for a full year; which were acquired from Teekay Corporation in
early 2010; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million related to a full year of ship management service fees
incurred on our Spanish vessels compared to a partial year in 2009; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million associated with corporate services provided to us by Teekay
Corporation; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.2 million related to an increase in corporate services fees for the
Tangguh Joint Venture and Teekay Nakilat as agreed to by the respective joint ventures; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.5 million due to lower expenses incurred in our Spain office as a
result of our 2009 restructuring plan. |
Restructuring Charge. During 2009, we restructured certain ship management functions from our
office in Spain to a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation and changed the nationality of certain
seafarer positions. During the year ended December 31, 2009, we incurred $3.3 million in connection
with these restructuring plans compared to a nominal amount for 2010.
Interest Expense. Interest expense decreased to $49.0 million for 2010, from $60.5 million for
2009. Interest expense primarily reflects interest incurred on our capital lease obligations and
long-term debt. This decrease was primarily the result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $7.8 million from the scheduled loan payments on the LNG carrier Catalunya
Spirit, and scheduled capital lease repayments on the LNG carrier Madrid Spirit (the Madrid
Spirit is financed pursuant to a Spanish tax lease arrangement, under which we borrowed
under a term loan and deposited the proceeds into a restricted cash account and entered
into a capital lease for the vessel; as a result, this decrease in interest expense from
the capital lease is offset by a corresponding decrease in interest income from restricted
cash); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $4.3 million due to principal debt repayments made during 2010 and the
third and fourth quarters of 2009 and a decrease of the LIBOR rates relating to our
variable-rate debts; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.2 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated debt from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar during 2010; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.2 million from declining interest rates on our five Suezmax tanker
capital lease obligations (however, as described above, under the terms of the time-charter
contracts for these vessels, we also had decreases in charter receipts, which are
reflected as decreases to voyage revenues); |
partially offset by
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million relating to the interest expense attributable to a full year
of operations of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the Alexander Spirit compared to a partial
year during 2009; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.1 million relating to higher amortization of deferred debt issuance
costs; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.5 million relating to one of our debt facilities which became
available in October 2009. |
Interest Income. Interest income decreased to $7.2 million for 2010, from $13.9 million for 2009.
Interest income primarily reflects interest earned on restricted cash deposits that approximate the
present value of the remaining amounts we owe under lease arrangements on four of our LNG carriers.
This decrease was primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $4.8 million due to scheduled capital lease repayments on one of our LNG
carriers which was funded from restricted cash; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.5 million due to decreases in LIBOR rates relating to the restricted
cash in Teekay Nakilat that is used to fund capital lease payments for the RasGas II LNG
Carriers; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.3 million due to the due to the weakening of the Euro against the U.S.
Dollar during 2010. |
37
Realized and Unrealized Loss on Derivative Instruments. Net realized and unrealized losses on
derivative instruments increased to a loss of $78.7 million for 2010, from a loss of $41.0 million
for 2009 as set forth in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
(42,495 |
) |
|
|
(34,906 |
) |
|
|
(77,401 |
) |
|
|
(36,222 |
) |
|
|
(11,143 |
) |
|
|
(47,365 |
) |
Toledo Spirit time-charter derivative |
|
|
(1,919 |
) |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
(1,319 |
) |
|
|
(940 |
) |
|
|
7,355 |
|
|
|
6,415 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,414 |
) |
|
|
(34,306 |
) |
|
|
(78,720 |
) |
|
|
(37,162 |
) |
|
|
(3,788 |
) |
|
|
(40,950 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Exchange Gains (Losses). Foreign currency exchange gains (losses) were $27.5
million and ($10.8) million for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. These
foreign currency exchange gains and losses, substantially all of which were unrealized, are due
primarily to the relevant period-end revaluation of our Euro-denominated term loans, capital leases
and restricted cash for financial reporting purposes. Gains reflect a strengthening U.S. Dollar
against the Euro on the date of revaluation. Losses reflect a weaker U.S. Dollar against the Euro
on the date of revaluation.
Equity Income. Equity income was $8.0 million for 2010, compared to $27.6 million for 2009.
This change is primarily due to a decrease in RasGas 3 Joint Ventures unrealized gains on
derivatives for 2010, as compared to 2009 and combined with an increase in equity income relating
to the Excelsior and Excalibur Joint Ventures which were acquired in November 2010. The unrealized
(loss) gain on interest rate swaps included in equity income for the years ended December 31, 2010
and 2009 was ($6.5) million and $10.9 million, respectively.
Year Ended December 31, 2009 versus Year Ended December 31, 2008
Liquefied Gas Segment
We operated 18 LNG and LPG carriers (including our 40% interest in four LNG carriers which are
accounted for under the equity method following their deliveries between May and July 2008) during
2009 and 15 LNG and LPG carriers in 2008. On April 1, 2008, we purchased from Teekay Corporation
the two Kenai LNG Carriers, the Arctic Spirit and the Polar Spirit; however, as they are included
among the vessels constituting the Dropdown Predecessor, they have been included in our results as
if they were acquired on December 13 and 14, 2007, respectively, when they began operations under
the ownership of Teekay Corporation. The Tannguh Hiri, Tangguh Sago, Norgas Pan and Norgas Camilla
delivered on November 2008, March 2009, April 2009 and November 2009, respectively. As a result our
total calendar ship days increased by 25% to 4,637 days in 2009 from 3,701 days in 2008. In August
2009, we purchased from Teekay Corporation the Tangguh LNG Carriers however, as Teekay Tangguh was
a variable interest entity in which we were the primary beneficiary, it has been included in our
results since November 2006.
The following tables compare our liquefied gas segments operating results for the years ended 2009
and 2008, and compare its net voyage revenues (which is a non-GAAP financial measure) for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, to voyage revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP financial
measure. The following tables also provide a summary of the changes in calendar-ship-days and
revenue days for our liquefied gas segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except revenue days, |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
calendar-ship-days and percentages) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
252,854 |
|
|
|
222,318 |
|
|
|
13.7 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
1,397 |
|
|
|
(27.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net voyage revenues |
|
|
251,836 |
|
|
|
220,921 |
|
|
|
14.0 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
50,919 |
|
|
|
49,400 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
59,088 |
|
|
|
57,880 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
General and administrative (1) |
|
|
11,033 |
|
|
|
11,247 |
|
|
|
(1.9 |
) |
Restructuring charge |
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
129,415 |
|
|
|
102,394 |
|
|
|
26.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Days (A) |
|
|
4,491 |
|
|
|
3,631 |
|
|
|
23.7 |
|
Calendar-Ship-Days (B) |
|
|
4,637 |
|
|
|
3,701 |
|
|
|
25.3 |
|
Utilization (A)/(B) |
|
|
96.9 |
% |
|
|
98.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes direct general and administrative expenses and indirect general and
administrative expenses (allocated to each segment based on estimated use of resources). |
During 2008 one of our LNG carriers, the Catalunya Spirit, was off-hire for approximately 6
days due to the loss of propulsion and 29 days for a scheduled drydock. The cost of the repairs was
$0.7 million and we recovered $0.5 million under a protection and indemnity insurance policy. The
vessel was repaired and resumed normal operations.
38
Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues increased during 2009 compared to 2008, primarily as a
result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $32.2 million due to the commencement of the time-charters for the two
Tangguh LNG Carriers in January and May 2009, respectively; |
|
|
|
an increase of $3.5 million due to the commencement of the time-charters for the Norgas
Pan and Norgas Cathinka in April and November 2009, respectively; |
|
|
|
an increase of $3.1 million due to the Catalunya Spirit being off-hire for 34.3 days
during 2008 for repairs; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.0 million due to the Polar Spirit being off-hire for 18.5 days during
2008 for a scheduled drydock; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million due to an escalation to the daily charter rates under the
time-charter contracts for three LNG carriers; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $3.8 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated revenues from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar compared to the same period last year; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $2.1 million due to the Madrid Spirit being off-hire for 25.2 days during
the third quarter of 2009 for a scheduled drydock; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.9 million due to the Galicia Spirit being off-hire for 27.6 days during
the third quarter of 2009 for a scheduled drydock; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.6 million due to a provision for crewing rate adjustment related to the
time-charter contract for the two Kenai LNG Carriers. |
Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses increased during 2009 compared to 2008,
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $6.3 million from the deliveries of the Tangguh LNG Carriers in November
2008 and March 2009, respectively; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $2.7 million relating to lower crew manning, insurance, and repairs and
maintenance costs; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.3 million relating to service costs associated with the Dania Spirit
being off-hire for 15.5 days during 2008 for a scheduled drydock; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.8 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated vessel operating
expenses from the weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar compared to the same period
last year (a portion of our vessel operating expenses, particularly those relating to
manning costs, are paid in Euros due to the nationality of our crew). |
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased during 2009 compared to
2008, primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $1.3 million from the delivery of the Tangguh Sago in March 2009 prior to
the commencement of the time-charter contract in May 2009 which is accounted for as a
direct financing lease; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.0 million from the delivery of the Norgas Pan and the Norgas Cathinka
in April and November 2009, respectively; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.2 million due to the amortization of costs associated with vessel cost
expenditures during 2008; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.2 million relating to amortization of drydock expenditures incurred
during 2009; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.0 million due to revised depreciation estimates; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.6 million from the commencement of the time-charter contract for the
Tangguh Hiri in January 2009 which is accounted for as a direct financing lease. |
Conventional Tanker Segment
We included ten Suezmax tankers and one Handymax tanker in 2009 as compared to 8 Suezmax tankers in
2008. On March 17, 2010 we purchased from Teekay Corporation the two 2009-built Centrofin
Suezmaxes and a 2007-bulit Handymax Product tanker, the Alexander Spirit. These vessels have been
included in our results as if they were acquired on May 27, 2009 (Bermuda Spirit), June 24, 2009
(Hamilton Spirit) and September 3, 2009 (Alexander Spirit). As a result of these acquisitions, our
total Conventional tanker segment calendar ship days increased by 18% to 3,448 days in 2009 from
2,928 days in 2008. All of our Suezmax tankers operate under long-term, fixed-rate time-charters.
39
The following table compares our Conventional tanker segments operating results for the year ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and compares its net voyage revenues (which is a non-GAAP financial
measure) for the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, to voyage revenues, the most directly
comparable GAAP financial measure. The following table also provides a summary of the changes in
calendar-ship-days and revenue days for our Conventional tanker segment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except revenue days, |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
calendar-ship-days and percentages) |
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
90,194 |
|
|
|
92,086 |
|
|
|
(2.1 |
) |
Voyage expenses |
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
1,856 |
|
|
|
(45.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net voyage revenues |
|
|
89,178 |
|
|
|
90,230 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
31,455 |
|
|
|
27,713 |
|
|
|
13.5 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
23,598 |
|
|
|
19,000 |
|
|
|
24.2 |
|
General and administrative (1) |
|
|
8,731 |
|
|
|
8,954 |
|
|
|
(2.5 |
) |
Restructuring charge |
|
|
1,869 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
(100.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
23,525 |
|
|
|
30,915 |
|
|
|
(23.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Days (A) |
|
|
3,426 |
|
|
|
2,866 |
|
|
|
19.5 |
|
Calendar-Ship-Days (B) |
|
|
3,448 |
|
|
|
2,928 |
|
|
|
17.8 |
|
Utilization (A)/(B) |
|
|
99.4 |
% |
|
|
97.9 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes direct general and administrative expenses and indirect general and
administrative expenses (allocated to each segment based on estimated use of corporate resources). |
Net Voyage Revenues. Net voyage revenues decreased during 2009 compared to 2008, primarily as a
result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $7.7 million relating to lower revenues earned by the Toledo Spirit
relating to the agreement between us and Teekay Corporation for the Toledo Spirit time
charter contract (however, we had a corresponding decrease in our realized loss on
derivatives; therefore this decrease and future increases or decreases related to this
agreement did not and will not affect our cash flow or net income); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $6.3 million due to interest-rate adjustments to
the daily charter rates under the time-charter contracts for five Suezmax tankers (however,
under the terms of these capital leases, we also had decreases in our lease
payments, which are reflected as decreases to interest expense); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $6.0 million relating to lower revenues earned by the Teide Spirit due to
market rates being lower than specified amounts under our time charter (the time charter
for the Teide Spirit contains a component providing for additional revenues to us beyond
the fixed hire rate when spot market rates exceed threshold amounts); and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.4 million due to the Teide Spirit being off-hire for 16 days during
2009 for a scheduled drydock; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
an increase of $17.0 million due to the acquisitions of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the
Alexander Spirit; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.6 million relating to lower bunker fuel expense incurred during vessel
drydocking; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.6 million due to the European Spirit being off-hire for 24.1 days
during 2008 for a scheduled drydock; |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.5 million due to the African Spirit being off-hire for 19 days during
2008 for a scheduled drydock; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.5 million due to the Asian Spirit being off-hire for 19.4 days during
2008 for a scheduled drydock. |
Vessel Operating Expenses. Vessel operating expenses increased during 2009 compared to 2008,
primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $4.9 million relating to the acquisitions of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and
the Alexander Spirit; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.9 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated vessel operating
expenses from the weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar during such period compared
to the same periods last year (a portion of our vessel operating expenses are denominated
in Euros, which is primarily due to the nationality of our crew); and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.1 million relating to lower crew manning, insurance, and repairs and
maintenance costs. |
Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased during 2009 compared to
2008, primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
an increase of $3.9 million due to the acquisitions of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the
Alexander Spirit; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.6 million due to the amortization of costs associated with the
scheduled drydockings during 2008 relating to the European Spirit, the Asian Spirit and
the African Spirit. |
40
Goodwill Impairment. During 2008, due to the decline in market conditions, we conducted an
interim impairment review of our reporting units during 2008. The fair value of the reporting units
was estimated using the expected present value of future cash flows. The fair value of the
reporting units was then compared to its carrying values and it was determined that the fair value
attributable our Conventional tanker segment was less than its carrying value. As a result of our
review, a goodwill impairment loss of $3.6 million was recognized in the Conventional tanker
reporting unit during 2008. In 2009, we conducted a goodwill impairment review of our liquefied gas
segment and concluded that no impairment existed at December 31, 2009.
Other Operating Results
General and Administrative Expenses. General and administrative expenses decreased 2.2% to $19.8
million for 2009 from $20.2 million for 2008. This decrease was primarily the result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $2.5 million relating to lower annual long-term incentive plan
accruals and the impact of our restructuring plan, which reduced the number of shore-based
staff in our Spain office; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.5 million relating to lower corporate and office expenses; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
an increase of $1.6 million due to the acquisitions of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the
Alexander Spirit; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.1 million associated with corporate services provided to us by
subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation. |
Restructuring Charge. During 2009, we restructured certain ship management functions from our
office in Spain to a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation and the change of the nationality of some of
the seafarers. During 2009, we incurred $3.3 million in connection with these restructuring plans.
Interest Expense. Interest expense decreased 56% to $60.5 million for 2009, from $138.3 million for
2008. Interest expense primarily reflects interest incurred on our capital lease obligations and
long-term debt. These decreases were primarily the result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $35.1 million as the debt relating to Teekay Nakilat (III) was
novated to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture on December 31, 2008. Please read Item 18
Financial Statements: Note 11(f) Related Party Transactions (the interest expense on
this debt is not reflected in our 2009 consolidated interest expense as the RasGas 3 Joint
Venture is accounted for using the equity method); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $20.0 million due to a decrease of LIBOR rates relating to the long-term
debt in Teekay Nakilat Corporation (or Teekay Nakilat). Please read Item 18 Financial
Statements: Note 9 Long-Term Debt; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $15.4 million from the scheduled loan payments on the Catalunya Spirit,
and scheduled capital lease repayments on the Madrid Spirit (the Madrid Spirit is financed
pursuant to a Spanish tax lease arrangement, under which we borrowed under a term loan and
deposited the proceeds into a restricted cash account and entered into a capital lease for
the vessel; as a result, this decrease in interest expense from the capital lease is offset
by a corresponding decrease in the interest income from restricted cash); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $4.7 million from declining interest rates on our five Suezmax tanker
capital lease obligations (however, as described above, under the terms of the time-charter
contracts for these vessels, we also had decreases in charter payments, which
are reflected as a decrease to voyage revenues); |
|
|
|
a decrease of $3.0 million relating to the interest expense attributable to the
operations of the Kenai LNG Carriers that was incurred by Teekay Corporation and allocated
to us as part of the results of the Dropdown Predecessor; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $2.2 million relating to debt used to fund general corporate purposes; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.6 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated debt from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar during such period compared to the same
periods last year; |
partially offset by
|
|
|
an increase of $2.5 million relating to debt to finance the purchase of the Tangguh LNG
Carriers as the interest on this debt was capitalized in 2008; |
|
|
|
an increase of $1.2 million due to the acquisition of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the
Alexander Spirit; and |
|
|
|
an increase of $0.4 million due to amortization of deferred debt issuance costs. |
Interest Income Interest income decreased 78% to $13.9 million for 2009, from $64.3 million in
2008. Interest income primarily reflects interest earned on restricted cash deposits that
approximate the present value of the remaining amounts we owe under lease arrangements on four of
our LNG carriers. These decreases were primarily as a result of:
|
|
|
a decrease of $33.5 million relating to interest-bearing advances made by us to the
RasGas 3 Joint Venture for shipyard construction installment payments repaid on December
31, 2008 when the debt was novated to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $13.4 million due to decreases in LIBOR rates relating to the restricted
cash in Teekay Nakilat that is used to fund capital lease payments for the RasGas II LNG
Carriers; |
41
|
|
|
a decrease of $1.5 million relating to lower interest rates on our bank accounts
compared to the same periods last year; |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.4 million due to the effect on our Euro-denominated deposits from the
weakening of the Euro against the U.S. Dollar during such periods compared to the same
period last year; and |
|
|
|
a decrease of $0.3 million primarily from scheduled capital lease repayments on one of
our LNG carriers which was funded from restricted cash deposits. |
Realized and Unrealized Loss on Derivative Instruments. Net realized and unrealized losses on
derivative instruments decreased 59% to ($41.0) million in 2009 from ($100.0) million in 2008 as
detailed in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
(36,222 |
) |
|
|
(11,143 |
) |
|
|
(47,365 |
) |
|
|
(6,788 |
) |
|
|
(82,543 |
) |
|
|
(89,331 |
) |
Toledo Spirit time-charter derivative |
|
|
(940 |
) |
|
|
7,355 |
|
|
|
6,415 |
|
|
|
(8,620 |
) |
|
|
(2,003 |
) |
|
|
(10,623 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,162 |
) |
|
|
(3,788 |
) |
|
|
(40,950 |
) |
|
|
(15,408 |
) |
|
|
(84,546 |
) |
|
|
(99,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Exchange (Losses) Gains. Foreign currency exchange (losses) gains were ($10.8)
million and $18.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. These
foreign currency exchange gains and losses, substantially all of which were unrealized, are due
primarily to the relevant period-end revaluation of Euro-denominated term loans and restricted cash
for financial reporting purposes. Losses reflect a weaker U.S. Dollar against the Euro on the date
of revaluation. Gains reflect a stronger U.S. Dollar against the Euro on the date of revaluation.
Equity Income. Equity income was $27.6 million for 2009, compared to a nominal income for 2008.
This change is primarily due to the operations of the four RasGas 3 LNG Carriers, which were
delivered between May and July 2008, and RasGas 3 Joint Ventures realized and unrealized gain on
its interest rate swaps. The unrealized gain on its interest rate swaps included in equity income
for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 was $10.9 million and nil, respectively.
Liquidity and Cash Needs
As at December 31, 2010, our cash and cash equivalents were $81.1 million, compared to $108.4
million at December 31, 2009. Our total liquidity which consists of cash, cash equivalents and
undrawn medium-term credit facilities, was $459.7 million as at December 31, 2010, compared to
$479.8 million as at December 31, 2009. The 2010 cash and liquidity amounts exclude amounts
attributable to the Dropdown Predecessor. The decrease in total liquidity is primarily due to
borrowings to partially finance the acquisition of Excelsior and Excalibur Joint Ventures from
Exmar NV and the acquisition of the Centrofin Suezmaxes and the Alexander Spirit from Teekay
Corporation in March 2010, repayments of long-term debt, advances and repayments to our joint
venture partners and drydocking expenditures, partially offset by the receipt of proceeds from our
direct equity placement in July 2010 and proceeds received from the sale of Dania Spirit in
November 2010.
Our primary short-term liquidity needs are to pay quarterly distributions on our outstanding units
and to fund general working capital requirements and drydocking expenditures, while our long-term
liquidity needs primarily relate to expansion and maintenance capital expenditures and debt
repayment. Expansion capital expenditures primarily represent the purchase or construction of
vessels to the extent the expenditures increase the operating capacity or revenue generated by our
fleet, while maintenance capital expenditures primarily consist of drydocking expenditures and
expenditures to replace vessels in order to maintain the operating capacity or revenue generated by
our fleet. We anticipate that our primary sources of funds for our short-term liquidity needs will
be cash flows from operations, while our long-term sources of funds will be from cash from
operations, long-term bank borrowings and other debt or equity financings, or a combination
thereof.
We are required to purchase five of our in-chartered Suezmax tankers, which are accounted for as
capital lease arrangements, in 2011. We anticipate that we will purchase these tankers either by
assuming the outstanding financing obligations that relate to them or by obtaining separate debt or
equity financing to complete the purchases if the lenders do not consent to our assuming the
financing obligations. In addition, as of December 31, 2010, we were also committed to acquiring
one LPG carrier from Skaugen and the two Skaugen Multigas Carriers. These additional purchase
commitments, scheduled to occur in 2011, total approximately $139 million. In March 2011, we also
agreed to purchase Teekay Corporations 33% interest in four LNG carriers expected to serve the
Angola LNG Project, for which we anticipate the total equity purchase price to be approximately $73
million (net of assumed debt), payable beginning in the fall of 2011. We intend to finance these
purchases with one or more of our existing revolving credit facilities, incremental debt, surplus
cash balances, proceeds from the issuance of additional common units, or combinations thereof.
Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 13 Commitments and Contingencies.
As described under Item 4 Information on the Company: C. Regulations Other Environmental
Initiatives, passage of any climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives that
restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could have a significant financial and operational impact on
our business, which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Such regulatory measures could
increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new
emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or
administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. In addition, increased regulation of
greenhouse gases may, in the long term, lead to reduced demand for oil and gas and reduced demand
for our services.
42
Cash Flows. The following table summarizes our cash flow for the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
(in thousands of U.S. dollars) |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash flow from operating activities |
|
|
174,970 |
|
|
|
171,384 |
|
Net cash flow used for financing activities |
|
|
(167,746 |
) |
|
|
(10,060 |
) |
Net cash flow used for investing activities |
|
|
(34,519 |
) |
|
|
(170,615 |
) |
Operating Cash Flows. Net cash flow from operating activities increased to $175.0
million in 2010 from $171.4 million in 2009, primarily due to the increase in operating cash flows
from the Tangguh Sago having commenced its charter in May 2009, the deliveries of the Norgas Pan
and Norgas Cathinka in April 2009 and November 2009, respectively, and the acquisitions of the
Centrofin Suezmaxes and the Alexander Spirit. This increase was partially offset by in the number
of off-hire days and drydocking expenses related to scheduled drydockings in 2010, compared to
2009, the timing of lease receipts from the Teekay Tangguh Joint Ventures operating leases and
changes in working capital due to the timing of our cash receipts and payments. Net cash flow from
operating activities depends upon the timing and amount of drydocking expenditures, repairs and
maintenance activity, vessel additions and dispositions, foreign currency rates, changes in
interest rates, fluctuations in working capital balances and spot market hire rates (to the extent
we have vessels operating in the spot tanker market or our hire rates are partially affected by
spot market rates). The number of vessel drydockings tends to vary each period.
Financing Cash Flows. Our investments in vessels and equipment are financed primarily with term
loans and capital lease arrangements. Proceeds from long-term debt were $100.9 million and $220.1
million, respectively, for 2010 and 2009. From time to time we refinance our loans and revolving
credit facilities. During 2010, we used the proceeds from long-term debt primarily to fund a
portion of the acquisition of the Centrofin Suezmaxes, the Alexander Spirit, Excelsior Joint
Venture and Excalibur Joint Venture.
On July 15, 2010, we completed a direct equity placement of approximately 1.7 million
common units at a price of $29.18 per unit, for net proceeds of approximately $50.9 million. Please
read item 18 Financial Statements: Note 3 Equity Offerings.
Cash distributions paid during 2010 increased to $135.5 million from $114.5 million for the same
period last year. This increase was the result of:
|
|
|
an increase in the number of units eligible to receive the cash distribution as a result
of equity offerings during 2009 and the direct equity placement in 2010 and as a result of
the acquisition of the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures; and |
|
|
|
an increase in our quarterly distribution to $0.60 per unit from $0.57 per unit starting
with the May 2010 distribution. |
Subsequent to December 31, 2010, a cash distribution totaling $37.7 million was declared with
respect to the fourth quarter of 2010, which was paid in February 2011.
Investing Cash Flows During 2010, we incurred $26.7 million in expenditures for vessels
and equipment. These expenditures represent construction payments for the two Skaugen Multigas
newbuildings and capital modifications for certain of our vessels. During 2010 we received proceeds
of $21.6 million from the sale of the Dania Spirit and used $35.2 million for the purchase of the
Excelsior and Excalibur Joint Ventures.
Credit Facilities
Our revolving credit facilities and term loans are described in Item 18 Financial Statements:
Note 9 Long-Term Debt. Our term loans and revolving credit facilities contain covenants and
other restrictions typical of debt financing secured by vessels, including, but not limited to, one
or more of the following that restrict the ship-owning subsidiaries from:
|
|
|
incurring or guaranteeing indebtedness; |
|
|
|
changing ownership or structure, including mergers, consolidations,
liquidations and dissolutions; |
|
|
|
making dividends or distributions if we are in default; |
|
|
|
making capital expenditures in excess of specified levels; |
|
|
|
making certain negative pledges and granting certain liens; |
|
|
|
selling, transferring, assigning or conveying assets; |
|
|
|
making certain loans and investments; and |
|
|
|
entering into a new line of business. |
Certain loan agreements require that minimum levels of tangible net worth and aggregate liquidity
be maintained, provide for a maximum level of leverage and require one of our subsidiaries to
maintain restricted cash deposits. Our ship-owning subsidiaries may not, among other things, pay
dividends or distributions if we are in default under our loan agreements and revolving credit
facilities. Our capital leases do not contain financial or restrictive covenants other than those
relating to operation and maintenance of the vessels. One of our term loans is guaranteed by Teekay
Corporation and contains covenants that require Teekay Corporation to maintain the greater of a
minimum liquidity (cash and cash equivalents) of at least $50.0 million and 5.0% of Teekay
Corporations total consolidated debt which has recourse to Teekay Corporation. As at December 31,
2010, we and our affiliates were in compliance with all covenants in our credit facilities and
capital leases.
43
Contractual Obligations and Contingencies
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as at December 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and |
|
|
and |
|
|
Beyond |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
(in millions of U.S. Dollars) |
|
U.S. Dollar-Denominated Obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (1) |
|
|
1,025.8 |
|
|
|
63.3 |
|
|
|
143.2 |
|
|
|
191.9 |
|
|
|
627.4 |
|
Commitments under capital leases (2) |
|
|
197.9 |
|
|
|
197.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments under capital leases (3) |
|
|
1,025.1 |
|
|
|
24.0 |
|
|
|
48.0 |
|
|
|
48.0 |
|
|
|
905.1 |
|
Commitments under operating leases (4) |
|
|
457.7 |
|
|
|
25.1 |
|
|
|
50.1 |
|
|
|
50.2 |
|
|
|
332.3 |
|
Purchase obligations (5) |
|
|
139.0 |
|
|
|
139.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. Dollar-denominated obligations |
|
|
2,845.5 |
|
|
|
449.3 |
|
|
|
241.3 |
|
|
|
290.1 |
|
|
|
1,864.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-Denominated Obligations: (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (7) |
|
|
373.3 |
|
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
213.6 |
|
|
|
16.3 |
|
|
|
130.3 |
|
Commitments under capital leases (8) |
|
|
86.8 |
|
|
|
86.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Euro-denominated obligations |
|
|
460.1 |
|
|
|
99.9 |
|
|
|
213.6 |
|
|
|
16.3 |
|
|
|
130.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|
3,305.6 |
|
|
|
549.2 |
|
|
|
454.9 |
|
|
|
306.4 |
|
|
|
1,995.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes expected interest payments of $17.0 million (2011), $29.7 million (2012 and
2013), $23.6 million (2014 and 2015) and $34.8 million (beyond 2015). Expected interest
payments are based on the existing interest rates (fixed-rate loans) and LIBOR at December 31,
2010, plus margins on debt that has been drawn that ranged up to 0.70% (variable-rate loans).
The expected interest payments do not reflect the effect of related interest rate swaps that
we have used as an economic hedge of certain of our variable-rate debt. Existing restricted
cash deposits of $12.4 million, together with the interest earned on these deposits, are
expected to repay a portion of our existing debt. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes, in addition to lease payments, amounts we are required to pay to purchase
certain leased vessels at the end of the lease terms. We are obligated to purchase five of our
existing Suezmax tankers upon the termination of the related capital leases, which may occur
in 2011. The purchase price will be based on the unamortized portion of the vessel
construction financing costs for the vessels, which we expect to range from $31.7 million to
$39.2 million per vessel. We expect to satisfy the purchase price either by assuming the
existing vessel financing or by obtaining separate debt or equity financing to complete the
purchases if the lenders do not consent to our assuming the financing obligations. We are also
obligated to purchase one of our existing LNG carriers upon the termination of the related
capital leases on December 31, 2011. The purchase obligation has been fully funded with
restricted cash deposits. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 5 Leases and
Restricted Cash. |
|
(3) |
|
Existing restricted cash deposits of $477.2 million, together with the interest
earned on these deposits, are expected to be sufficient to repay the remaining amounts we
currently owe under the lease arrangements. |
|
(4) |
|
We have corresponding leases whereby we are the lessor and expect to receive
approximately $419.1 million for these leases from 2011 to 2029. |
|
(5) |
|
We have entered into an agreement to acquire the third LPG Carrier from Skaugen,
for approximately $33.0 million upon its delivery, scheduled for 2011. In July 2008, the
Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries signed contracts for the purchase of the Skaugen Multigas
Carriers and we have agreed to purchase Skaugen Multigas subsidiaries from Teekay Corporation
for a total cost of approximately $106 million upon the vessel deliveries. Both vessels are
scheduled to be delivered in 2011. Please read Note 13a Commitments and Contingencies. |
|
|
|
In March 2011, we entered into an agreement to acquire Teekay Corporations 33% interest in four
Angola LNG carriers expected to serve the Angola LNG Project, for which we anticipate the total
equity purchase price to be approximately $73 million (net of assumed debt), payable beginning in
the fall of 2011. |
|
(6) |
|
Euro-denominated obligations are presented in U.S. Dollars and have been converted
using the prevailing exchange rate as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(7) |
|
Excludes expected interest payments of $5.3 million (2011), $5.9 million (2012 and
2013), $4.0 million (2014 and 2015) and $10.0 million (beyond 2015). Expected interest
payments are based on EURIBOR at December 31, 2010, plus margins that ranged up to 0.66%, as
well as the prevailing U.S. Dollar/Euro exchange rate as of December 31, 2010. The expected
interest payments do not reflect the effect of related interest rate swaps that we have used
as an economic hedge of certain of our variable-rate debt. |
|
(8) |
|
Existing restricted cash deposits of $82.6 million, together with the interest
earned on these deposits, are expected to equal the remaining amounts we owe under the lease
arrangement, including our obligation to purchase the vessel at the end of the lease term. |
44
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As of April 1, 2011, we are committed to acquire from Teekay Corporation the Skaugen Multigas
Carriers upon delivery for a total cost of approximately $106 million, and its 33% ownership
interest in four LNG carriers and related charter contracts for the Angola LNG Project at a total
equity purchase price of approximately $73 million (net of assumed debt), subject to adjustment
based on actual costs incurred at the time of delivery. In addition, we are committed to acquire
from Skaugen the third Skaugen LPG Carrier upon delivery for a total cost of approximately $33
million. We also have some guaranty obligations as detailed in Item 18 Financial Statements:
Note 5 Leases and Restricted Cash and Note 18 Equity Method Investments.
Critical Accounting Estimates
We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP, which require us to make
estimates in the application of our accounting policies based on our best assumptions, judgments
and opinions. On a regular basis, management reviews the accounting policies, assumptions,
estimates and judgments to ensure that our consolidated financial statements are presented fairly
and in accordance with GAAP. However, because future events and their effects cannot be determined
with certainty, actual results could differ from our assumptions and estimates, and such
differences could be material. Accounting estimates and assumptions discussed in this section are
those that we consider to be the most critical to an understanding of our financial statements,
because they inherently involve significant judgments and uncertainties. For a further description
of our material accounting policies, please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 1 Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies.
Vessel Lives and Impairment
Description. The carrying value of each of our vessels represents its original cost at the time of
delivery or purchase less depreciation or impairment charges. We depreciate our vessels on a
straight-line basis over a vessels estimated useful life, less an estimated residual value. The
carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time since
the market prices of second-hand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the
cost of newbuildings. Both charter rates and newbuilding costs tend to be cyclical in nature. We
review vessels and equipment for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate
the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. We measure the recoverability of an asset
by comparing its carrying amount to future undiscounted cash flows that the asset is expected to
generate over its remaining useful life.
Judgments and Uncertainties. Depreciation is calculated using an estimated useful life of 25 years
for Conventional tankers, 30 years for LPG Carriers and 35 years for LNG carriers, from the date
the vessel was originally delivered from the shipyard. In the shipping industry, the use of a
25-year vessel life for Conventional tankers has become the prevailing standard. In addition, the
use of a 30 to 35 year vessel life for LPG carriers and a 30 to 40 year vessel life for LNG
carriers is typical. However, the actual life of a vessel may be different, with a shorter life
resulting in an increase in the depreciation and potentially resulting in an impairment loss. The
estimates and assumptions regarding expected cash flows require considerable judgment and are based
upon existing contracts, historical experience, financial forecasts and industry trends and
conditions. We are not aware of any indicators of impairments nor any regulatory changes or
environmental liabilities that we anticipate will have a material impact on our current or future
operations.
Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If we consider a vessel or equipment to be
impaired, we recognize impairment in an amount equal to the excess of the carrying value of the
asset over its fair market value. The new lower cost basis will result in a lower annual
depreciation than before the vessel impairment. A one-year reduction in the estimated useful lives
of our Conventional tankers, our LPG carriers and our LNG carriers would result in an increase in
our current annual depreciation by approximately $3.2 million, assuming this decrease did not also
result in an impairment loss.
Drydocking Life
Description. We capitalize a portion of the costs we incur during drydocking and for an
intermediate survey and amortize those costs on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the
drydock. We expense costs related to routine repairs and maintenance incurred during drydocking
that do not improve operating efficiency or extend the useful lives of the assets.
Judgments and Uncertainties. Amortization of capitalized drydock expenditures requires us to
estimate the period of the next drydocking and useful life of drydock expenditures. While we
typically drydock each vessel every five years and have a shipping society classification
intermediate survey performed on our LNG and LPG carriers between the second and third year of the
five-year drydocking period, we may drydock the vessels at an earlier date, with a shorter life
resulting in an increase in the amortization.
Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If we change our estimate of the next drydock
date for a vessel, we will adjust our annual amortization of drydocking expenditures. Amortization
expense of capitalized drydock expenditures for 2010, 2009 and 2008 were $7.3 million, $4.5 million
and $3.6 million. As at December 31, 2010 and 2009, our capitalized drydock expenditures were $12.7
million and $9.7 million, respectively. A one-year reduction in the estimated useful lives of
capitalized drydock expenditures would result in an increase in our current annual amortization by
approximately $2.5 million
Goodwill and Intangible Assets
Description. We allocate the cost of acquired companies, including acquisitions of equity accounted
investments, to the identifiable tangible and intangible assets and liabilities acquired, with the
remaining amount being classified as goodwill. Certain intangible assets, such as time-charter
contracts, are being amortized over time. Our future operating performance will be affected by the
amortization of intangible assets and potential impairment charges related to goodwill.
Accordingly, the allocation of purchase price to intangible assets and goodwill may significantly
affect our future operating results. Goodwill and indefinite lived assets are not amortized, but
reviewed for impairment annually, or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. The process of
evaluating the potential impairment of goodwill and intangible assets is highly subjective and
requires significant judgment at many points during the analysis. A fair value approach is used to
identify potential goodwill impairment and, when necessary, measure the amount of impairment. We
use a discounted cash flow model to determine the fair value of reporting units, unless there is a
readily determinable fair market value.
45
Judgments and Uncertainties. The allocation of the purchase price of acquired companies to
intangible assets and goodwill requires management to make significant estimates and assumptions,
including estimates of future cash flows expected to be generated by the acquired assets and the
appropriate discount rate to value these cash flows. In addition, the process of evaluating the
potential impairment of goodwill and intangible assets is highly subjective and requires
significant judgment at many points during the analysis. The fair value of our reporting units was
estimated based on discounted expected future cash flows using a weighted-average cost of capital
rate. The estimates and assumptions regarding expected cash flows and the discount rate require
considerable judgment and are based upon existing contracts, historical experience, financial
forecasts and industry trends and conditions.
Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. Due to the decline in market conditions in 2008,
we conducted an interim impairment review of our reporting units during 2008. The fair value of the
reporting units was estimated using the expected present value of future cash flows. The fair value
of the reporting units was then compared to its carrying values and it was determined that the fair
value attributable our Conventional tanker reporting unit was less than its carrying value. As a
result, a goodwill impairment loss of $3.6 million was recognized in the Conventional tanker
reporting unit during 2008.
At December 31, 2010, we had one reporting unit with goodwill attributable to it. As of the date of
this filing, we do not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the goodwill
attributable to this reporting unit might be impaired within the next year. However, certain
factors that impact this assessment are inherently difficult to forecast and as such we cannot
provide any assurances that an impairment will or will not occur in the future. An assessment for
impairment involves a number of assumptions and estimates that are based on factors that are beyond
our control. These are discussed in more detail in the following section entitled Forward-Looking
Statements.
Amortization expense of intangible assets for each of the years 2010, 2009 and 2008 was $9.1
million. If actual results are not consistent with our estimates used to value our intangible
assets, we may be exposed to an impairment charge and a decrease in the annual amortization expense
of our intangible assets.
Valuation of Derivative Instruments
Description. Our risk management policies permit the use of derivative financial instruments to
manage interest rate risk. Changes in fair value of derivative financial instruments that are not
designated as cash flow hedges for accounting purposes are recognized in earnings.
Judgments and Uncertainties. The fair value of our interest rate swap agreements is the estimated
amount that we would receive or pay to terminate the agreements at the reporting date, taking into
account current interest rates and the current credit worthiness of both us and the swap
counterparties. The estimated amount is the present value of future cash flows. The process of
determining credit worthiness is highly subjective and requires significant judgment at many points
during the analysis. The fair value of our derivative instrument relating to the agreement between
us and Teekay Corporation for the Toledo Spirit time-charter contract is the estimated amount that
we would receive or pay to terminate the agreement at the reporting date. This amount is estimated
using the present value of our projection of future spot market tanker rates, which has been
derived from current spot market rates and long-term historical average rates.
Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If our estimates of fair value are inaccurate,
this could result in a material adjustment to the carrying amount of derivative asset or liability
and consequently the change in fair value for the applicable period that would have been recognized
in earnings. See Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 12 Derivative Instruments for the
effects on the change in fair value of our derivative instruments on our consolidated statements of
income (loss).
Taxes
Description. We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that
is more likely than not to be realized.
Judgments and Uncertainties. The future realization of deferred tax assets depends on the existence
of sufficient taxable income of the appropriate character in either the carryback or carryforward
period. This analysis requires, among other things, the use of estimates and projections in
determining future reversals of temporary differences, forecasts of future profitability and
evaluating potential tax-planning strategies.
Effect if Actual Results Differ from Assumptions. If we determined that we were able to realize a
net deferred tax asset in the future, in excess of the net recorded amount, an adjustment to the
deferred tax assets would typically increase our net income (or decrease our loss) in the period
such determination was made. Likewise, if we determined that we were not able to realize all or a
part of our deferred tax asset in the future, an adjustment to the deferred tax assets would
typically decrease our net income (or increase our loss) in the period such determination was made.
As at December 31, 2010, we had a valuation allowance of $38.4 million (2009 $24.9 million).
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In January 2010, we adopted an amendment to Financial Accounting Standards Board (or FASB)
Accounting Standards Codification (or ASC) 810, Consolidations, that eliminates certain exceptions
to consolidating qualifying special-purpose entities, contains new criteria for determining the
primary beneficiary, and increases the frequency of required reassessments to determine whether a
company is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity. This amendment also contains a
new requirement that any term, transaction, or arrangement that does not have a substantive effect
on an entitys status as a variable interest entity, a companys power over a variable interest
entity, or a companys obligation to absorb losses or its right to receive benefits of an entity
must be disregarded. The elimination of the qualifying special-purpose entity concept and its
consolidation exceptions means more entities will be subject to consolidation assessments and
reassessments. During February 2010, the scope of the revised standard was modified to indefinitely
exclude certain entities from the requirement to be assessed for consolidation. The adoption of
this amendment did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In July 2010, the FASB issued an amendment to FASB ASC 310, Receivables, that requires companies to
provide more information in their disclosures about the credit quality of their financing
receivables and the credit reserves held against them. Our adoption of this amendment has been
included in our financial statement note disclosures. See Item 18: Note 1 Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies.
46
Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted
In September 2009, the FASB issued an amendment to FASB ASC 605, Revenue Recognition, that provides
for a new methodology for establishing the fair value for a deliverable in a multiple-element
arrangement. When vendor specific objective or third-party evidence for deliverables in a
multiple-element arrangement cannot be determined, we will be required to develop a best estimate
of the selling price of separate deliverables and to allocate the arrangement consideration using
the relative selling price method. This amendment will be effective for us on January 1, 2011. It
is expected that this amendment will not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements.
|
|
|
Item 6. |
|
Directors, Senior Management and Employees |
Management of Teekay LNG Partners L.P.
Teekay GP L.L.C., our General Partner, manages our operations and activities. Unitholders are not
entitled to elect the directors of our General Partner or directly or indirectly participate in our
management or operation.
Our General Partner owes a fiduciary duty to our unitholders. Our General Partner is liable, as
general partner, for all of our debts (to the extent not paid from our assets), except for
indebtedness or other obligations that are expressly nonrecourse to it. Whenever possible, our
General Partner intends to cause us to incur indebtedness or other obligations that are nonrecourse
to it.
The directors of our General Partner oversee our operations. The day-to-day affairs of our business
are managed by the officers of our General Partner and key employees of certain of our operating
subsidiaries. Employees of certain subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation provide assistance to us and
our operating subsidiaries pursuant to services agreements. Please read Item 7 Major Unitholders
and Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.
The Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of our General Partner, Peter Evensen,
allocates his time between managing our business and affairs and the business and affairs of Teekay
Corporation and its subsidiaries Teekay Offshore (NYSE: TOO) Teekay Tankers Ltd. (NYSE: TNK) (or
Teekay Tankers). Mr. Evensen is the Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer of Teekay
Corporation and effective April 1, 2011, he will assume the position of President and Chief
Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation. He also holds the roles of Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Teekay Offshores General Partner and the Executive Vice President of
Teekay Tankers. The amount of time Mr. Evensen allocates between our business and the businesses of
Teekay Corporation, Teekay Offshore and Teekay Tankers varies from time to time depending on
various circumstances and needs of the businesses, such as the relative levels of strategic
activities of the businesses. We believe Mr. Evensen devotes sufficient time to our business and
affairs as is necessary for their proper conduct.
Officers of Teekay LNG Projects Ltd., a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation, allocate their time
between providing strategic consulting and advisory services to certain of our operating
subsidiaries and pursuing LNG and LPG project opportunities for Teekay Corporation, which projects,
if awarded to Teekay Corporation, are offered to us pursuant to the non-competition provisions of
the omnibus agreement. This agreement has previously been filed with the SEC. Please see Item 19
Exhibits.
Officers of our General Partner and those individuals providing services to us or our subsidiaries
may face a conflict regarding the allocation of their time between our business and the other
business interests of Teekay Corporation or its affiliates. Our General Partner seeks to cause its
officers to devote as much time to the management of our business and affairs as is necessary for
the proper conduct of our business and affairs.
Directors, Executive Officers and Key Employees
The following table provides information about the directors and executive officers of our General
Partner and a key employee of our operating subsidiary Teekay Shipping Spain SL Directors are
elected for one-year terms. The business address of each of our directors and executive officers
listed below is c/o 4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08,
Bermuda. The business address of our key employee of Teekay Shipping Spain SL. is Musgo Street
528023, Madrid, Spain. Ages of the directors are as of December 31, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
|
Position |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Sean Day
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
Chairman |
Bjorn Moller
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
Vice Chairman and Director until April 1, 2011(1) |
Peter Evensen
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director |
Robert E. Boyd
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Director (2) (3) |
Kenneth Hvid
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
Director (4) |
Ida Jane Hinkley
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Director (2) |
Ihab J.M. Massoud
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
Director (3) |
George Watson
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
Director (2) (3) |
Andres Luna
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Managing Director, Teekay Shipping Spain SL |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Moller served as Vice Chairman and Director of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. for the
period covered by this report. |
|
(2) |
|
Member of Audit Committee and Conflicts Committee. |
|
(3) |
|
Member of Corporate Governance Committee. |
|
(4) |
|
Effective April 1, 2011. |
47
Certain biographical information about each of these individuals is set forth below:
C. Sean Day has served as Chairman of Teekay GP L.L.C. since it was formed in November 2004. Mr.
Day has also served as Chairman of the Board for Teekay Corporation since September 1999, Teekay
Offshore GP L.L.C. since it was formed in August 2006, and Teekay Tankers Ltd. since it was formed
in October 2007. From 1989 to 1999, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of Navios
Corporation, a large bulk shipping company based in Stamford, Connecticut. Prior to this, Mr. Day
held a number of senior management positions in the shipping and finance industry. He is currently
serving as a Director of Kirby Corporation and Chairman of Compass Diversified Holdings. Mr. Day
is engaged as a consultant to Kattegat Limited, the parent company of Teekays largest shareholder,
to oversee its investments, including that in the Teekay group of companies.
Bjorn Moller served as the Vice Chairman and Director of Teekay GP L.L.C. since it was formed in
November 2004 until April 1, 2011. Mr. Moller served as the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Teekay Corporation from April 1998 until April 1, 2011. He also served as Vice Chairman and
Director of Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C., formed in August 2006, and Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Teekay Tankers Ltd., formed in October 2007, in each case until he resigned on April 1,
2011. Mr. Moller has over 25 years experience in the shipping industry, and has served as Chairman
of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation since 2006 and on the Board of American
Petroleum Institute since 2000. He has held senior management positions with Teekay for more than
15 years, and has led Teekay Corporations overall operations since January 1997, following his
promotion to the position of Chief Operating Officer. Prior to this, Mr. Moller headed Teekay
Corporations global chartering operations and business development activities.
Peter Evensen has served as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Teekay GP L.L.C. since it was formed in November 2004 and as a Director since January 2005. He has
also served as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and a Director of Teekay Offshore
GP L.L.C., formed in August 2006, respectively. In September 2010, Mr. Evensen was appointed Chief
Executive Officer elect and effective April 1, 2011, he will assume the position of President and
Chief Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation, and he was appointed Executive Vice President and a
Director of Teekay Tankers Ltd., formed in October 2007. He joined Teekay Corporation in May 2003
as Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. He was appointed to his current
positions with Teekay Corporation in February 2004. Mr. Evensen has over 20 years experience in
banking and shipping finance. Prior to joining Teekay Corporation, Mr. Evensen was Managing
Director and Head of Global Shipping at J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., and worked in other senior
positions for its predecessor firms. His international industry experience includes positions in
New York, London and Oslo.
Robert E. Boyd has served as a Director of Teekay GP L.L.C. since January 2005. From
May 1999 until his retirement in March 2004, Mr. Boyd was employed as the Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Teknion Corporation, a company engaged in the design, manufacture and
marketing of office systems and office furniture products. From 1991 to 1999, Mr. Boyd was employed
by The Oshawa Group Limited, a company engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of food
products and real estate activities, where his positions included Executive Vice
President-Financial and Chief Financial Officer. Prior to 1991, Mr. Boyd held senior financial
positions with several major companies, including Gulf Oil Corporation.
Kenneth Hvid became a director of Teekay GP L.L.C. on April 1, 2011. He joined Teekay Corporation
in October 2000 and was responsible for leading its global procurement activities until he was
promoted in 2004 to Senior Vice President, Teekay Gas Services. During this time, Mr. Hvid was
involved in leading Teekay Corporation through its entry and growth in the LNG business. He held
this position until the beginning of 2006, when he was appointed President of the Teekay Navion
Shuttle Tankers and Offshore division of Teekay Corporation. In this role, he is responsible for
Teekay Corporations global shuttle tanker business as well as initiatives in the floating storage
and offtake business and related offshore activities. Mr. Hvid has 18 years of global shipping
experience, 12 of which were spent with A.P. Moller in Copenhagen, San Francisco and Hong Kong. Mr.
Hvid was appointed to Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Vice President of Teekay Corporation
effective April 2011.
Ida Jane Hinkley has served as a Director of Teekay GP L.L.C. since January 2005. From 1998 to
2001, she served as Managing Director of Navion Shipping AS, a shipping company at that time
affiliated with the Norwegian state-owned oil company Statoil ASA (and subsequently acquired by
Teekay Corporations in 2003). From 1980 to 1997, Ms. Hinkley was employed by the Gotaas-Larsen
Shipping Corporation, an international provider of marine transportation services for crude oil and
gas (including LNG), serving as its Chief Financial Officer from 1988 to 1992 and its Managing
Director from 1993 to 1997. She currently serves as a non executive director on the Board of
Premier Oil plc, a London Stock Exchange listed oil exploration and production company. From 2007
to 2008 she served as a non executive director on the Board of Revus Energy ASA, a Norwegian listed
oil company.
I. Joseph Massoud has served as a Director of Teekay GP L.L.C. since January 2005. Mr. Massoud is
also Managing Member of Compass Group Management L.L.C., a position he has held since 1998. Since
2006, he has also served as Chief Executive Officer of Compass Diversified Holdings (CODI), a
NYSE-listed company based in Westport, Connecticut. Prior to 1998, Mr. Massoud was employed by
Petroleum Heat and Power, Inc., Colony Capital, Inc., and McKinsey & Company.
George Watson has served as a Director of Teekay GP L.L.C. since January 2005. He currently serves
as Executive Chairman of Critical Control Solutions Inc. (formerly WNS Emergent), a provider of
information control applications for the energy sector. He held the position of CEO of Critical
Control from 2002 to 2007. From February 2000 to July 2002, he served as Executive Chairman at
VerticalBuilder.com Inc. Mr. Watson served as President and Chief Executive Officer of TransCanada
Pipelines Ltd. from 1993 to 1999 and as its Chief Financial Officer from 1990 to 1993.
Andres Luna has served as the Managing Director of Teekay Shipping Spain SL since April 2004. Mr.
Luna joined Alta Shipping, S.A., a former affiliate company of Naviera F. Tapias S.A., in September
1992 and served as its General Manager until he was appointed Commercial General Manager of Naviera
F. Tapias S.A. in December 1999. He also served as Chief Executive Officer of Naviera F. Tapias
S.A. from July 2000 until its acquisition by Teekay Corporation in April 2004, when it was renamed
Teekay Shipping Spain. Mr. Lunas responsibilities with Teekay Spain have included business
development, newbuilding contracting, project management, development of its LNG business and the
renewal of its tanker fleet. He has been in the shipping business since his graduation as a naval
architect from Madrid University in 1981.
Reimbursement of Expenses of Our General Partner
Our General Partner does not receive any management fee or other compensation for managing us. Our
General Partner and its other affiliates are reimbursed for expenses incurred on our behalf. These
expenses include all expenses necessary or appropriate for the conduct of our business and
allocable to us, as determined by our General Partner. During 2010, these expenses were comprised
of a portion of compensation earned by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
our General Partner, directors fees and travel expenses, as discussed below. Please read Item 18
Financial Statements: Note 11(b) Related Party Transactions.
48
Annual Executive Compensation
Because the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of our General Partner, Peter
Evensen, is an employee of Teekay Corporation, his compensation (other than any awards under the
long-term incentive plan described below) is set and paid by Teekay Corporation, and we reimburse
Teekay Corporation for time he spends on partnership matters. Please read Item 7 Major
Unitholders and Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions.
The Corporate Governance Committee of the board of directors of our General Partner establishes the
compensation for certain key employees of our operating subsidiary Teekay Spain. Officers and
employees of our General Partner or its affiliates may participate in employee benefit plans and
arrangements sponsored by Teekay Corporation, including plans that may be established in the
future.
The aggregate amount of (a) reimbursement we made to Teekay Corporation for time our Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer spent on our partnership matters and (b) compensation
earned by the one key employee of Teekay Shipping Spain SL listed above (collectively, the
Officers) for 2010 was $2.9 million. This amount includes base salary ($0.9 million), annual bonus
($0.7 million) and pension and other benefits ($1.3 million). These amounts were paid primarily in
Canadian Dollars or in Euros, but are reported here in U.S. Dollars using an exchange rate of 1.03
Canadian Dollars for each U.S. Dollar and 0.75 Euro for each U.S. Dollar, the exchange rates on
December 31, 2010. Teekay Corporations annual bonus plan, in which each of the officers
participates, considers both company performance, through comparison to established targets and
financial performance of peer companies, and individual performance.
Compensation of Directors
Officers of our General Partner or Teekay Corporation who also serve as directors of our General
Partner do not receive additional compensation for their service as directors. Effective January 1,
2011, each non-management director received compensation for attending meetings of the Board of
Directors, as well as committee meetings. Non-management directors receive a director fee of
$50,000 (2010 $40,000) for the year and common units with a value of approximately $50,000 (2010
- $30,000) for the year. The Chairman of the Board of Directors receives an annual fee of $85,000
(2010 $65,000). Members of the Audit Committee and the Conflicts Committees each receive a
committee fee of $5,000 for the year and the chairs of the Audit Committee and Conflicts Committee
receive an additional fee of $10,000 (2010 $5,000). The Governance chairman receives an
additional fee of $5,000 for serving in that role. In addition, each director is reimbursed for
out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors or
committees. Each director is fully indemnified by us for actions associated with being a director
to the extent permitted under Marshall Islands law.
During 2010, the board of directors of the General Partner authorized the award by us
of 1,007 common units to each of the four non-employee directors with a value of approximately
$30,000 for each award. The Chairman was awarded 2,181 common units with a value of approximately
$65,000. These common units were purchased by us in the open market in May 2010 and
were fully vested upon grant. During 2009 and 2008, we awarded 1,644 and 1,049 common
units, respectively, as compensation to each of the four non-employee directors. The awards were
fully vested in September 2009 and April 2008, respectively. The compensation to the non-employee
directors are included in general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of
income (loss).
2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan
Our General Partner adopted the Teekay LNG Partners L.P. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan for
employees and directors of and consultants to our General Partner and employees and directors of
and consultants to its affiliates, who perform services for us. The plan provides for the award of
restricted units, phantom units, unit options, unit appreciation rights and other unit or
cash-based awards. Other than the previously mentioned 6,209 common units awarded to our General
Partners directors, we did not make any awards in 2010 under the 2005 long-term incentive plan.
Board Practices
Teekay GP L.L.C., our General Partner, manages our operations and activities. Unitholders are not
entitled to elect the directors of our General Partner or directly or indirectly participate in our
management or operation.
Our General Partners board of directors (or the Board) currently consists of seven members.
Directors are appointed to serve until their successors are appointed or until they resign or are
removed.
There are no service contracts between us and any of our directors providing for benefits upon
termination of their employment or service.
The Board has the following three committees: Audit Committee, Conflicts Committee, and Corporate
Governance Committee. The membership of these committees and the function of each of the committees
are described below. Each of the committees is currently comprised of independent members and
operates under a written charter adopted by the Board. The committee charters for the Audit
Committee, the Conflicts Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee are available under
Other Information Partnership Governance in the Investor Centre of our web site at
www.teekaylng.com. During 2010, the Board held six meetings. Each director attended all Board
meetings, except for one Board meeting where one director was absent. Each committee member
attended all applicable committee meetings, except for two audit committee meetings where one
committee member was absent at each meeting.
Audit Committee. The Audit Committee of our General Partner is composed of three or more
directors, each of whom must meet the independence standards of the NYSE and the SEC. This
committee is currently comprised of directors Robert E. Boyd (Chair), Ida Jane Hinkley and George
Watson. All members of the committee are financially literate and the Board has determined that Mr.
Boyd qualifies as an audit committee financial expert.
49
The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities for general oversight of:
|
|
|
the integrity of our financial statements; |
|
|
|
our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; |
|
|
|
the independent auditors qualifications and independence; and |
|
|
|
the performance of our internal audit function and independent auditors. |
Conflicts Committee. The Conflicts Committee of our General Partner is composed of the same
directors constituting the Audit Committee, being George Watson (Chair), Robert E. Boyd and Ida
Jane Hinkley. The members of the Conflicts Committee may not be officers or employees of our
General Partner or directors, officers or employees of its affiliates, and must meet the heightened
NYSE and SEC director independence standards applicable to audit committee membership and certain
other requirements.
The Conflicts Committee:
|
|
|
reviews specific matters that the Board believes may involve conflicts of
interest; and |
|
|
|
determines if the resolution of the conflict of interest is fair and
reasonable to us. |
Any matters approved by the Conflicts Committee will be conclusively deemed to be fair and
reasonable to us, approved by all of our partners, and not a breach by our General Partner of any
duties it may owe us or our unitholders. The Board is not obligated to seek approval of the
Conflicts Committee on any matter, and may determine the resolution of any conflict of interest
itself.
Corporate Governance Committee. The Corporate Governance Committee of our General Partner is
composed of at least two directors, a majority of whom must meet the director independence
standards established by the NYSE. This committee is currently comprised of directors Ihab J.M.
Massoud (Chair), Robert E. Boyd and George Watson.
The Corporate Governance Committee:
|
|
|
oversees the operation and effectiveness of the Board and its corporate
governance; |
|
|
|
develops and recommends to the Board corporate governance principles and
policies applicable to us and our General Partner and monitors compliance with these
principles and policies and recommends to the Board appropriate changes; and |
|
|
|
oversees director compensation and the long-term incentive plan described
above. |
Crewing and Staff
As of February 1, 2011, approximately 990 seagoing staff served on our vessels and approximately 22
staff served on shore in technical, commercial and administrative roles in various countries.
Certain subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation employ the crews, who serve on the vessels pursuant to
agreements with the subsidiaries, and Teekay Corporation subsidiaries also provide on-shore
advisory, operational and administrative support to our operating subsidiaries pursuant to service
agreements. Please read Item 7 Major Unitholders and Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions.
We regard attracting and retaining motivated seagoing personnel as a top priority. Like Teekay
Corporation, we offer our seafarers competitive employment packages and comprehensive benefits and
opportunities for personal and career development, which relates to a philosophy of promoting
internally.
Teekay Corporation has entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Philippine
Seafarers Union, an affiliate of the International Transport Workers Federation (or ITF), and a
Special Agreement with ITF London, which cover substantially all of the officers and seamen that
operate our Bahamian-flagged vessels. Our Spanish officers and seamen for our Spanish-flagged
vessels are covered by two different collective bargaining agreements (one for Suezmax tankers and
one for LNG carriers) with Spains Union General de Trabajadores and Comisiones Obreras, and the
Filipino crewmembers employed on our Spanish-flagged LNG and Suezmax tankers are covered by the
Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Philippine Seafarers Union. We believe Teekay
Corporations and our relationships with these labor unions are good.
Our commitment to training is fundamental to the development of the highest caliber of seafarers
for our marine operations. Teekay Corporation has agreed to allow our personnel to participate in
its training programs. Teekay Corporations cadet training approach is designed to balance academic
learning with hands-on training at sea. Teekay Corporation has relationships with training
institutions in Canada, Croatia, India, Latvia, Norway, Philippines, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
After receiving formal instruction at one of these institutions, our cadets training continues on
board on one of our vessels. Teekay Corporation also has a career development plan that we follow,
which was designed to ensure a continuous flow of qualified officers who are trained on its vessels
and familiarized with its operational standards, systems and policies. We believe that high-quality
crewing and training policies will play an increasingly important role in distinguishing larger
independent shipping companies that have in-house or affiliate capabilities from smaller companies
that must rely on outside ship managers and crewing agents on the basis of customer service and
safety.
50
Unit Ownership
The following table sets forth certain information regarding beneficial ownership, as of March 1,
2011, of our units by all directors and officers of our General Partner and key employees of Teekay
Spain as a group. The information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any
other purpose. Under SEC rules a person or entity beneficially owns any units that the person has
the right to acquire as of April 30, 2011 (60 days after March 1, 2011) through the exercise of any
unit option or other right. Unless otherwise indicated, each person has sole voting and investment
power (or shares such powers with his or her spouse) with respect to the units set forth in the
following table. Information for all persons listed below is based on information delivered to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of |
|
|
|
Common Units |
|
|
Common Units |
|
Identity of Person or Group |
|
Owned |
|
|
Owned (3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All executive officers, key employees and directors as a group (8 persons)(1) (2) |
|
|
213,086 |
|
|
|
0.39 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes units owned by Teekay Corporation, which controls us and on the board of which
serve the following directors of our General Partner, C. Sean Day and Bjorn Moller. In
addition, Mr. Moller was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation
until April 1, 2011. He remains a director of Teekay Corporation. In September 2010, Peter
Evensen was appointed Chief Executive Officer elect of Teekay Corporation and on April 1,
2011, he assumed the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of Teekay
Corporation and became a director of Teekay Corporation. Please read Item 7 Major
Unitholders for more detail. Also excludes any units owned by Kenneth Hvid as he was
appointed director of Teekay GP L.L.C. on April 1, 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
Each director, executive officer and key employee beneficially owns less than one
percent of the outstanding common and subordinated units. |
|
(3) |
|
Excludes the 2% general partner interest held by our General Partner, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Teekay Corporation. |
|
|
|
Item 7. |
|
Major Unitholders and Related Party Transactions |
Major Unitholders
The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial ownership, as of December 31, 2010,
of our common units by each person we know to beneficially own more than 5% of the outstanding
common units. The number of units beneficially owned by each person is determined under SEC rules
and the information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other purpose.
Under SEC rules a person beneficially owns any units as to which the person has or shares voting or
investment power. In addition, a person beneficially owns any units that the person or entity has
the right to acquire as of March 1, 2011 (60 days after December 31, 2010) through the exercise of
any unit option or other right. Unless otherwise indicated, each unitholder listed below has sole
voting and investment power with respect to the units set forth in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of |
|
|
|
Common Units |
|
|
Common Units |
|
Identity of Person or Group |
|
Owned |
|
|
Owned (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teekay Corporation(1) |
|
|
25,208,274 |
|
|
|
45.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neuberger Berman, Inc. and Neuberger Berman, L.L.C., as a group(2) |
|
|
3,659,121 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes the 2% general partner interest held by our General Partner, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Teekay Corporation. |
|
(2) |
|
Neuberger Berman, L.L.C. and Neuberger Berman Management Inc. serve as sub-advisor and
investment manager, respectively, of Neuberger Berman Incs mutual funds. This information
is based on the Schedule 13G/A filed by this group with the SEC on February 14, 2011. |
Our majority unitholder has the same voting rights as our other unitholders. We are controlled
by Teekay Corporation. We are not aware of any arrangements, the operation of which may at a
subsequent date result in a change in control of us.
Related Party Transactions
|
a) |
|
We have entered into an amended and restated omnibus agreement with Teekay
Corporation, our General Partner, our operating company, Teekay LNG Operating L.L.C.,
Teekay Offshore and related parties. The following discussion describes certain
provisions of the omnibus agreement. |
|
|
|
Noncompetition. Under the omnibus agreement, Teekay Corporation and Teekay Offshore have
agreed, and have caused their controlled affiliates (other than us) to agree, not to own,
operate or charter LNG carriers. This restriction does not prevent Teekay Corporation, Teekay
Offshore or any of their controlled affiliates (other than us) from, among other things: |
|
|
|
acquiring LNG carriers and related time-charters as part of a business and
operating or chartering those vessels if a majority of the value of the total assets or
business acquired is not attributable to the LNG carriers and related time-charters, as
determined in good faith by the board of directors of Teekay Corporation or the conflict
committee of the board of directors of Teekay Offshores General Partner; however, if at
any time Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore completes such an acquisition, it must
offer to sell the LNG carriers and related time-charters to us for their fair market
value plus any additional tax or other similar costs to Teekay Corporation or Teekay
Offshore that would be required to transfer the LNG carriers and time-charters to us
separately from the acquired business; |
51
|
|
|
owning, operating or chartering LNG carriers that relate to a bid or award for a
proposed LNG project that Teekay Corporation or any of its subsidiaries has submitted or
hereafter submits or receives; however, at least 180 days prior to the scheduled
delivery date of any such LNG carrier, Teekay Corporation must offer to sell the LNG
carrier and related time-charter to us, with the vessel valued at its fully-built-up
cost, which represents the aggregate expenditures incurred (or to be incurred prior to
delivery to us) by Teekay Corporation to acquire or construct and bring such LNG carrier
to the condition and location necessary for our intended use, plus a reasonable
allocation of overhead costs related to the development of such project and other
projects that would have been subject to the offer rights set forth in the omnibus
agreement but were not completed; or |
|
|
|
acquiring, operating or chartering LNG carriers if our General Partner has previously
advised Teekay Corporation or Teekay Offshore that the board of directors of our General
Partner has elected, with the approval of its conflicts committee, not to cause us or
our subsidiaries to acquire or operate the carriers. |
|
|
|
In addition, under the omnibus agreement we have agreed not to own, operate or charter
crude oil tankers or the following offshore vessels dynamically positioned shuttle
tankers, floating storage and off-take units or floating production, storage and off-loading
units, in each case that are subject to contracts with a remaining duration of at least three
years, excluding extension options. This restriction does not apply to any of the Suezmax
tankers in our current fleet, and the ownership, operation or chartering of any oil tankers
that replace any of those oil tankers in connection with certain events. In addition, the
restriction does not prevent us from, among other things: |
|
|
|
acquiring oil tankers or offshore vessels and any related time-charters or
contracts of affreightment as part of a business and operating or chartering those
vessels, if a majority of the value of the total assets or business acquired is not
attributable to the oil tankers and offshore vessels and any related charters or
contracts of affreightment, as determined by the conflicts committee of our General
Partners board of directors; however, if at any time we complete such an acquisition,
we are required to promptly offer to sell to Teekay Corporation the oil tankers and
time-charters or to Teekay Offshore the offshore vessels and time-charters or contracts
of affreightment for fair market value plus any additional tax or other similar costs to
us that would be required to transfer the vessels and contracts to Teekay Corporation or
Teekay Offshore separately from the acquired business; or |
|
|
|
acquiring, operating or chartering oil tankers or offshore vessels if Teekay
Corporation or Teekay Offshore, respectively, has previously advised our General Partner
that it has elected not to acquire or operate those vessels. |
|
|
|
Rights of First Offer on Suezmax Tankers, LNG Carriers and Offshore Vessels. Under the
omnibus agreement, we have granted to Teekay Corporation and Teekay Offshore a 30-day right
of first offer on any proposed (a) sale, transfer or other disposition of any of our Suezmax
tankers, in the case of Teekay Corporation, or certain offshore vessels in the case of Teekay
Offshore, or (b) re-chartering of any of our Suezmax tankers or offshore vessels pursuant to
a time-charter or contract of affreightment with a term of at least three years if the
existing charter expires or is terminated early. Likewise, each of Teekay Corporation and
Teekay Offshore has granted a similar right of first offer to us for any LNG carriers it
might own. These rights of first offer do not apply to certain transactions. |
|
b) |
|
We and certain of our subsidiaries have entered into services agreements with
subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation pursuant to which the Teekay Corporation subsidiaries
have agreed to provide (a) certain non-strategic administrative services to us, (b) crew
training, (c) advisory, technical and administrative services that supplement existing
capabilities of the employees of our operating subsidiaries and (d) strategic consulting
and advisory services to our operating subsidiaries relating to our business, unless the
provision of those services would materially interfere with Teekay Corporations
operations. These services are to be provided in a commercially reasonably manner and upon
the reasonable request of our General Partner or our operating subsidiaries, as applicable.
The Teekay Corporation subsidiaries that are parties to the services agreements may provide
these services directly or may subcontract for certain of these services with other
entities, including other Teekay Corporation subsidiaries. We pay a reasonable,
arms-length fee for the services that include reimbursement of the reasonable cost of any
direct and indirect expenses the Teekay Corporation subsidiaries incur in providing these
services. During 2010, 2009 and 2008 we incurred $14.9 million, $11.4 million and $9.4
million of costs under these agreements. In addition, as a component of the services
agreement, subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation provide us with all usual and customary crew
management services in respect of our vessels. During 2010, 2009 and 2008, we incurred
$30.5 million, $27.4 million and $20.1 million respectively, for crewing and manning costs. |
|
|
|
On March 31, 2009, a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation paid $3.0 million to us for the
right to provide certain ship management services to certain of our vessels. This amount is
deferred and amortized on a straight-line basis until 2012 and is included as part of general
and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of income (loss). |
|
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, $0.7 million, $1.6 million and $0.5
million, respectively, of general and administrative expenses attributable to the operations
of the Centrofin Suezmaxes, Alexander Spirit and the Kenai LNG Carriers were incurred by
Teekay Corporation and have been allocated to us as part of the results of the Dropdown
Predecessor. |
|
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, $0.3 million, $0.4 million and $3.1
million, respectively, of interest expense attributable to the operations of the Alexander
Spirit and the Kenai LNG Carriers was incurred by Teekay Corporation and has been allocated
to us as part of the results of the Dropdown Predecessor. |
|
c) |
|
We had entered into an agreement with Teekay Corporation pursuant to which Teekay
Corporation provided us with off-hire insurance for certain of its LNG carriers. During the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we incurred nil, $0.5 million and $1.5
million respectively of these costs. We did not renew this off-hire insurance with Teekay
Corporation, which expired during the second quarter of 2009. We currently obtain
third-party off-hire insurance for certain of its LNG carriers and self-insure the
remaining vessels in our fleet. |
|
d) |
|
On August 10, 2009 we purchased 99% of Teekay Corporations 70% interest in the Teekay
Tangguh Joint Venture for a purchase price (net of assumed debt) of $69.1 million. For
more information, please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 11(e) Related Party
Transactions. |
|
e) |
|
On May 6, 2008, we purchased Teekay Corporations 100% interest in Teekay Nakilat
(III), which in turn owns 40% of the RasGas 3 Joint Venture, for a purchase price (net of
assumed debt) of $110.2 million. For more information, please read Item 18 Financial
Statements: Note 11(f) Related Party Transactions. |
52
|
j) |
|
In April 2008, we acquired the two Kenai LNG Carriers from Teekay Corporation for
$230.0 million. We chartered the vessels back to Teekay Corporation at a fixed-rate for a
period of ten years (plus options exercisable by Teekay Corporation to extend up to an
additional 15 years). During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we
recognized revenues of $36.5 million, $38.9 million and $29.6 million, respectively, from
these charters. |
|
k) |
|
As at December 31, 2010 and 2009, non-interest bearing advances to affiliates totaled
$6.1 million and $20.7 million, respectively, and non-interest bearing advances from
affiliates totaled $133.3 million and $104.3 million, respectively. These advances are
unsecured and have no fixed repayment terms, however, we expect these amount to be repaid
within the next fiscal year. |
|
l) |
|
On July 28, 2008, Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries signed contracts for the purchase of
two technically advanced 12,000-cubic meter newbuilding Multigas vessels from subsidiaries
of Skaugen and we agreed to acquire the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries from Teekay
Corporation upon delivery. The vessels are scheduled to deliver in 2011 for a total cost of
approximately $106 million. Each vessel is scheduled to commence service under 15-year
fixed-rate charters to Skaugen. |
|
m) |
|
Our Suezmax tanker, the Toledo Spirit, which delivered in July 2005, operates pursuant
to a time-charter contract that increases or decreases the fixed rate established in the
charter, depending on the spot charter rates that we would have earned had we traded the
vessel in the spot tanker market. We entered into an agreement with Teekay Corporation such
that Teekay Corporation pays us any amounts payable to the charter party as a result of
spot rates being below the fixed rate, and we pay Teekay Corporation any amounts payable to
us as a result of spot rates being in excess of the fixed rate. During 2010, 2009 and 2008,
we incurred $1.9 million, $0.9 million and $8.6 million, respectively, of amounts owing to
Teekay Corporation as a result of this agreement. |
|
n) |
|
C. Sean Day is the Chairman of our General Partner, Teekay GP L.L.C. He also is the
Chairman of Teekay Corporation, Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C. (the General Partner of Teekay
Offshore Partners L.P., a publicly held partnership controlled by Teekay Corporation) and
Teekay Tankers Ltd. (a publicly held corporation controlled by Teekay Corporation). |
|
|
|
Bjorn Moller was the Vice Chairman of Teekay GP L.L.C. and Teekay Offshore GP L.L.C. until
April 1, 2011. He also was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation
as well as the Chief Executive Officer of Teekay Tankers Ltd. until April 1, 2011. He
remains a director of Teekay Corporation and Teekay Tankers Ltd. Peter Evensen is the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and a director of Teekay GP L.L.C. and Teekay
Offshore GP L.L.C. In September 2010, Mr. Evensen was appointed Chief Executive Officer elect
of Teekay Corporation and on April 1, 2011, he assumed the position of President and Chief
Executive Officer of Teekay Corporation and became a director of Teekay Corporation. Mr.
Evensen is also a director of Teekay Tankers Ltd. and was the Executive Vice President of
Teekay Tankers Ltd. until April 1, 2011. |
|
|
|
Effective April 1, 2011, Kenneth Hvid was appointed director of Teekay GP L.L.C. and Teekay
Offshore GP L.L.C. Mr. Hvid was also appointed to Executive Vice President and Chief
Strategy Officer of Teekay Corporation effective April 1, 2011. |
|
|
|
Because Mr. Evensen is an employee of Teekay Corporation or another of its subsidiaries, his
compensation (other than any awards under our long-term incentive plan) is set and paid by
Teekay Corporation or such other applicable subsidiary. Pursuant to our partnership
agreement, we have agreed to reimburse Teekay Corporation or its applicable subsidiary for
time spent by Mr. Evensen on our management matters as our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. |
|
o) |
|
In December 2007, a consortium in which Teekay Corporation has a 33% ownership interest
was awarded a contract to charter four newbuilding 160,400-cubic meter LNG carriers for a
period of 20 years to the Angola LNG Project, which is being developed by subsidiaries of
Chevron Corporation, Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola EP, BP Plc, Total S.A.,
and Eni SpA. The vessels will be chartered at fixed rates, with inflation adjustments,
commencing in 2011 and 2012. The remaining members of the consortium are Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
and NYK Bulkship (Europe) which hold 34% and 33% ownership interests in the consortium,
respectively. In March 2011, we agreed to acquire from Teekay Corporation its 33% ownership
interest in these vessels and related charter contracts for an equity purchase price of
approximately $73 million, net of assumed debt. The purchase price is subject to
adjustment based on actual costs incurred at time of delivery. |
|
p) |
|
In June and November 2009, in conjunction with the acquisition of the two Skaugen LPG
Carriers, Teekay Corporation novated interest rate swaps, each with a notional amount of
$30.0 million, to us for no consideration. During the year ended 2010, we agreed to acquire
an interest rate swap, with a notional amount of $30.0 million, relating to the third
Skaugen LPG Carrier from Teekay Corporation for no consideration and we accounted for this swap during
the year. The actual acquisition of this
interest rate swap is concurrent with the delivery of the third Skaugen LPG Carrier. These
transactions were concluded between related parties and thus the interest rate swaps were
recorded at their carrying values which were equal to their fair values. The excess of the
liabilities assumed over the consideration paid amounting to $1.6 million, $3.2 million and
$1.5 million, respectively, were charged to equity. |
|
q) |
|
In November 2009, we sold 1% of our interest in the Kenai LNG Carriers to our General
Partner for approximately $2.3 million in order to structure this project in a tax
efficient manner for us. |
|
r) |
|
On March 17, 2010, we acquired from Teekay Corporation two 2009-built Suezmax tankers,
the Bermuda Spirit and the Hamilton Spirit, and a 2007-built Handymax Product tanker, the
Alexander Spirit, and the associated long-term fixed-rate time-charter contracts for a
total cost of $160 million. For more information, please read Item 18 Financial
Statement: Note 11(l) Related Party Transactions. |
|
|
|
Item 8. |
|
Financial Information |
Consolidated Financial Statements and Other Financial Information
Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes
Please see Item 18 Financial Statements below for additional information required to be
disclosed under this Item.
53
Legal Proceedings
From time to time we have been, and expect to continue to be, subject to legal proceedings and
claims in the ordinary course of our business, principally personal injury and property casualty
claims. These claims, even if lacking merit, could result in the expenditure of significant
financial and managerial resources. We are not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that we
believe will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on us.
Cash Distribution Policy
Rationale for Our Cash Distribution Policy
Our partnership agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash (as defined in our
partnership agreement) within approximately 45 days after the end of each quarter. This cash
distribution policy reflects a basic judgment that our unitholders are better served by our
distributing our cash available after expenses and reserves rather than our retaining it. Because
we believe we will generally finance any capital investments from external financing sources, we
believe that our investors are best served by our distributing all of our available cash.
Limitations on Cash Distributions and Our Ability to Change Our Cash Distribution Policy
There is no guarantee that unitholders will receive quarterly distributions from us. Our
distribution policy is subject to certain restrictions and may be changed at any time, including:
|
|
|
Our distribution policy is subject to restrictions on distributions under our credit
agreements. Specifically, our credit agreements contain material financial tests and
covenants that we must satisfy. Should we be unable to satisfy these restrictions under our
credit agreements, we would be prohibited from making cash distributions to unitholders
notwithstanding our stated cash distribution policy. |
|
|
|
The board of directors of our General Partner has the authority to establish reserves
for the prudent conduct of our business and for future cash distributions to our
unitholders, and the establishment of those reserves could result in a reduction in cash
distributions to unitholders from levels we anticipate pursuant to our stated distribution
policy. |
|
|
|
Even if our cash distribution policy is not modified or revoked, the amount of
distributions we pay under our cash distribution policy and the decision to make any
distribution is determined by our General Partner, taking into consideration the terms of
our partnership agreement. |
|
|
|
Under Section 51 of the Marshall Islands Limited Partnership Act, we may not make a
distribution to unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the
fair value of our assets. |
|
|
|
We may lack sufficient cash to pay distributions to our unitholders due to increases in
our general and administrative expenses, principal and interest payments on our outstanding
debt, tax expenses, the issuance of additional units (which would require the payment of
distributions on those units), working capital requirements and anticipated cash needs. |
|
|
|
While our partnership agreement requires us to distribute all of our available cash, our
partnership agreement, including provisions requiring us to make cash distributions, may be
amended. Our partnership agreement can be amended with the approval of a majority of the
outstanding common units, voting as a class (including common units held by affiliates of
our General Partner). |
Minimum Quarterly Distribution
Common unitholders are entitled under our partnership agreement to receive a minimum quarterly
distribution of $0.4125 per unit, or $1.65 per year, prior to any distribution on our subordinated
units to the extent we have sufficient cash from our operations after establishment of cash
reserves and payment of fees and expenses, including payments to our General Partner. Our General
Partner has the authority to determine the amount of our available cash for any quarter. This
determination must be made in good faith. There is no guarantee that we will pay the minimum
quarterly distribution on the common units in any quarter, and we will be prohibited from making
any distributions to unitholders if it would cause an event of default, or an event of default is
existing, under our credit agreements.
Our cash distributions were $0.53 per unit in the first quarter of 2008. Our distributions were
increased to $0.55 per unit effective the second quarter of 2008, then to $0.57 per unit effective
for the third quarter of 2008, which was maintained throughout 2009, then increased to $0.60 per
unit effective for the first quarter of 2010 which was maintained throughout 2010 and further
increased to $0.63 per unit in the first quarter of 2011.
Subordination Period
During the subordination period, applicable to the subordinated units held by Teekay Corporation,
the common units had the right to receive distributions of available cash from operating surplus in
an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution, plus any arrearages in the payment of the
minimum quarterly distribution on the common units from prior quarters, before any distributions of
available cash from operating surplus may be made on the subordinated units. The purpose of the
subordinated units was to increase the likelihood that during the subordination period there would
be available cash to be distributed on the common units. On May 19, 2008, 25% of the subordinated
units (3.7 million units) were converted into common units on a one-for-one basis as provided for
under the terms of our partnership agreement and began participating pro rata with the other common
units in distributions of available cash commencing with the August 2008 distribution. On May 19,
2009, an additional 3.7 million subordinated units were converted into an equal number of common
units as provided for under the terms of the partnership agreement and participate pro rata with
the other common units in distributions of available cash commencing with the August 2009
distribution. As anticipated, the subordination period ended April 1, 2010 and the remaining 7.4
million subordinated units were converted to common units on a one-for-one basis.
54
Incentive Distribution Rights
Incentive distribution rights represent the right to receive an increasing percentage of quarterly
distributions of available cash from operating surplus (as defined in our partnership agreement)
after the minimum quarterly distribution and the target distribution levels have been achieved. Our
General Partner currently holds the incentive distribution rights, but may transfer these rights
separately from its general partner interest, subject to restrictions in our partnership agreement.
The following table illustrates the percentage allocations of the additional available cash from
operating surplus among the unitholders and our General Partner up to the various target
distribution levels. The amounts set forth under Marginal Percentage Interest in Distributions
are the percentage interests of the unitholders and our General Partner in any available cash from
operating surplus we distribute up to and including the corresponding amount in the column Total
Quarterly Distribution Target Amount, until available cash from operating surplus we distribute
reaches the next target distribution level, if any. The percentage interests shown for the
unitholders and our General Partner for the minimum quarterly distribution are also applicable to
quarterly distribution amounts that are less than the minimum quarterly distribution. The
percentage interests shown for our General Partner include its 2% general partner interest and
assume the General Partner has not transferred the incentive distribution rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marginal Percentage Interest In Distributions |
|
|
|
Quarterly Distribution Target Amount (per unit) |
|
Unitholders |
|
|
General Partner |
|
Minimum Quarterly Distribution |
|
$0.4125 |
|
|
98 |
% |
|
|
2 |
% |
First Target Distribution |
|
Up to $0.4625 |
|
|
98 |
% |
|
|
2 |
% |
Second Target Distribution |
|
Above $0.4625 up to $0.5375 |
|
|
85 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
Third Target Distribution |
|
Above $0.5375 up to $0.65 |
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
25 |
% |
Thereafter |
|
Above $0.65 |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
50 |
% |
Significant Changes
Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 21 Subsequent Events
|
|
|
Item 9. |
|
The Offer and Listing |
Our common units are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (or NYSE) under the symbol TGP. The
following table sets forth the high and low closing prices for our common units on the NYSE for
each of the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
Years Ended |
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
$ |
38.01 |
|
|
$ |
25.92 |
|
|
$ |
31.69 |
|
|
$ |
39.94 |
|
|
$ |
34.23 |
|
Low |
|
|
24.91 |
|
|
|
13.97 |
|
|
|
9.96 |
|
|
|
28.76 |
|
|
|
28.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Sep. 30, |
|
|
Jun. 30, |
|
|
Mar. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Sep. 30, |
|
|
Jun. 30, |
|
Quarters Ended |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
$ |
41.30 |
|
|
$ |
38.01 |
|
|
$ |
35.23 |
|
|
$ |
30.97 |
|
|
$ |
29.87 |
|
|
$ |
25.92 |
|
|
$ |
23.99 |
|
|
$ |
18.19 |
|
Low |
|
|
34.44 |
|
|
|
31.88 |
|
|
|
29.13 |
|
|
|
26.57 |
|
|
|
24.91 |
|
|
|
22.90 |
|
|
|
17.58 |
|
|
|
14.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar. 31, |
|
|
Feb. 28, |
|
|
Jan. 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
Nov. 30, |
|
|
Oct. 31, |
|
Months Ended |
|
2011 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High |
|
$ |
41.30 |
|
|
$ |
39.35 |
|
|
$ |
39.50 |
|
|
$ |
38.01 |
|
|
$ |
36.32 |
|
|
$ |
34.34 |
|
Low |
|
|
36.46 |
|
|
|
36.84 |
|
|
|
34.44 |
|
|
|
36.42 |
|
|
|
34.86 |
|
|
|
31.88 |
|
|
|
|
Item 10. |
|
Additional Information |
Memorandum and Articles of Association
The information required to be disclosed under Item 10B is incorporated by reference to
our Registration Statement on Form 8-A/A filed with the SEC on September 29, 2006.
Material Contracts
The following is a summary of each material contract, other than material contracts entered into in
the ordinary course of business, to which we or any of our subsidiaries is a party, for the two
years immediately preceding the date of this Annual Report, each of which is included in the list
of exhibits in Item 19:
|
(a) |
|
Agreement dated December 7, 2005, for a U.S. $137,500,000 Revolving Credit Facility
between Asian Spirit L.L.C., African Spirit L.L.C., and European Spirit L.L.C., Den Norske
Bank ASA and various other banks. This facility bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin of
0.50%. The amount available under the facility reduces by $4.4 million semi-annually, with a
bullet reduction of $57.7 million on maturity in April 2015. The credit facility may be used
for general partnership purposes and to fund cash distributions. Our obligations under the
facility are secured by a first-priority mortgage on three of our Suezmax tankers and a
pledge of certain shares of the subsidiaries operating the Suezmax tankers. |
55
|
(b) |
|
Amended and Restated Omnibus agreement with Teekay Corporation, Teekay Offshore, our
General Partner and related parties Please read Item 7 Major Unitholders and Certain
Relationships and Related Party Transactions for a summary of certain contract terms. |
|
(c) |
|
We and certain of our operating subsidiaries have entered into services agreements with
certain subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation pursuant to which the Teekay Corporation
subsidiaries provide us and our operating subsidiaries with administrative, advisory,
technical and strategic consulting services for a reasonable fee that includes reimbursement
of the reasonable cost of any direct and indirect expenses they incur in providing these
services. Please read Item 7 Major Unitholders and Certain Relationships and Related Party
Transactions for a summary of certain contract terms. |
|
(d) |
|
Syndicated Loan Agreement between Naviera Teekay Gas III, S.L. (formerly Naviera F. Tapias
Gas III, S.A.) and Caixa de Aforros de Vigo Ourense e Pontevedra, as Agent, dated as of
October 2, 2000, as amended. This facility was used to make restricted cash deposits that
fully fund payments under a capital lease for one of our LNG carriers, the Catalunya Spirit.
Interest payments are based on EURIBOR plus a margin. The term loan matures in 2023 with
monthly payments that reduce over time. |
|
(e) |
|
Teekay LNG Partners L.P. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Please read Item 6 Directors,
Senior Management and Employees for a summary of certain plan terms. |
|
(f) |
|
Agreement dated August 23, 2006, for a U.S. $330,000,000 Secured Revolving Loan Facility
between Teekay LNG Partners L.P., ING Bank N.V. and other banks. This facility bears
interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 0.55%. The amount available under the facility reduces
semi-annually by amounts ranging from $4.3 million to $8.4 million, with a bullet reduction
of $188.7 million on maturity in August 2018. The revolver is collateralized by
first-priority mortgages granted on two of our LNG carriers. The credit facility may be used
for general partnership purposes and to fund cash distributions. |
|
(g) |
|
Agreement dated June 30, 2008, for a U.S. $172,500,000 Secured Revolving Loan Facility
between Arctic Spirit L.L.C., Polar Spirit L.L.C and DnB Nor Bank A.S.A. and other banks.
This facility bears interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 0.80%. The amount available under the
facility reduces by $6.1 million semi-annually, with a balloon reduction of $56.6 million on
maturity in June 2018. The revolver is collateralized by first-priority mortgages granted on
two of our LNG carriers. The credit facility may be used for general partnership purposes and
to fund cash distributions. |
|
(h) |
|
Agreement dated October 27, 2009, for a U.S. $122,000,000 million credit facility that will
be secured by the Skaugen LPG Carriers and the Skaugen Multigas Carriers. The facility amount
is equal to the lower of $122.0 million and 60% of the aggregate purchase price of the
vessels. The facility will mature, with respect to each vessel, seven years after each
vessels first drawdown date. We expect to draw on this facility in 2011 to repay a portion
of the amount we borrowed to purchase the Skaugen LPG Carriers that delivered in April 2009
and November 2009. As at December 31, 2010, we had access to draw $40 million on this
facility. We will use the remaining available funds from the facility to assist in
purchasing, or facilitate the purchase of, the third Skaugen LPG Carrier and the two Skaugen
Multigas Carriers upon delivery of each vessel. |
|
(i) |
|
Agreement dated March 17, 2010, for a U.S. $255,528,228 million senior loan and U.S.
$80,000,000 million junior loan secured loan agreement between Bermuda Spirit L.L.C.,
Hamilton Spirit L.L.C, Summit Spirit L.L.C., Zenith Spirit L.L.C., and Credit Agricole CIB
Bank. At December 31, 2010, we had $120.6 million of the U.S. Dollar-denominated term loan
outstanding. The facility was used to finance up to 80% of the shipyard contract price for
the Bermuda Spirit and the Hamilton Spirit. Interest payments on one tranche under the loan
facility are based on six month LIBOR plus 0.30%, while interest payments on the second
tranche are based on six-month LIBOR plus 0.70%. One tranche reduces in semi-annual payments
while the other tranche correspondingly is drawn up every six months with a final $20 million
bullet payment per vessel due 12 years and six months from each vessel delivery date. This
loan facility is collateralized by first-priority mortgages on the two vessels to which the
loan relates, together with certain other related security and is guaranteed by Teekay
Corporation. |
Exchange Controls and Other Limitations Affecting Unitholders
We are not aware of any governmental laws, decrees or regulations, including foreign exchange
controls, in the Republic of The Marshall Islands that restrict the export or import of capital, or
that affect the remittance of dividends, interest or other payments to non-resident holders of our
securities.
We are not aware of any limitations on the right of non-resident or foreign owners to hold or vote
our securities imposed by the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands or our partnership
agreement.
Taxation
Marshall Islands Tax Consequences.
Because we and our subsidiaries do not, and we do not expect
that we and our subsidiaries will, conduct business or operations in the Republic of The Marshall
Islands, neither we nor our subsidiaries will be subject to income, capital gains, profits or other
taxation under current Marshall Islands law. As a result, distributions by our subsidiaries to us
will not be subject to Marshal Islands taxation. In addition, because all documentation related to
our initial public offering and follow-on offerings were executed outside of the Republic of the
Marshall Islands, under current Marshall Islands law, no taxes or withholdings are imposed by the
Republic of The Marshall Islands on distributions, including upon a return of capital, made to
unitholders, so long as such persons do not reside in, maintain offices in, nor engage in business
in the Republic of The Marshall Islands. Furthermore, no stamp, capital gains or other taxes are
imposed by the Republic of The Marshall Islands on the purchase, ownership or disposition by such
persons of our common units.
56
United States Tax Consequences.
The following discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax
considerations that may be relevant to common unitholders who are individual citizens or residents
of the United States is based upon provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or the
Code) as in effect on the date of this prospectus, existing final, temporary and proposed
regulations thereunder (or Treasury Regulations) and current administrative rulings and court
decisions, all of which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect. Changes in these
authorities may cause the tax consequences to vary substantially from the consequences described
below. This discussion does not
comment on all U.S. federal income tax matters affecting the unitholders and does not address the
tax consequences under U.S. state and local and other tax laws. Moreover, the discussion focuses on
unitholders who are individual citizens or residents of the United States and hold their units as
capital assets and has only limited application to corporations, estates, trusts, non-U.S. persons
or other unitholders subject to specialized tax treatment, such as tax-exempt entities (including
IRAs), regulated investment companies (mutual funds), real estate investment trusts (or REITs) and
holders who directly or indirectly own a ten percent (10%) or greater interest in us. Accordingly,
unitholders should consult their own tax advisors in analyzing the U.S. federal, state, local and
non-U.S. tax consequences particular to him of the ownership or disposition of common units.
This discussion does not comment on all aspects of U.S. federal income taxation which may be
important to particular unitholders in light of their individual circumstances, such as unitholders
subject to special tax rules (e.g., financial institutions, insurance companies, broker-dealers,
tax-exempt organizations, or former citizens or long-term residents of the United States) or to
persons that will hold the common units as part of a straddle, hedge, conversion, constructive
sale, or other integrated transaction for U.S. federal income tax purposes, partnerships or their
partners, persons that have a functional currency other than the U.S. dollar, or persons that
actually or under applicable constructive ownership rules own 10% or more of our common units, all
of whom may be subject to tax rules that differ significantly from those summarized below. If a
partnership or other entity taxed as a pass-through entity holds our common units, the tax
treatment of a partner or owner thereof generally will depend upon the status of the partner or
owner and upon the activities of the partnership or pass-through entity. If you are a partner in a
partnership or owner of a pass-through entity holding our common units, you should consult your tax
advisor. Accordingly, unitholders should consult their own tax advisors in analyzing the U.S.
federal, state, local and non-U.S. tax consequences particular to him of the ownership or
disposition of common units.
Classification as a Partnership.
For purposes of U.S. federal income taxation, a partnership is not a taxable entity, and although
it may be subject to withholding taxes on behalf of its partners under certain circumstances, a
partnership itself incurs no U.S. federal income tax liability. Instead, each partner of a
partnership is required to take into account his share of items of income, gain, loss, deduction
and credit of the partnership in computing his U.S. federal income tax liability, regardless of
whether cash distributions are made to him by the partnership. Distributions by a partnership to a
partner generally are not taxable unless the amount of cash distributed exceeds the partners
adjusted tax basis in his partnership interest.
Section 7704 of the Code provides that publicly traded partnerships generally will be treated as
corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, an exception, referred to as the
Qualifying Income Exception, exists with respect to publicly traded partnerships whose
qualifying income represents 90% or more of their gross income for every taxable year. Qualifying
income includes income and gains derived from the transportation and storage of crude oil, natural
gas and products thereof, including liquefied natural gas. Other types of qualifying income include
interest (other than from a financial business), dividends, gains from the sale of real property
and gains from the sale or other disposition of capital assets held for the production of
qualifying income, including stock. We have received a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (or
IRS) that we requested in connection with our initial public offering that the income we derive
from transporting LNG and crude oil pursuant to time charters existing at the time of our initial
public offering is qualifying income within the meaning of Section 7704. A ruling from the IRS,
while generally binding on the IRS, may under certain circumstances be revoked or modified by the
IRS retroactively.
We estimate that less than 5% of our current income is not qualifying income and therefore we
believe that we will be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However,
this estimate could change from time to time for various reasons. Because we have not received an
IRS ruling or an opinion of counsel that any (1) income we derive from transporting LPG,
petrochemical gases and ammonia pursuant to charters that we have entered into or will enter into
in the future, (2) income we derive from transporting crude oil, natural gas and products thereof,
including LNG, pursuant to bareboat charters or (3) income or gain we recognize from foreign
currency transactions, is qualifying income, we are currently treating income from those sources as
non-qualifying income. Under some circumstances, such as a significant change in foreign currency
rates, the percentage of income or gain from foreign currency transactions in relation to our total
gross income could be substantial. We do not expect income or gains from these sources and other
income or gains that are not qualifying income to constitute 10% or more of our gross income for
U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, it is possible that the operation of certain of our
vessels pursuant to bareboat charters could, in the future, cause our non-qualifying income to
constitute 10% or more of our future gross income if such vessels were held in a pass-through
structure. In order to preserve our status as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes,
we have received a ruling from the IRS that effectively allows us to conduct our bareboat charter
operations, as well as our LPG operations, in a subsidiary corporation.
Status as a Partner
The treatment of unitholders described in this section applies only to unitholders treated as
partners in us for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Unitholders who have been properly admitted as
limited partners of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. will be treated as partners in us for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. Also:
|
|
|
assignees of common units who have executed and delivered transfer
applications, and are awaiting admission as limited partners; and |
|
|
|
unitholders whose common units are held in street name or by a nominee and who
have the right to direct the nominee in the exercise of all substantive rights attendant to
the ownership of their common units will be treated as partners in us for U.S. federal
income tax purposes. |
The status of assignees of common units who are entitled to execute and deliver transfer
applications and thereby become entitled to direct the exercise of attendant rights, but who fail
to execute and deliver transfer applications, is unclear. In addition, a purchaser or other
transferee of common units who does not execute and deliver a transfer application may not receive
some U.S. federal income tax information or reports furnished to record holders of common units,
unless the common units are held in a nominee or street name account and the nominee or broker has
executed and delivered a transfer application for those common units.
Under certain circumstances, a beneficial owner of common units whose units have been loaned to
another may lose his status as a partner with respect to those units for U.S. federal income tax
purposes.
57
In general, a person who is not a partner in a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes is
not required or permitted to report any share of the partnerships income, gain, deductions or
losses for such purposes, and any cash distributions received by such a person from the partnership
therefore may be fully taxable as ordinary income. Unitholders not described here are urged to
consult their own tax advisors with respect to their status as partners in us for U.S. federal
income tax purposes.
Consequences of Unit Ownership
Flow-through of Taxable Income. Each unitholder is required to include in computing his taxable
income his allocable share of our items of income, gains, loss, deductions and credit for our
taxable year ending with or within his taxable year, without regard to whether we make
corresponding cash distributions to him. Our taxable year ends on December 31. Consequently, we may
allocate income to a unitholder as of December 31 of a given year, and the unitholder will be
required to report this income on his tax return for his tax year that ends on or includes such
date, even if he has not received a cash distribution from us as of that date.
In addition, certain U.S. unitholders who are individuals, estates or trusts will be required to
pay an additional 3.8 percent tax on, among other things, the income allocated to them for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2012, subject to certain exceptions. Unitholders should consult
their tax advisors regarding the effect, if any, of this tax on their ownership of our common
units.
Treatment of Distributions. Distributions by us to a unitholder generally will not be taxable to
the unitholder for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent of his tax basis in his common
units immediately before the distribution. Our cash distributions in excess of a unitholders tax
basis generally will be considered to be gain from the sale or exchange of the common units,
taxable in accordance with the rules described under Disposition of Common Units below. Any
reduction in a unitholders share of our liabilities for which no partner, including the general
partner, bears the economic risk of loss, known as nonrecourse liabilities, will be treated as a
distribution of cash to that unitholder. A decrease in a unitholders percentage interest in us
because of our issuance of additional common units will decrease his share of our nonrecourse
liabilities, and thus will result in a corresponding deemed distribution of cash. To the extent our
distributions cause a unitholders at risk amount to be less than zero at the end of any taxable
year, he must recapture any losses deducted in previous years.
A non-pro rata distribution of money or property may result in ordinary income to a unitholder,
regardless of his tax basis in his common units, if the distribution reduces the unitholders share
of our unrealized receivables, including depreciation recapture, and/or substantially appreciated
inventory items, both as defined in the Code (or, collectively, Section 751 Assets). To that
extent, he will be treated as having been distributed his proportionate share of the Section 751
Assets and having exchanged those assets with us in return for the non-pro rata portion of the
actual distribution made to him. This latter deemed exchange will generally result in the
unitholders realization of ordinary income, which will equal the excess of (1) the non-pro rata
portion of that distribution over (2) the unitholders tax basis for the share of Section 751
Assets deemed relinquished in the exchange.
Basis of Common Units. A unitholders initial U.S. federal income tax basis for his common units
will be the amount he paid for the common units plus his share of our nonrecourse liabilities. That
basis will be increased by his share of our income and by any increases in his share of our
nonrecourse liabilities and decreased, but not below zero, by distributions from us, by the
unitholders share of our losses, by any decreases in his share of our nonrecourse liabilities and
by his share of our expenditures that are not deductible in computing taxable income and are not
required to be capitalized. A unitholder will have no share of our debt that is recourse to the
general partner, but will have a share, generally based on his share of profits, of our nonrecourse
liabilities.
Limitations on Deductibility of Losses. The deduction by a unitholder of his share of our losses
will be limited to the tax basis in his units and, in the case of an individual unitholder or a
corporate unitholder more than 50% of the value of the stock of which is owned directly or
indirectly by five or fewer individuals or some tax-exempt organizations, to the amount for which
the unitholder is considered to be at risk with respect to our activities, if that is less than
his tax basis. In general, a unitholder will be at risk to the extent of the tax basis of his
units, excluding any portion of that basis attributable to his share of our nonrecourse
liabilities, reduced by any amount of money he borrows to acquire or hold his units, if the lender
of those borrowed funds owns an interest in us, is related to the unitholder or can look only to
the units for repayment. A unitholder must recapture losses deducted in previous years to the
extent that distributions cause his at risk amount to be less than zero at the end of any taxable
year. Losses disallowed to a unitholder or recaptured as a result of these limitations will carry
forward and will be allowable to the extent that his tax basis or at risk amount, whichever is the
limiting factor, is subsequently increased. Upon the taxable disposition of a unit, any gain
recognized by a unitholder can be offset by losses that were previously suspended by the at risk
limitation but may not be offset by losses suspended by the basis limitation. Any excess suspended
loss above that gain is no longer utilizable.
The passive loss limitations generally provide that individuals, estates, trusts and some
closely-held corporations and personal service corporations can deduct losses from a passive
activity only to the extent of the taxpayers income from the same passive activity. Passive
activities generally are corporate or partnership activities in which the taxpayer does not
materially participate. The passive loss limitations are applied separately with respect to each
publicly traded partnership. Consequently, any passive losses we generate only will be available to
offset our passive income generated in the future and will not be available to offset income from
other passive activities or investments, including our investments or investments in other publicly
traded partnerships, or salary or active business income. Passive losses that are not deductible
because they exceed a unitholders share of income we generate may be deducted in full when he
disposes of his entire investment in us in a fully taxable transaction with an unrelated party. The
passive activity loss rules are applied after other applicable limitations on deductions, including
the at risk rules and the basis limitation.
Dual consolidated loss restrictions also may apply to limit the deductibility by a corporate
unitholder of losses we incur. Corporate unitholders are urged to consult their own tax advisors
regarding the applicability and effect to them of dual consolidated loss restrictions.
Limitations on Interest Deductions. The deductibility of a non-corporate taxpayers investment
interest expense generally is limited to the amount of that taxpayers net investment income.
For this purpose, investment interest expense includes, among other things, a unitholders share of
our interest expense attributed to portfolio income. The IRS has indicated that net passive income
earned by a publicly traded partnership will be treated as investment income to its unitholders. In
addition, the unitholders share of our portfolio income will be treated as investment income.
58
Entity-Level Collections. If we are required or elect under applicable law to pay any U.S. federal,
state or local or foreign income or withholding taxes on behalf of any present or former unitholder
or the general partner, we are authorized to pay those taxes from our funds. That payment, if made,
will be treated as a distribution of cash to the partner on whose behalf the payment was made. If
the payment is made on behalf of a person whose identity cannot be determined, we are authorized to
treat the payment as a distribution to all current unitholders. We are authorized to amend the
partnership agreement in the manner necessary to maintain uniformity of intrinsic tax
characteristics of units and to adjust later distributions, so that after giving effect to these
distributions, the priority and characterization of distributions otherwise applicable under the
partnership agreement are
maintained as nearly as is practicable. Payments by us as described above could give rise to an
overpayment of tax on behalf of an individual partner, in which event the partner would be required
to file a claim in order to obtain a credit or refund of tax paid.
Allocation of Income, Gain, Loss, Deduction and Credit. In general, if we have a net profit, our
items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit will be allocated among the general partner and
the unitholders in accordance with their percentage interests in us. At any time that incentive
distributions are made to the general partner, gross income will be allocated to the general
partner to the extent of these distributions. If we have a net loss for the entire year, that loss
generally will be allocated first to the general partner and the unitholders in accordance with
their percentage interests in us to the extent of their positive capital accounts and, second, to
the general partner.
Specified items of our income, gain, loss and deduction will be allocated to account for any
difference between the tax basis and fair market value of any property held by the partnership
immediately prior to an offering of common units, referred to in this discussion as Adjusted
Property. The effect of these allocations to a unitholder purchasing common units in an offering
essentially will be the same as if the tax basis of our assets were equal to their fair market
value at the time of the offering. In addition, items of recapture income will be allocated to the
extent possible to the partner who was allocated the deduction giving rise to the treatment of that
gain as recapture income in order to minimize the recognition of ordinary income by some
unitholders. Finally, although we do not expect that our operations will result in the creation of
negative capital accounts, if negative capital accounts nevertheless result, items of our income
and gain will be allocated in an amount and manner to eliminate the negative balance as quickly as
possible.
An allocation of items of our income, gain, loss, deduction or credit, other than an allocation
required by the Code to eliminate the difference between a partners book capital account, which
is credited with the fair market value of Adjusted Property, and tax capital account, which is
credited with the tax basis of Adjusted Property, referred to in this discussion as the Book-Tax
Disparity, generally will be given effect for U.S. federal income tax purposes in determining a
partners share of an item of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit only if the allocation has
substantial economic effect. In any other case, a partners share of an item will be determined on
the basis of his interest in us, which will be determined by taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, including:
|
|
|
this relative contributions to us; |
|
|
|
the interests of all the partners in profits and losses; |
|
|
|
the interest of all the partners in cash flow; and |
|
|
|
the rights of all the partners to distributions of capital upon liquidation. |
A unitholders taxable income or loss with respect to a common unit each year will depend upon a
number of factors, including (1) the nature and fair market value of our assets at the time the
holder acquired the common unit, (2) whether we issue additional units or we engage in certain
other transactions and (3) the manner in which our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and
credit are allocated among our partners. For this purpose, we determine the value of our assets and
the relative amounts of our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit allocable to our
unitholders and our general partner as holder of the incentive distribution rights by reference to
the value of our interests, including the incentive distribution rights. The IRS may challenge any
valuation determinations that we make, particularly as to the incentive distribution rights, for
which there is no public market. Moreover, the IRS could challenge certain other aspects of the
manner in which we determine the relative allocations made to our unitholders and to the general
partner as holder of our incentive distribution rights. A successful IRS challenge to our valuation
or allocation methods could increase the amount of net taxable income and gain realized by a
unitholder with respect to a common unit.
Section 754 Election. We have made an election under Section 754 of the Code to adjust a common
unit purchasers U.S. federal income tax basis in our assets (or inside basis) to reflect the
purchasers purchase price (or a Section 743(b) adjustment). The Section 743(b) adjustment belongs
to the purchaser and not to other unitholders and does not apply to unitholders who acquire their
common units directly from us. For purposes of this discussion, a unitholders inside basis in our
assets will be considered to have two components: (1) his share of our tax basis in our assets (or
common basis) and (2) his Section 743(b) adjustment to that basis.
In general, a purchasers common basis is depreciated or amortized according to the existing method
utilized by us. A positive Section 743(b) adjustment to that basis generally is depreciated or
amortized in the same manner as property of the same type that has been newly placed in service by
us. A negative Section 743(b) adjustment to that basis generally is recovered over the remaining
useful life of the partnerships recovery property.
The calculations involved in the Section 743(b) adjustment are complex and will be made on the
basis of assumptions as to the value of our assets and in accordance with the Code and applicable
Treasury Regulations. We cannot assure you that the determinations we make will not be successfully
challenged by the IRS and that the deductions resulting from them will not be reduced or disallowed
altogether. Should the IRS require a different basis adjustment to be made, and should, in our
judgment, the expense of compliance exceed the benefit of the election, we may seek consent from
the IRS to revoke our Section 754 election. If such consent is given, a subsequent purchaser of
units may be allocated more income than he would have been allocated had the election not been
revoked.
Treatment of Short Sales. A unitholder whose units are loaned to a short seller who sells such
units may be considered to have disposed of those units. If so, he would no longer be a partner
with respect to those units until the termination of the loan and may recognize gain or loss from
the disposition. As a result:
|
|
|
any of our income, gain, loss, deduction or credit with respect to the units
may not be reportable by the unitholder who loaned them; and |
|
|
|
any cash distributions received by such unitholder with respect to those units
may be fully taxable as ordinary income. |
59
Unitholders desiring to assure their status as partners and avoid the risk of gain recognition from
a loan to a short seller are urged to ensure that any applicable brokerage account agreements
prohibit their brokers from borrowing their units.
Tax Treatment of Operations
Accounting Method and Taxable Year. We use the calendar year as our taxable year and the accrual
method of accounting for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Each unitholder will be required to
include in income his share of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit for our taxable year
ending within or with his taxable year. In addition, a unitholder who disposes of all of his units
must include his share of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit through the date of
disposition in income for his taxable year that includes the date of disposition, with the result
that a unitholder who has a taxable year ending on a date other than December 31 and who disposes
of all of his units following the close of our taxable year but before the close of his taxable
year must include his share of more than one year of our income, gain, loss, deduction and credit
in income for the year of the disposition.
Asset Tax Basis, Depreciation and Amortization. The tax basis of our assets will be used for
purposes of computing depreciation and cost recovery deductions and, ultimately, gain or loss on
the disposition of these assets. The U.S. federal income tax burden associated with any difference
between the fair market value of our assets and their tax basis immediately prior to any offering
of common units will be borne by the general partner and the existing limited partners.
To the extent allowable, we may elect to use the depreciation and cost recovery methods that will
result in the largest deductions being taken in the earliest years after assets are placed in
service. Property we subsequently acquire or construct may be depreciated using any method
permitted by the Code.
If we dispose of depreciable property by sale, foreclosure or otherwise, all or a portion of any
gain, determined by reference to the amount of depreciation previously deducted and the nature of
the property, may be subject to the recapture rules and taxed as ordinary income rather than
capital gain. Similarly, a unitholder who has taken cost recovery or depreciation deductions with
respect to property we own likely will be required to recapture some or all of those deductions as
ordinary income upon a sale of his interest in us.
The U.S. federal income tax consequences of the ownership and disposition of units will depend in
part on our estimates of the relative fair market values, and the tax bases, of our assets at the
time the holder acquired the common unit, we issue additional units or we engage in certain other
transactions. Although we may from time to time consult with professional appraisers regarding
valuation matters, we will make many of the relative fair market value estimates ourselves. These
estimates and determinations of basis are subject to challenge and will not be binding on the IRS
or the courts. If the estimates of fair market value or basis are later found to be incorrect, the
character and amount of items of income, gain, loss, deductions or credits previously reported by
unitholders might change, and unitholders might be required to adjust their tax liability for prior
years and incur interest and penalties with respect to those adjustments.
Disposition of Common Units
Recognition of Gain or Loss. In general, gain or loss will be recognized on a sale of units equal
to the difference between the amount realized and the unitholders tax basis in the units sold. A
unitholders amount realized will be measured by the sum of the cash, the fair market value of
other property received by him and his share of our nonrecourse liabilities. Because the amount
realized includes a unitholders share of our nonrecourse liabilities, the gain recognized on the
sale of units could result in a tax liability in excess of any cash or property received from the
sale.
Prior distributions from us in excess of cumulative net taxable income for a common unit that
decreased a unitholders tax basis in that common unit will, in effect, become taxable income if
the common unit is sold at a price greater than the unitholders tax basis in that common unit,
even if the price received is less than his original cost. Except as noted below, gain or loss
recognized by a unitholder on the sale or exchange of a unit generally will be taxable as capital
gain or loss. Capital gain recognized by an individual on the sale of units held more than one year
generally will be taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent under current law.
A portion of a unitholders amount realized may be allocable to unrealized receivables or to
inventory items we own. The term unrealized receivables includes potential recapture items,
including depreciation and amortization recapture. A unitholder will recognize ordinary income or
loss to the extent of the difference between the portion of the unitholders amount realized
allocable to unrealized receivables or inventory items and the unitholders share of our basis in
such receivables or inventory items. Ordinary income attributable to unrealized receivables,
inventory items and depreciation or amortization recapture may exceed net taxable gain realized
upon the sale of a unit and may be recognized even if a net taxable loss is realized on the sale of
a unit. Thus, a unitholder may recognize both ordinary income and a capital loss upon a sale of
units. Net capital losses generally may only be used to offset capital gains. An exception permits
individuals to offset up to $3,000 of net capital losses against ordinary income in any given year.
The IRS has ruled that a partner who acquires interests in a partnership in separate transactions
must combine those interests and maintain a single adjusted tax basis for all those interests. Upon
a sale or other disposition of less than all of those interests, a portion of that tax basis must
be allocated to the interests sold using an equitable apportionment method. Treasury Regulations
under Section 1223 of the Code allow a selling unitholder who can identify common units transferred
with an ascertainable holding period to elect to use the actual holding period of the common units
transferred. Thus, according to the ruling, a common unitholder will be unable to select high or
low basis common units to sell as would be the case with corporate stock, but, according to the
regulations, may designate specific common units sold for purposes of determining the holding
period of units transferred. A unitholder electing to use the actual holding period of common units
transferred must consistently use that identification method for all subsequent sales or exchanges
of common units. A unitholder considering the purchase of additional units or a sale of common
units purchased in separate transactions is urged to consult his tax advisor as to the possible
consequences of this ruling and application of the regulations.
60
Allocations Between Transferors and Transferees. In general, our taxable income or loss will be
determined annually, will be prorated on a monthly basis and will be subsequently apportioned among
the unitholders in proportion to the number of units owned by each of them as of the opening of the
applicable exchange on the first business day of the month. However, gain or loss realized on a
sale or other disposition of our assets other than in the ordinary course of business will be
allocated among the unitholders on the first business day of the month in which that gain or loss
is recognized. As a result of the foregoing, a unitholder transferring units may be allocated
income, gain, loss, deduction and credit realized after the date of transfer. A unitholder who owns
units at any time during a calendar quarter and who disposes of them prior to the record date set
for a cash distribution for that quarter will be allocated items of our income, gain, loss and
deductions attributable to months within that quarter in which the units were held but will not be
entitled to receive that cash distribution.
Transfer Notification Requirements. A unitholder who sells any of his units, other than through a
broker, generally is required to notify us in writing of that sale within 30 days after the sale
(or, if earlier, January 15 of the year following the sale). A unitholder who acquires units
generally is required to notify us in writing of that acquisition within 30 days after the
purchase, unless a broker or nominee will satisfy such requirement. We are required to notify the
IRS of any such transfers of units and to furnish specified information to the transferor and
transferee. Failure to notify us of a transfer of units may lead to the imposition of substantial
penalties.
Constructive Termination. We will be considered to have been terminated for U.S. federal income tax
purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50 percent or more of the total interests in our capital
and profits within a 12-month period. A constructive termination results in the closing of our
taxable year for all unitholders. In the case of a unitholder reporting on a taxable year other
than a calendar year, the closing of our taxable year may result in more than 12 months of our
taxable income or loss being includable in his taxable income for the year of termination. We would
be required to make new tax elections after a termination, including a new election under Section
754 of the Code, and a termination would result in a deferral of our deductions for depreciation. A
termination could also result in penalties if we were unable to determine that the termination had
occurred. Moreover, a termination might either accelerate the application of, or subject us to, tax
legislation applicable to a newly formed partnership.
Foreign Tax Credit Considerations
Subject to detailed limitations set forth in the Code, a unitholder may elect to claim a credit
against his liability for U.S. federal income tax for his share of foreign income taxes (and
certain foreign taxes imposed in lieu of a tax based upon income) paid by us. Income allocated to
unitholders likely will constitute foreign source income falling in the passive foreign tax credit
category for purposes of the U.S. foreign tax credit limitation. The rules relating to the
determination of the foreign tax credit are complex and unitholders are urged to consult their own
tax advisors to determine whether or to what extent they would be entitled to such credit. A
unitholder who does not elect to claim foreign tax credits may instead claim a deduction for his
share of foreign taxes paid by us.
Tax-Exempt Organizations and Non-U.S. Investors
Investments in units by employee benefit plans, other tax-exempt organizations and non-U.S.
persons, including nonresident aliens of the United States, non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S.
trusts and estates (collectively, non-U.S. unitholders) raise issues unique to those investors and,
as described below, may result in substantially adverse tax consequences to them.
Employee benefit plans and most other organizations exempt from U.S. federal income tax, including
individual retirement accounts and other retirement plans, are subject to U.S. federal income tax
on unrelated business taxable income. Virtually all of our income allocated to a unitholder that is
such a tax-exempt organization will be unrelated business taxable income to it subject to U.S.
federal income tax.
A non-U.S. unitholder may be subject to a 4 percent U.S. federal income tax on his share of the
U.S. source portion of our gross income attributable to transportation that begins or ends (but not
both) in the United States, unless either (a) an exemption applies and he files a U.S. federal
income tax return to claim that exemption or (b) that income is effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business in the United States (or U.S. effectively connected income). For
this purpose, transportation income includes income from the use, hiring or leasing of a vessel to
transport cargo, or the performance of services directly related to the use of any vessel to
transport cargo. The U.S. source portion of our transportation income is deemed to be 50 percent of
the income attributable to voyages that begin or end in the United States. Generally, no amount of
the income from voyages that begin and end outside the United States is treated as U.S. source, and
consequently none of our transportation income attributable to such voyages is subject to U.S.
federal income tax. Although the entire amount of transportation income from voyages that begin and
end in the United States would be fully taxable in the United States, we currently do not expect to
have any transportation income from voyages that begin and end in the United States; however, there
is no assurance that such voyages will not occur.
A non-U.S. unitholder may be entitled to an exemption from the 4 percent U.S. federal income tax or
a refund of tax withheld on U.S. effectively connected income that constitutes transportation
income if any of the following applies: (1) such non-U.S. unitholder qualifies for an exemption
from this tax under an income tax treaty between the United States and the country where such
non-U.S. unitholder is resident; (2) in the case of an individual non-U.S. unitholder, he qualifies
for the exemption from tax under Section 872(b)(1) of the Code as a resident of a country that
grants an equivalent exemption from tax to residents of the United States; or (3) in the case of a
corporate non-U.S. unitholder, it qualifies for the exemption from tax under Section 883 of the
Code (or the Section 883 Exemption) (for the rules relating to qualification for the Section 883
Exemption, please read below under Possible Classification as a Corporation The Section 883
Exemption).
We may be required to withhold U.S. federal income tax, computed at the highest statutory rate,
from cash distributions to non-U.S. unitholders with respect to their shares of our income that is
U.S. effectively connected income. Our transportation income generally should not be treated as
U.S. effectively connected income unless we have a fixed place of business in the United States and
substantially all of such transportation income is attributable to either regularly scheduled
transportation or, in the case of income derived from bareboat charters, is attributable to the
fixed place of business in the United States. While we do not expect to have any regularly
scheduled transportation or a fixed place of business in the United States, there can be no
guarantee that this will not change. Under a ruling of the IRS, a portion of any gain recognized on
the sale or other disposition of a unit by a non-U.S. unitholder may be treated as U.S. effectively
connected income to the extent we have a fixed place of business in the United States and a sale of
our assets would have given rise to U.S. effectively connected income. A non-U.S. unitholder would
be required to file a U.S. federal income tax return to report his U.S. effectively connected
income (including his share of any such income earned by us) and to pay U.S. federal income tax, or
claim a credit or refund for tax withheld on such income. Further, unless an exemption applies, a
non-U.S. corporation investing in units may be subject to a branch profits tax, at a 30 percent
rate or lower rate prescribed by a treaty, with respect to its U.S. effectively connected income.
61
Non-U.S. unitholders must apply for and obtain a U.S. taxpayer identification number in order to
file U.S. federal income tax returns and must provide that identification number to us for purposes
of any U.S. federal income tax information returns we may be required to file. Non-U.S. unitholders
are encouraged to consult with their own tax advisors regarding the U.S. federal, state and local
tax consequences of an investment in units and any filing requirements related thereto.
Functional Currency
We are required to determine the functional currency of any of our operations that constitute a
separate qualified business unit (or QBU) for U.S. federal income tax purposes and report the
affairs of any QBU in this functional currency to our unitholders. Any transactions conducted by us
other than in the U.S. dollar or by a QBU other than in its functional currency may give rise to
foreign currency exchange gain or loss. Further, if a QBU is required to maintain a functional
currency other than the U.S. dollar, a unitholder may be required to recognize foreign currency
translation gain or loss upon a distribution of money or property from a QBU or upon the sale of
common units, and items or income, gain, loss, deduction or credit allocated to the unitholder in
such functional currency must be translated into the unitholders functional currency.
For purposes of the foreign currency rules, a QBU includes a separate trade or business owned by a
partnership in the event separate books and records are maintained for that separate trade or
business. The functional currency of a QBU is determined based upon the economic environment in
which the QBU operates. Thus, a QBU whose revenues and expenses are primarily determined in a
currency other than the U.S. dollar will have a non-U.S. dollar functional currency. We believe our
principal operations constitute a QBU whose functional currency is the U.S. dollar, but certain of
our operations constitute separate QBUs whose functional currencies are other than the U.S. dollar.
Proposed regulations (or the Section 987 Proposed Regulations) provide that the amount of foreign
currency translation gain or loss recognized upon a distribution of money or property from a QBU or
upon the sale of common units will reflect the appreciation or depreciation in the functional
currency value of certain assets and liabilities of the QBU between the time the unitholder
purchased his common units and the time we receive distributions from such QBU or the unitholder
sells his common units. Foreign currency translation gain or loss will be treated as ordinary
income or loss. A unitholder must adjust the U.S. federal income tax basis in his common units to
reflect such income or loss prior to determining any other U.S. federal income tax consequences of
such distribution or sale. A unitholder who owns less than a 5 percent interest in our capital or
profits generally may elect not to have these rules apply by attaching a statement to his tax
return for the first taxable year the unitholder intends the election to be effective. Further, for
purposes of computing his taxable income and U.S. federal income tax basis in his common units, a
unitholder will be required to translate into his own functional currency items of income, gain,
loss or deduction of such QBU and his share of such QBUs liabilities. We intend to provide such
information based on generally applicable U.S. exchange rates as is necessary for unitholders to
comply with the requirements of the Section 987 Proposed Regulations as part of the U.S. federal
income tax information we will furnish unitholders each year. However, a unitholder may be entitled
to make an election to apply an alternative exchange rate with respect to the foreign currency
translation of certain items. Unitholders who desire to make such an election should consult their
own tax advisors.
Based upon our current projections of the capital invested in and profits of the non-U.S. dollar
QBUs, we believe that unitholders will be required to recognize only a nominal amount of foreign
currency translation gain or loss each year and upon their sale of units. Nonetheless, the rules
for determining the amount of translation gain or loss are not entirely clear at present as the
Section 987 Proposed Regulations currently are not effective. Unitholders are urged to consult
their own tax advisors for specific advice regarding the application of the rules for recognizing
foreign currency translation gain or loss under their own circumstances. In addition to a
unitholders recognition of foreign currency translation gain or loss, the U.S. dollar QBU will
engage in certain transactions denominated in the Euro, which will give rise to a certain amount of
foreign currency exchange gain or loss each year. This foreign currency exchange gain or loss will
be treated as ordinary income or loss.
Information Returns and Audit Procedures
We intend to furnish to each unitholder, within 90 days after the close of each calendar year,
specific U.S. federal income tax information, including a document in the form of IRS Form 1065,
Schedule K-1, which sets forth his share of our items of income, gain, loss, deductions and credits
as computed for U.S. federal income tax purposes for our preceding taxable year. In preparing this
information, which will not be reviewed by counsel, we will take various accounting and reporting
positions, some of which have been mentioned earlier, to determine his share of such items of
income, gain, loss, deduction and credit. We cannot assure you that those positions will yield a
result that conforms to the requirements of the Code, Treasury Regulations or administrative
interpretations of the IRS. We can not assure unitholders that the IRS will not successfully
contend that those positions are impermissible. Any challenge by the IRS could negatively affect
the value of the units.
We will be obligated to file U.S. federal income tax information returns with the IRS for any year
in which we earn any U.S. source income or U.S. effectively connected income. In the event we were
obligated to file a U.S. federal income tax information return but failed to do so, unitholders
would not be entitled to claim any deductions, losses or credits for U.S. federal income tax
purposes relating to us. Consequently, we may file U.S. federal income tax information returns for
any given year. The IRS may audit any such information returns that we file. Adjustments resulting
from an IRS audit of our return may require each unitholder to adjust a prior years tax liability,
and may result in an audit of his return. Any audit of a unitholders return could result in
adjustments not related to our returns as well as those related to our returns. Any IRS audit
relating to our items of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit for years in which we are not
required to file and do not file a U.S. federal income tax information return would be conducted at
the partner-level, and each unitholder may be subject to separate audit proceedings relating to
such items.
For years in which we file or are required to file U.S. federal income tax information returns, we
will be treated as a separate entity for purposes of any U.S. federal income tax audits, as well as
for purposes of judicial review of administrative adjustments by the IRS and tax settlement
proceedings. For such years, the tax treatment of partnership items of income, gain, loss,
deduction and credit will be determined in a partnership proceeding rather than in separate
proceedings with the partners. The Code requires that one partner be designated as the Tax Matters
Partner for these purposes. The partnership agreement names Teekay GP L.L.C. as our Tax Matters
Partner.
The Tax Matters Partner will make some U.S. federal tax elections on our behalf and on behalf of
unitholders. In addition, the Tax Matters Partner can extend the statute of limitations for
assessment of tax deficiencies against unitholders for items reported in the information returns we
file. The Tax Matters Partner may bind a unitholder with less than a 1 percent profits interest in
us to a settlement with the IRS with respect to these items unless that unitholder elects, by
filing a statement with the IRS, not to give that authority to the Tax Matters Partner. The Tax
Matters Partner may seek judicial review, by which all the unitholders are bound, of a final
partnership administrative adjustment and, if the Tax Matters Partner fails to seek judicial
review, judicial review may be sought by any unitholder having at least a 1 percent interest in
profits or by any group of unitholders having in the aggregate at least a 5 percent interest in
profits. However, only one action for judicial review will go forward, and each unitholder with an
interest in the outcome may participate.
62
A unitholder must file a statement with the IRS identifying the treatment of any item on his U.S.
federal income tax return that is not consistent with the treatment of the item on an information
return that we file. Intentional or negligent disregard of this consistency requirement may subject
a unitholder to substantial penalties.
Special Reporting Requirements for Owners of Non-U.S. Partnerships.
A U.S. person who either contributes more than $100,000 to us (when added to the value of any other
property contributed to us by such person or a related person during the previous 12 months), or
following a contribution owns, directly, indirectly or by attribution from certain related persons,
at least a 10% interest in us, is required to file IRS Form 8865 with his U.S. federal income tax
return for the year of the contribution to report the contribution and provide certain details
about himself and certain related persons, us and any persons that own a 10% or greater direct
interest in us. We will provide each unitholder with the necessary information about us and those
persons who own a 10% or greater direct interest in us along with the Schedule K-1 information
described previously.
In addition to the foregoing, a U.S. person who directly owns at least a 10% interest in us may be
required to make additional disclosures on IRS Form 8865 in the event such person acquires,
disposes or has his interest in us substantially increased or reduced. Further, a U.S. person who
directly, indirectly or by attribution from certain related persons, owns at least a 10% interest
in us may be required to make additional disclosures on IRS Form 8865 in the event such person,
when considered together with any other U.S. persons who own at least a 10% interest in us, owns a
greater than 50% interest in us. For these purposes, an interest in us generally is defined to
include an interest in our capital or profits or an interest in our deductions or losses.
Significant penalties may apply for failing to satisfy IRS Form 8865 filing requirements and thus
unitholders are advised to contact their tax advisors to determine the application of these filing
requirements under their own circumstances.
Accuracy-related Penalties.
An additional tax equal to 20% of the amount of any portion of an underpayment of U.S. federal
income tax attributable to one or more specified causes, including negligence or disregard of rules
or regulations and substantial understatements of income tax, is imposed by the Internal Revenue
Code. No penalty will be imposed, however, for any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that
there was a reasonable cause for that portion and that the taxpayer acted in good faith regarding
that portion.
A substantial understatement of income tax in any taxable year exists if the amount of the
understatement exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return for the
taxable year or $5,000. The amount of any understatement subject to penalty generally is reduced if
any portion is attributable to a position adopted on the return:
|
(1) |
|
for which there is, or was, substantial authority; or |
|
(2) |
|
as to which there is a reasonable basis and the pertinent facts of that position are
disclosed on the return. |
More stringent rules, including additional penalties and extended statutes of limitations, may
apply as a result of our participation in listed transactions or reportable transactions with a
significant tax avoidance purpose. While we do not anticipate participating in such transactions,
if any item of income, gain, loss, deduction or credit included in the distributive shares of
unitholders for a given year might result in an understatement of income relating to such a
transaction, we will disclose the pertinent facts on a U.S. federal income tax information return
for such year. In such event, we also will make a reasonable effort to furnish sufficient
information for unitholders to make adequate disclosure on their returns and to take other actions
as may be appropriate to permit unitholders to avoid liability for penalties.
Possible Classification as a Corporation
If we fail to meet the Qualifying Income Exception described above with respect to our
classification as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, other than a failure that is
determined by the IRS to be inadvertent and that is cured within a reasonable time after discovery,
we will be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If previously
treated as a partnership, our change in status would be deemed to have been effected by our
transfer of all of our assets, subject to liabilities, to a newly formed non-U.S. corporation, in
return for stock in that corporation, and then our distribution of that stock to our unitholders
and other owners in liquidation of their interests in us. Unitholders that are U.S. persons would
be required to file IRS Form 926 to report these deemed transfers and any other transfers they made
to us while we were treated as a corporation and may be required to recognize income or gain for
U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent of certain prior deductions or losses and other
items. Substantial penalties may apply for failure to satisfy these reporting requirements, unless
the person otherwise required to report shows such failure was due to reasonable cause and not
willful neglect.
If we were treated as a corporation in any taxable year, either as a result of a failure to meet
the Qualifying Income Exception or otherwise, our items of income, gain, loss, deduction and credit
would not pass through to unitholders. Instead, we would be subject to U.S. federal income tax
based on the rules applicable to foreign corporations, not partnerships, and such items would be
treated as our own. Any distribution made to a unitholder would be treated as taxable dividend
income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits, a nontaxable return of
capital to the extent of the unitholders tax basis in his common units, and taxable capital gain
thereafter. Section 743(b) adjustments to the basis of our assets would no longer be available to
purchasers in the marketplace.
Taxation of Operating Income. We expect that substantially all of our gross income and the gross
income of our corporate subsidiaries will be attributable to the transportation of LNG, LPG, crude
oil and related products. For this purpose, gross income attributable to transportation (or
Transportation Income) includes income derived from, or in connection with, the use (or hiring or
leasing for use) of a vessel to transport cargo, or the performance of services directly related to
the use of any vessel to transport cargo, and thus includes both time charter and bareboat charter
income.
63
Transportation Income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not
both begin and end, in the United States will be considered to be 50 percent derived from sources
within the United States (or U.S. Source International Transportation Income). Transportation
Income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States will be
considered to be 100 percent derived from sources within the United States (or U.S. Source Domestic
Transportation Income). Transportation Income attributable to transportation exclusively between
non-U.S. destinations will be considered to be 100 percent derived from sources outside the United
States. Transportation Income derived from sources outside the United States generally will not be
subject to U.S. federal income tax.
Based on our current operations and the operations of our subsidiaries, we expect substantially all
of our Transportation Income to be from sources outside the United States and not subject to U.S.
federal income tax. However, if we or any of our subsidiaries does earn U.S. Source International
Transportation Income or U.S. Source Domestic Transportation, our income or our subsidiaries income
may be subject to U.S. federal income taxation under one of two alternative tax regimes (the 4
percent gross basis tax or the net basis tax, as described below), unless the exemption from U.S.
taxation under Section 883 of the Code (or the Section 883 Exemption) applies.
The Section 883 Exemption. In general, the Section 883 Exemption provides that if a non-U.S.
corporation satisfies the requirements of Section 883 of the Code and the regulations thereunder
(or the Section 883 Regulations), it will not be subject to the 4 percent gross basis tax or the
net basis tax and branch profits tax described below on its U.S. Source International
Transportation Income.
A non-U.S. corporation will qualify for the Section 883 Exemption if, among other things, it
satisfies the following three requirements:
|
(1) |
|
it is organized in a jurisdiction outside the United States that grants an equivalent
exemption from tax to corporations organized in the United States (or an Equivalent
Exemption); |
|
(2) |
|
it meets one of the following three tests: (1) the Qualified Shareholder Test, (2) the
Publicly Traded Test, or (3) the Controlled Foreign Corporation Test; and |
|
(3) |
|
it meets certain substantiation, reporting and other requirements. |
We are organized under the laws of the Republic of The Marshall Islands. The U.S. Treasury
Department has recognized the Republic of The Marshall Islands as a jurisdiction that grants an
Equivalent Exemption. Therefore, in the event we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal
income tax purposes, we would meet the first requirement for the Section 883 Exemption. We expect
that we would be able to satisfy the substantiation, reporting and other requirements and therefore
meet the third requirement for the Section 883 Exemption. With respect to the second
requirement, we do not believe that we met the Controlled Foreign Corporation test or the Publicly
Traded test in 2010 and we do not believe that we will meet these tests in subsequent years if we
were to be treated as a corporation. As a result, our ability to qualify for the Section 883
Exemption would depend on our ability to satisfy the Qualified Shareholder Test.
With respect to the Qualified Shareholder test, Teekay Corporation, which at one time owned more
than 50 percent of the value of our outstanding equity interests, now owns less than 50 percent of
the value of our outstanding equity interests. As such, we expect that for 2010 and all succeeding
years, in the event we were treated as a corporation, we would not satisfy the Qualified
Shareholder test and therefore we would not qualify for the Section 883 Exemption and our U.S.
Source International Transportation Income would not be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation.
The 4 Percent Gross Basis Tax. If we were to be treated as a corporation and if the Section 883
Exemption described above and the net basis tax described below does not apply, we would be subject
to a 4 percent U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source Transportation Income, without benefit of
deductions. We estimate that, in this event, we would be subject to less than $500,000 of U.S.
federal income tax in 2011 and in each subsequent year (in addition to any U.S. federal income
taxes on our subsidiaries, as described below) based on the amount of U.S. Source International
Transportation Income we earned for 2010 and our expected U.S. Source International Transportation
Income for subsequent years. The amount of such tax for which we would be liable for any year in
which we were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes would depend upon the
amount of income we earn from voyages into or out of the United States in such year, however, which
is not within our complete control.
Net Basis Tax and Branch Profits Tax. We currently do not expect to have a fixed place of business
in the United States. Nonetheless, if this were to change or we otherwise were treated as having
such a fixed place of business in the United States, our U.S. Source International Transportation
Income may be treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the
United States (or Effectively Connected Income) if substantially all of our U.S. Source
International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or, in
the case of income derived from bareboat charters, is attributable to the fixed place of business
in the United States. Based on our current operations, none of our potential U.S. Source
International Transportation Income is attributable to regularly scheduled transportation or is
derived from bareboat charters attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States. As
a result, if we were classified as a corporation, we do not anticipate that any of our U.S. Source
International Transportation Income would be treated as Effectively Connected Income. However,
there is no assurance that we would not earn income pursuant to regularly scheduled transportation
or bareboat charters attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States in the future,
which would result in such income being treated as Effectively Connected Income if we were
classified as a corporation. Any income that we earn that is treated as U.S. effectively connected
income would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax (the highest statutory rate currently
is 35%), unless the Section 883 Exemption (as discussed above) applied. The 4% U.S. federal income
tax described above is inapplicable to Effectively Connected Income.
Unless the Section 883 Exemption applied, a 30% branch profits tax imposed under Section 884 of the
Code also would apply to our earnings that result from Effectively Connected Income, and a branch
interest tax could be imposed on certain interest paid or deemed paid by us. Furthermore, on the
sale of a vessel that has produced Effectively Connected Income, we could be subject to the net
basis corporate income tax and to the 30% branch profits tax with respect to our gain not in excess
of certain prior deductions for depreciation that reduced Effectively Connected Income. Otherwise,
we would not expect to be subject to U.S. federal income tax with respect to the remainder of any
gain realized on sale of a vessel because it is expected that any sale of a vessel will be
structured so that it is considered to occur outside of the United States and so that it is not
attributable to an office or other fixed place of business in the United States.
64
Consequences of Possible PFIC Classification.
A non-United States entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be a
passive foreign investment company (or PFIC) in any taxable year in which, after taking into
account the income and assets of the corporation and certain subsidiaries pursuant to a look
through rule, either (i) at least 75.0% of its gross income is passive income or (ii) at least 50.0% of
the average value of its assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held
for the production of passive income. For purposes of these tests, passive income includes
dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and
royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection
with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from
the performance of services does not constitute passive income.
Based upon our current assets and operations, we do not believe that we would be considered to be a
PFIC even if we were treated as a corporation. No assurance can be given, however, that the IRS
would accept this position or that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if we
were treated as a corporation and there were to be changes in our assets, income or operations. In
addition, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Tidewater
Inc. v. United States 565 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2009) held that income derived from certain time
chartering activities should be treated as rental income rather than services income for purposes
of a foreign sales corporation provision of the Code. However, the IRS stated in an Action on
Decision (AOD 2010-001) that it disagrees with, and will not acquiesce to, the way that the rental
versus services framework was applied to the facts in the Tidewater decision, and in its discussion
stated that the time charters at issue in Tidewater would be treated as producing services income
for PFIC purposes. The IRSs statement with respect to Tidewater cannot be relied upon or
otherwise cited as precedent by taxpayers. Consequently, in the absence of any binding legal
authority specifically relating to the statutory provisions governing PFICs, there can be no
assurance that the IRS or a court would not follow the Tidewater decision in interpreting the PFIC
provisions under the Code. Nevertheless, based on our current assets and operations, we believe
that we would not now be nor would have ever been a PFIC even if we were treated as a corporation.
If we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year during which a unitholder owns units, a
unitholder generally would be subject to special rules (regardless of whether we continue
thereafter to be a PFIC) resulting in increased tax liability with respect to (1) any excess
distribution (i.e., the portion of any distributions received by a unitholder on our common units
in a taxable year in excess of 125 percent of the average annual distributions received by the
unitholder in the three preceding taxable years or, if shorter, the unitholders holding period for
the units) and (2) any gain realized upon the sale or other disposition of units. Under these
rules:
|
(i) the excess distribution or gain will be allocated ratably over the unitholders
aggregate holding period for the common units; |
|
(ii) the amount allocated to the current taxable year and any taxable year prior to the taxable
year we were first treated as a PFIC with respect to the unitholder would be taxed as ordinary
income in the current taxable year; |
|
(iii) the amount allocated to each of the other taxable years would be subject to U.S. federal
income tax at the highest rate in effect for the applicable class of taxpayer for that year; and
an interest charge for the deemed deferral benefit would be imposed with respect to the
resulting tax attributable to each such other taxable year. |
In addition, if a unitholder were subject to the above rules for any taxable year after 2010, a
unitholder would be required to file an annual report with the IRS for that year with respect to
the unitholders common units.
Certain elections, such as a qualified electing fund (or QEF) election or mark to market election,
may be available to a unitholder if we were classified as a PFIC. If we determine that we are or
will be a PFIC, we will provide unitholders with information concerning the potential availability
of such elections.
Under current law, dividends received by individual citizens or residents of the United States from
domestic corporations and qualified foreign corporations generally are treated as net capital gains
and subject to U.S. federal income tax at reduced rates (currently 15%). However, if we were
classified as a PFIC for our taxable year in which we pay a dividend, we would not be considered a
qualified foreign corporation, and individuals receiving such dividends would not be eligible for
the reduced rate of U.S. federal income tax.
Consequences of Possible Controlled Foreign Corporation Classification. If we were to be treated as
a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and if CFC Shareholders (generally, U.S. Holders
who each own, directly, indirectly or constructively, 10 percent or more of the total combined
voting power of our outstanding shares entitled to vote) own directly, indirectly or constructively
more than 50 percent of either the total combined voting power of our outstanding shares entitled
to vote or the total value of all of our outstanding shares, we generally would be treated as a
controlled foreign corporation, or a CFC.
CFC Shareholders are treated as receiving current distributions of their shares of certain income
of the CFC without regard to any actual distributions and are subject to other burdensome U.S.
federal income tax and administrative requirements but generally are not also subject to the
requirements generally applicable to shareholders of a PFIC. In addition, a person who is or has
been a CFC Shareholder may recognize ordinary income on the disposition of shares of the CFC.
Although we do not believe we are or will become a CFC even if we were to be treated as a
corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, U.S. persons purchasing a substantial interest in
us should consider the potential implications of being treated as a CFC Shareholder in the event we
become a CFC in the future.
The U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. Holders who are not CFC Shareholders would not
change in the event we become a CFC in the future.
65
Taxation of Our Subsidiary Corporations
Our subsidiaries Arctic Spirit L.L.C., Polar Spirit L.L.C. and Teekay LNG Holdco L.L.C. are
classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes and are subject to U.S. federal
income tax based on the rules applicable to foreign corporations described above under Possible
Classification as a Corporation Taxation of Operating Income, including, but not limited to,
the 4 percent gross basis tax or the net basis tax if the Section 883 Exemption does not apply. We
believe that the Section 883 Exemption would apply to our corporate subsidiaries only to the extent
that it would apply to us if we were to be treated as a corporation. As such, we believe that the
Section 883 Exemption did not apply for 2010 and therefore, the 4 percent gross basis tax applied
to our subsidiary corporations. The section 883 Exemption does not apply for 2011 and would not
apply in subsequent years and, therefore, the 4 percent gross basis tax will apply to our
subsidiary corporations. In this regard, we estimate that we will be subject to approximately
$500,000 or less of U.S. federal income tax in 2011 and in each subsequent year based on the amount
of U.S. Source International Transportation Income these subsidiaries earned for 2010 and their
expected U.S. Source International Transportation Income for 2011 and subsequent years. The amount
of such tax for which they would be liable for any year will depend upon the amount of income they
earn from voyages into or out of the United States in such year, which, however, is not within
their complete control.
As non-U.S. entities classified as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, our
subsidiaries Arctic Spirit L.L.C., Polar Spirit L.L.C. and Teekay LNG Holdco L.L.C. could be
considered PFICs. We received a ruling from the IRS that our subsidiary Teekay LNG Holdco L.L.C.
will be classified as a CFC rather than a PFIC as long as it is wholly-owned by a U.S. partnership.
We have restructured our subsidiaries Arctic Spirit L.L.C. and Polar Spirit L.L.C. such that they
are also owned by our U.S. partnership. We intend to take the position that these subsidiaries
should also be treated as CFCs rather than PFICs following this restructuring. Moreover, we
believe and intend to take the position that these subsidiaries were not PFICs at any time prior to
the restructuring. No assurance can be given, however, that the IRS, or a court of law, will
accept this position or would not follow the Tidewater decision in interpreting the PFIC provisions
under the Code (as discussed above). In the event that either of these subsidiaries were treated
as a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. unitholder held common units, such unitholder
would be subject to potentially adverse tax consequences to the extent his common units relate to
these subsidiaries, as described above. Certain elections, such as a qualified electing fund (or
QEF) election may be available to a unitholder if these subsidiaries were classified as PFICs. If
we determine that any of these subsidiaries were or will be a PFIC, we will provide unitholders
with information concerning the potential availability of such elections.
Canadian Federal Income Tax Consequences.
The following discussion is a summary of the material
Canadian federal income tax consequences under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (or the Canada Tax Act),
that we believe are relevant to holders of common units who, for the purposes of the Canada Tax Act
and the Canada-United States Tax Convention 1980 (or the Canada-U.S. Treaty), are at all relevant
times resident in the United States and entitled to all of the benefits of the Canada U.S.
Treaty and who deal at arms length with us and Teekay Corporation (or U.S. Resident Holders). This
discussion takes into account all proposed amendments to the Canada Tax Act and the regulations
thereunder that have been publicly announced by or on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Canada)
prior to the date hereof and assumes that such proposed amendments will be enacted substantially as
proposed. However, no assurance can be given that such proposed amendments will be enacted in the
form proposed or at all. This discussion assumes that we are, and will continue to be, classified
as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes.
A U.S. Resident Holder will not be liable to tax under the Canada Tax Act on any income or gains
allocated by us to the U.S. Resident Holder in respect of such U.S. Resident Holders common units,
provided that for purposes of the Canada-U.S. Treaty, (a) we do not carry on business through a
permanent establishment in Canada and (b) such U.S. Resident Holder does not hold such common units
in connection with a business carried on by such U.S. Resident Holder through a permanent
establishment in Canada.
A U.S. Resident Holder will not be liable to tax under the Canada Tax Act on any income or gain
from the sale, redemption or other disposition of such U.S. Resident Holders common units,
provided that, for purposes of the Canada-U.S. Treaty, such common units do not, and did not at any
time in the twelve-month period preceding the date of disposition, form part of the business
property of a permanent establishment in Canada of such U.S. Resident Holder.
In this regard, we believe that our activities and affairs can be conducted in a manner that we
will not be carrying on business in Canada and that U.S. Resident Holders should not be considered
to be carrying on business in Canada for purposes of the Canada Tax Act or the Canada-U.S. Treaty
solely by reason of the acquisition, holding, disposition or redemption of common units. We intend
that this is the case, notwithstanding that certain services will be provided to us, indirectly
through arrangements with a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation that is resident and based in Bermuda,
by Canadian service providers. However, we cannot assure this result.
Other Taxation
We and our subsidiaries are subject to taxation in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions because we or our
subsidiaries are either organized, or conduct business or operations, in such jurisdictions. We
intend that our business and the business of our subsidiaries will be conducted and operated in a
manner that minimizes taxes imposed upon us and our subsidiaries. However, we cannot assure this
result as tax laws in these or other jurisdictions may change or we may enter into new business
transactions relating to such jurisdictions, which could affect our tax liability. Please read Item
18 Financial Statements: Note 10 Income Tax.
Documents on Display
Documents concerning us that are referred to herein may be inspected at our principal executive
headquarters at 4th Floor, Belvedere Building, 69 Pitts Bay Road, Hamilton, HM 08,
Bermuda. Those documents electronically filed via the SECs Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis,
and Retrieval (or EDGAR) system may also be obtained from the SECs website at www.sec.gov,
free of charge, or from the SECs Public Reference Section at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C.
20549, at prescribed rates. Further information on the operation of the SEC public reference rooms
may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.
|
|
|
Item 11. |
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk |
Interest Rate Risk
We are exposed to the impact of interest rate changes primarily through our borrowings that require
us to make interest payments based on LIBOR or EURIBOR. Significant increases in interest rates
could adversely affect our operating margins, results of operations and our ability to service our
debt. We use interest rate swaps to reduce our exposure to market risk from changes in interest
rates. The principal objective of these contracts is to minimize the risks and costs associated
with our floating-rate debt.
66
We are exposed to credit loss in the event of non-performance by the counterparties to the interest
rate swap agreements. In order to minimize counterparty risk, we only enter into derivative
transactions with counterparties that are rated A- or better by Standard & Poors or A3 by Moodys
at the time of the transactions. In addition, to the extent practical, interest rate swaps are entered
into with different counterparties to reduce concentration risk.
The table below provides information about our financial instruments at December 31, 2010, that are
sensitive to changes in interest rates. For long-term debt and capital lease obligations, the table
presents principal payments and related weighted-average interest rates by expected maturity dates.
For interest rate swaps, the table presents notional amounts and weighted-average interest rates by
expected contractual maturity dates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected Maturity Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
|
after |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Liability |
|
|
Rate (1) |
|
|
|
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Rate ($U.S.) (2) |
|
|
38.4 |
|
|
|
46.7 |
|
|
|
46.7 |
|
|
|
46.7 |
|
|
|
95.4 |
|
|
|
535.2 |
|
|
|
809.1 |
|
|
|
(724.6 |
) |
|
|
0.7 |
% |
Variable Rate (Euro) (3) (4) |
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
206.3 |
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
130.3 |
|
|
|
373.3 |
|
|
|
(344.7 |
) |
|
|
1.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate Debt ($U.S.) |
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
92.2 |
|
|
|
216.7 |
|
|
|
(222.7 |
) |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
Average Interest Rate |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
5.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations (5) (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-Rate ($U.S.) (7) |
|
|
185.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185.5 |
|
|
|
(185.5 |
) |
|
|
7.4 |
% |
Average Interest Rate (8) |
|
|
7.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rate Swaps: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Amount ($U.S.) (6) (9) |
|
|
18.4 |
|
|
|
18.9 |
|
|
|
19.4 |
|
|
|
19.9 |
|
|
|
20.6 |
|
|
|
539.7 |
|
|
|
636.9 |
|
|
|
(115.9 |
) |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
Average Fixed Pay Rate (2) |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract Amount (Euro) (4) (10) |
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
206.3 |
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
|
130.3 |
|
|
|
373.3 |
|
|
|
(25.4 |
) |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
Average Fixed Pay Rate (3) |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Rate refers to the weighted-average effective interest rate for our long-term debt and
capital lease obligations, including the margin we pay on our floating-rate debt and the
average fixed pay rate for our interest rate swap agreements. The average interest rate for
our capital lease obligations is the weighted-average interest rate implicit in our lease
obligations at the inception of the leases. The average fixed pay rate for our interest rate
swaps excludes the margin we pay on our drawn floating-rate debt, which as of December 31,
2010 ranged from 0.3% to 0.7%. Please read Item 18 Financial Statements: Note 9
Long-Term Debt. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest payments on U.S. Dollar-denominated debt and interest rate swaps are based on
LIBOR. |
|
(3) |
|
Interest payments on Euro-denominated debt and interest rate swaps are based on EURIBOR. |
|
(4) |
|
Euro-denominated amounts have been converted to U.S. Dollars using the prevailing exchange
rate as of December 31, 2010. |
|
(5) |
|
Excludes capital lease obligations (present value of minimum lease payments) of 61.2
million Euros ($81.9 million) on one of our existing LNG carriers with a weighted-average
fixed interest rate of 5.8%. Under the terms of this fixed-rate lease obligation, we are
required to have on deposit, subject to a weighted-average fixed interest rate of 5.1%, an
amount of cash that, together with the interest earned thereon, will fully fund the amount
owing under the capital lease obligation, including a vessel purchase obligation. As at
December 31, 2010, the amount on deposit was 61.7 million Euros ($82.6 million).
Consequently, we are not subject to interest rate risk from these obligations or deposits. |
|
(6) |
|
Under the terms of the capital leases for the RasGas II LNG Carriers (see Item 18
Financial Statements: Note 5 Leases and Restricted Cash), we are required to have on
deposit, subject to a variable rate of interest, an amount of cash that, together with
interest earned on the deposit, will equal the remaining amounts owing under the
variable-rate leases. The deposits, which as at December 31, 2010 totaled $477.2 million, and
the lease obligations, which as at December 31, 2010 totaled $470.8 million, have been
swapped for fixed-rate deposits and fixed-rate obligations. Consequently, Teekay Nakilat is
not subject to interest rate risk from these obligations and deposits and, therefore, the
lease obligations, cash deposits and related interest rate swaps have been excluded from the
table above. As at December 31, 2010, the contract amount, fair value and fixed interest
rates of these interest rate swaps related to Teekay Nakilats capital lease obligations and
restricted cash deposits were $437.5 million and $471.5 million, ($60.2) million and $66.9
million, and 4.9% and 4.8%, respectively. |
|
(7) |
|
The amount of capital lease obligations represents the present value of minimum lease
payments together with our purchase obligation, as applicable. |
|
(8) |
|
The average interest rate is the weighted-average interest rate implicit in the capital
lease obligations at the inception of the leases. |
|
(9) |
|
The average variable receive rate for our U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps is
set quarterly at 3-month LIBOR. |
|
(10) |
|
The average variable receive rate for our Euro-denominated interest rate swaps is set
monthly at 1-month EURIBOR. |
67
Spot Market Rate Risk
One of our Suezmax tankers, the Toledo Spirit, operates pursuant to a time-charter contract that
increases or decreases the otherwise fixed-rate established in the charter depending on the spot
charter rates that we would have earned had we traded the vessel in the spot tanker market. The
remaining term of the time-charter contract is 15 years as of December 31, 2010, although the
charterer has the right to terminate the time-charter in July 2018. We have entered into an
agreement with Teekay Corporation under which Teekay Corporation pays us any amounts payable to the
charterer as a result of spot rates being below the fixed rate, and we pay Teekay Corporation any
amounts payable to us from the charterer as a result of spot rates being in excess of the fixed
rate. The amounts payable to or receivable from Teekay Corporation are settled at the end of each
year. At December 31, 2010, the fair value of this derivative liability was ($10.0) million and
the change from reporting period to period has been reported in realized and unrealized loss on
derivative instruments.
Foreign Currency Fluctuations
Our functional currency is U.S. dollars. Our results of operations are affected by fluctuations in
currency exchange rates. The volatility in our financial results due to currency exchange rate
fluctuations is attributed primarily to foreign currency revenues and expenses and our
Euro-denominated loans, capital leases and restricted cash deposits. A portion of our voyage
revenues are denominated in Euros. A portion of our vessel operating expenses and general and
administrative expenses are denominated in Euros, which is primarily a function of the nationality
of certain of our crew and administrative staff. We also have Euro-denominated interest expense and
interest income related to our Euro-denominated loans, Euro-denominated capital leases and
Euro-denominated restricted cash deposits, respectively. As a result, fluctuations in the Euro
relative to the U.S. Dollar have caused, and are likely to continue to cause, fluctuations in our
reported voyage revenues, vessel operating expenses, general and administrative expenses, interest
expense, interest income and realized and unrealized loss on derivative instruments.
|
|
|
Item 12. |
|
Description of Securities Other than Equity Securities |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 13. |
|
Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies |
None.
|
|
|
Item 14. |
|
Material Modifications to the Rights of Unitholders and Use of Proceeds |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 15. |
|
Controls and Procedures |
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (or the Exchange Act)) that are designed to
ensure that (i) information required to be disclosed in our reports that are filed or submitted
under the Exchange Act, are recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods
specified in the Securities and Exchange Commissions rules and forms, and (ii) information
required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is
accumulated and communicated to our management, including the principal executive and principal
financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate to allow timely
decisions regarding required disclosure.
We conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures under the supervision and with
the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Based on the
evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure
controls and procedures are effective as of December 31, 2010.
During 2010, there were no changes in our internal controls that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
The Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer do not expect that our disclosure controls
or internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. Although our disclosure controls and
procedures were designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives, a control
system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute,
assurance that the objectives of the system are met. Further, the design of a control system must
reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be
considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no
evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of
fraud, if any, within us have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that
judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error
or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system
of controls also is based partly on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and
there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all
potential future conditions.
Managements Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining for us adequate internal controls
over financial reporting.
Our internal controls were designed to provide reasonable assurance as to the reliability of our
financial reporting and the preparation and presentation of the consolidated financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. Our internal controls over financial reporting include those policies and procedures that:
1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect
the transactions and dispositions of our assets; 2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of the financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made in
accordance with authorizations of management and the directors; and 3) provide reasonable assurance
regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our
assets that could have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.
68
We conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
based upon the framework in Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. This evaluation included review of the
documentation of controls, evaluation of the design effectiveness of controls, testing of the
operating effectiveness of controls and a conclusion on this evaluation.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect misstatements even when determined to be effective and can only provide reasonable assurance
with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Also, projections of any
evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies and
procedures may deteriorate. However, based on the evaluation, management believes that we
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010.
Our independent auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, a registered public accounting firm has audited the
accompanying consolidated financial statements and our internal control over financial reporting.
Their attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting can
be found on page F-2 of this Annual Report.
|
|
|
Item 16A. |
|
Audit Committee Financial Expert |
The board of directors of our General Partner has determined that director Robert E. Boyd qualifies
as an audit committee financial expert and is independent under applicable NYSE and SEC standards.
We have adopted Standards of Business Conduct that include a Code of Ethics for all our employees
and the employees and directors of our General Partner. This document is available under About Us
- Partnership Governance from the Home Page of our web site (www.teekaylng.com). We intend to
disclose, under About us Partnership Governance in the About Us section of our web site, any
waivers to or amendments of our Code of Ethics for the benefit of any directors and executive
officers of our General Partner.
|
|
|
Item 16C. |
|
Principal Accountant Fees and Services |
Our principal accountant for 2010 and 2009 was Ernst & Young LLP, Chartered Accountants. The
following table shows the fees we paid or accrued for audit services provided by Ernst & Young LLP
for 2010 and 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Fees (in thousands of U.S. dollars) |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Audit Fees(1) |
|
|
996 |
|
|
|
1,060 |
|
Audit-Related Fees(2) |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
Tax Fees(3) |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,110 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Audit fees represent fees for professional services provided in connection with the audit of
our consolidated financial statements, review of our quarterly consolidated financial
statements, audit services provided in connection with other statutory audits and professional
services in connection with the review of our regulatory filings for our equity offerings. |
|
(2) |
|
Audit-related fees relate primarily to Dropdown Predecessor transactions and other accounting
consultations. |
|
(3) |
|
Tax fees relate primarily to corporate tax compliance fees. |
The Audit Committee of our General Partners board of directors has the authority to pre-approve
permissible audit-related and non-audit services not prohibited by law to be performed by our
independent auditors and associated fees. Engagements for proposed services either may be
separately pre-approved by the Audit Committee or entered into pursuant to detailed pre-approval
policies and procedures established by the Audit Committee, as long as the Audit Committee is
informed on a timely basis of any engagement entered into on that basis. The Audit Committee
separately pre-approved all engagements and fees paid to our principal accountant in 2010.
|
|
|
Item 16D. |
|
Exemptions from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 16E. |
|
Purchases of Units by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 16F. |
|
Change in Registrants Certifying Accountant |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 16G. |
|
Corporate Governance |
There are no significant ways in which our corporate governance practices differ from those
followed by domestic companies under the listing requirements of the New York Stock Exchange.
69
|
|
|
Item 17. |
|
Financial Statements |
Not applicable.
|
|
|
Item 18. |
|
Financial Statements |
The following financial statements, together with the related reports of Ernst & Young LLP,
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm thereon, are filed as part of this Annual Report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-1, F-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Financial Statements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
All schedules for which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulations of the SEC are
not required, are inapplicable or have been disclosed in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial
Statements and therefore have been omitted.
The following exhibits are filed as part of this Annual Report: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
Certificate of Limited Partnership of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. (1) |
|
1.2 |
|
|
First Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of Teekay LNG Partners L.P., as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of May
31, 2006 and Amendment No. 2 as of January 1, 2007. |
|
1.3 |
|
|
Certificate of Formation of Teekay GP L.L.C. (1) |
|
1.4 |
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Teekay GP L.L.C. (2) |
|
4.1 |
|
|
Agreement, dated February 21, 2001, for a U.S. $100,000,000 Revolving Credit Facility between Naviera Teekay Gas S.L., J.P. Morgan plc
and various other banks (2) |
|
4.2 |
|
|
Teekay LNG Partners L.P. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (2) |
|
4.3 |
|
|
Amended and Restated Omnibus Agreement (3) |
|
4.4 |
|
|
Administrative Services Agreement with Teekay Shipping Limited (2) |
|
4.5 |
|
|
Advisory, Technical and Administrative Services Agreement (2) |
|
4.6 |
|
|
LNG Strategic Consulting and Advisory Services Agreement (2) |
|
4.7 |
|
|
Syndicated Loan Agreement between Naviera Teekay Gas III, S.L. (formerly Naviera F. Tapias Gas III, S.A.) and Caixa de Aforros de Vigo
Ourense e Pontevedra, as Agent, dated as of October 2, 2000, as amended (2) |
|
4.8 |
|
|
Bareboat Charter Agreement between Naviera Teekay Gas III, S.L. (formerly Naviera F. Tapias Gas III, S.A.) and Poseidon Gas AIE dated as
of October 2, 2000 (2) |
|
4.9 |
|
|
Credit Facility Agreement between Naviera Teekay Gas IV, S.L. (formerly Naviera F. Tapias Gas IV, S.A.) and Chase Manhattan
International Limited, as Agent, dated as of December 21, 2001, as amended (2) |
|
4.10 |
|
|
Bareboat Charter Agreement between Naviera Teekay Gas IV, S.L. (formerly Naviera F. Tapias Gas IV, S.A.) and Pagumar AIE dated as of
December 30, 2003 (2) |
|
4.11 |
|
|
Agreement, dated December 7, 2005, for a U.S. $137,500,000 Secured Reducing Revolving Loan Facility Agreement between Asian Spirit
L.L.C., African Spirit L.L.C., European Spirit L.L.C., DNB Nor Bank ASA and other banks (4) |
|
4.12 |
|
|
Agreement, dated August 23, 2006, for a U.S. $330,000,000 Secured Revolving Loan Facility between Teekay LNG Partners L.P., ING Bank
N.V. and other banks (5) |
|
4.13 |
|
|
Purchase Agreement, dated November 2005, for the acquisition of Asian Spirit L.L.C., African Spirit L.L.C. and European Spirit L.L.C. (6) |
|
4.14 |
|
|
Agreement, dated June 30, 2008, for a U.S. $172,500,000 Secured Revolving Loan Facility between Arctic Spirit L.L.C., Polar Spirit L.L.C
and DnB Nor Bank A.S.A. (7) |
|
4.15 |
|
|
Credit Facility Agreement between Taizhou L.L.C. and DHJS L.L.C. and Calyon, as Agent, dated as of October 27, 2009 (8) |
|
4.16 |
|
|
Credit Facility Agreement between Bermuda Spirit L.L.C., Hamilton Spirit L.L.C., Zenith Spirit L.L.C., Summit Spirit L.L.C. and Credit
Argicole CIB, dated March 17, 2010 (9) |
|
4.17 |
|
|
Credit Facility Agreement between Great East Hull No. 1717 L.L.C., Great East Hull No. 1718 L.L.C., H.S.H.I Hull No. S363 L.L.C.,
H.S.H.I Hull No. S364 L.L.C. and Calyon, dated December 15, 2006 (9) |
|
8.1 |
|
|
List of Subsidiaries of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. |
|
12.1 |
|
|
Rule 13a-15(e)/15d-15(e) Certification of Teekay LNG Partners L.P.s Chief Executive Officer |
|
12.2 |
|
|
Rule 13a-15(e)/15d-15(e) Certification of Teekay LNG Partners L.P.s Chief Financial Officer |
|
13.1 |
|
|
Teekay LNG Partners L.P. Certification of Peter Evensen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
15.1 |
|
|
Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, as independent registered public accounting firm, for Teekay LNG Partners L.P. |
|
15.2 |
|
|
Consolidated Financial Statements of Teekay Nakilat (III) Corporation |
70
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Registration Statement on Form F-1 (File No.
333-120727), filed with the SEC on November 24, 2004, and hereby incorporated by reference to
such Annual Report. |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement
on Form F-1 (File No. 333-120727), filed with the SEC on April 11, 2005, and hereby
incorporated by reference to such Registration Statement. |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Annual Report on Form 20-F (File No.
1-32479), filed with the SEC on April 19, 2007 and hereby incorporated by reference to such
report. |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Annual Report on Form 20-F (File No.
1-32479), filed with the SEC on April 14, 2006 and hereby incorporated by reference to such
report. |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Report on Form 6-K (File No. 1-32479),
filed with the SEC on December 21, 2006 and hereby incorporated by reference to such report. |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
on Form F-1 (File No. 333-129413), filed with the SEC on November 3, 2005, and hereby
incorporated by reference to such Registration Statement. |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Report on Form 6-K (File No. 1-32479),
filed with the SEC on March 20, 2009 and hereby incorporated by reference to such report. |
|
(8) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Report on Form 20F (File No. 1-32479),
filed with the SEC on April 26, 2010 and hereby incorporated by reference to such report. |
|
(9) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Partnerships Report on Form 6-K (File No. 1-32479),
filed with the SEC on June 1, 2010 and hereby incorporated by reference to such report. |
71
SIGNATURE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P.
By: Teekay GP L.L.C., its General Partner
|
|
Date: April 1, 2011 |
By: |
/s/ Peter Evensen
|
|
|
|
Peter Evensen |
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
72
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Unitholders of
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P.
We have audited the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. and
subsidiaries (or the Partnership) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated
statements of income (loss), changes in total equity and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Partnerships management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements
based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial position of Teekay LNG Partners L.P. and subsidiaries at
December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010 in conformity with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), Teekay LNG Partners L.P.s internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by
the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated April 1,
2011 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
|
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
|
|
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
April 1, 2011
|
|
Chartered Accountants |
F-1
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Unitholders of
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P.
We have audited Teekay LNG
Partners L.P.s (or the Partnerships) internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, based on criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (the COSO criteria). The Partnerships management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting in the accompanying Form 20-F. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
the Partnerships internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was
maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk,
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
The Partnerships internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. The Partnerships internal control over financial reporting includes those policies
and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail,
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Partnership;
(2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation
of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that
receipts and expenditures of the Partnership are being made only in accordance with authorizations
of management and directors of the Partnership; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding
prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Partnerships
assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are
subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that
the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Teekay LNG
Partners L.P. has maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 based on the
COSO criteria.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States), the 2010 consolidated financial statements of Teekay LNG Partners L.P., and our report dated April 1, 2011 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.
|
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
|
|
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
April 1, 2011
|
|
Chartered Accountants |
F-2
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES (Note 1)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS)
(in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VOYAGE REVENUES (note 11) |
|
|
374,008 |
|
|
|
343,048 |
|
|
|
314,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES (note 11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
2,042 |
|
|
|
2,034 |
|
|
|
3,253 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
84,577 |
|
|
|
82,374 |
|
|
|
77,113 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
89,347 |
|
|
|
82,686 |
|
|
|
76,880 |
|
General and administrative (note 11a) |
|
|
23,247 |
|
|
|
19,764 |
|
|
|
20,201 |
|
Gain on sale of vessel (note 16b) |
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charge (note 17) |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment (note 6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
195,048 |
|
|
|
190,108 |
|
|
|
181,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
178,960 |
|
|
|
152,940 |
|
|
|
133,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER ITEMS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense (notes 5, 9 and 11a) |
|
|
(49,019 |
) |
|
|
(60,457 |
) |
|
|
(138,317 |
) |
Interest income (note 5) |
|
|
7,190 |
|
|
|
13,873 |
|
|
|
64,325 |
|
Realized and unrealized loss on derivative instruments (note 12) |
|
|
(78,720 |
) |
|
|
(40,950 |
) |
|
|
(99,954 |
) |
Foreign currency exchange gain (loss) (note 9) |
|
|
27,545 |
|
|
|
(10,806 |
) |
|
|
18,244 |
|
Equity income (note 18) |
|
|
8,043 |
|
|
|
27,639 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
Other income |
|
|
615 |
|
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other items |
|
|
(84,346 |
) |
|
|
(70,309 |
) |
|
|
(154,316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) before income tax expense |
|
|
94,614 |
|
|
|
82,631 |
|
|
|
(21,007 |
) |
Income tax expense (note 10) |
|
|
(1,670 |
) |
|
|
(694 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
92,944 |
|
|
|
81,937 |
|
|
|
(21,212 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
3,062 |
|
|
|
29,310 |
|
|
|
(40,698 |
) |
Dropdown Predecessors interest in net income (loss) (note 1) |
|
|
2,258 |
|
|
|
5,302 |
|
|
|
894 |
|
General Partners interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
8,896 |
|
|
|
5,180 |
|
|
|
11,989 |
|
Limited partners interest in net income (loss) |
|
|
78,728 |
|
|
|
42,145 |
|
|
|
6,603 |
|
Limited partners interest in net income (loss) per unit (note 15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
1.46 |
|
|
|
0.86 |
|
|
|
0.63 |
|
Subordinated unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
2.04 |
|
|
|
0.80 |
|
|
|
(0.29 |
) |
Total unit (basic and diluted) |
|
|
1.48 |
|
|
|
0.85 |
|
|
|
0.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average number of units outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common units (basic and diluted) |
|
|
51,481,035 |
|
|
|
40,912,100 |
|
|
|
29,698,031 |
|
Subordinated units (basic and diluted) |
|
|
1,816,591 |
|
|
|
8,760,006 |
|
|
|
12,459,973 |
|
Total units (basic and diluted) |
|
|
53,297,626 |
|
|
|
49,672,106 |
|
|
|
42,158,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions declared per unit |
|
|
2.37 |
|
|
|
2.28 |
|
|
|
2.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
F-3
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES (Note 1)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As at |
|
|
As at |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
81,055 |
|
|
|
108,350 |
|
Restricted cash current (note 5) |
|
|
82,576 |
|
|
|
32,427 |
|
Accounts receivable, including non-trade of $12,832 (2009 $10,264) |
|
|
19,362 |
|
|
|
11,047 |
|
Prepaid expenses |
|
|
5,911 |
|
|
|
8,089 |
|
Current portion of derivative assets (note 12) |
|
|
16,758 |
|
|
|
16,337 |
|
Current portion of net investments in direct financing leases (note 5) |
|
|
5,635 |
|
|
|
5,196 |
|
Advances to affiliates (note 11m) and to joint venture of nil (2009 $1,646) |
|
|
6,133 |
|
|
|
22,361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
217,430 |
|
|
|
203,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted cash long-term (note 5) |
|
|
489,562 |
|
|
|
579,093 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vessels and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At cost, less accumulated depreciation of $200,708 (2009 $161,486) (note 9) |
|
|
1,059,465 |
|
|
|
1,116,653 |
|
Vessels under capital leases, at cost, less accumulated depreciation of $172,113
(2009 $138,569) (note 5) |
|
|
880,576 |
|
|
|
903,521 |
|
Advances on newbuilding contracts (note 13) |
|
|
79,535 |
|
|
|
57,430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total vessels and equipment |
|
|
2,019,576 |
|
|
|
2,077,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in joint ventures (notes 11f and 18) |
|
|
172,898 |
|
|
|
91,674 |
|
Net investments in direct financing leases (note 5) |
|
|
410,060 |
|
|
|
416,245 |
|
Advances to joint venture partner (note 7) |
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets (note 10) |
|
|
22,967 |
|
|
|
25,888 |
|
Derivative assets (note 12) |
|
|
45,525 |
|
|
|
15,794 |
|
Intangible assets net (note 6) |
|
|
123,546 |
|
|
|
132,675 |
|
Goodwill (note 6) |
|
|
35,631 |
|
|
|
35,631 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
|
3,547,395 |
|
|
|
3,578,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable (includes $567 and $1,084 for 2010 and 2009, respectively,
owing to related parties) (note 11a) |
|
|
4,355 |
|
|
|
4,741 |
|
Accrued liabilities (includes $3,020 and $2,572 for 2010 and 2009, respectively,
owing to related parties) (notes 8, 11a and 12) |
|
|
38,672 |
|
|
|
41,825 |
|
Unearned revenue |
|
|
13,944 |
|
|
|
12,109 |
|
Current portion of long-term debt (note 9) |
|
|
76,408 |
|
|
|
75,647 |
|
Current obligations under capital lease (note 5) |
|
|
267,382 |
|
|
|
41,016 |
|
Current portion of derivative liabilities (note 12) |
|
|
50,603 |
|
|
|
50,056 |
|
Advances from joint venture partners (note 7) |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
1,294 |
|
Advances from affiliates (note 11m) |
|
|
133,351 |
|
|
|
104,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
584,774 |
|
|
|
330,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt (note 9) |
|
|
1,322,707 |
|
|
|
1,397,687 |
|
Long-term obligations under capital lease (note 5) |
|
|
470,752 |
|
|
|
743,254 |
|
Long-term unearned revenue |
|
|
41,700 |
|
|
|
45,061 |
|
Other long-term liabilities (note 5) |
|
|
64,777 |
|
|
|
60,467 |
|
Derivative liabilities (note 12) |
|
|
149,362 |
|
|
|
83,951 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
2,634,072 |
|
|
|
2,661,373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (notes 5, 9, 12 and 13) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dropdown Predecessor equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,013 |
|
Non-controlling interest |
|
|
17,123 |
|
|
|
13,807 |
|
Partners equity |
|
|
896,200 |
|
|
|
860,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
913,323 |
|
|
|
917,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and total equity |
|
|
3,547,395 |
|
|
|
3,578,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidation of variable interest entities (note 13)
The accompanying notes are integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
F-4
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES (Note 1)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(in thousands of U.S. dollars)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Cash and cash equivalents provided by (used for) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
92,944 |
|
|
|
81,937 |
|
|
|
(21,212 |
) |
Non-cash items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized loss on derivative instruments (note 12) |
|
|
34,306 |
|
|
|
3,788 |
|
|
|
84,546 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
89,347 |
|
|
|
82,686 |
|
|
|
76,880 |
|
Goodwill impairment (note 6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
Unrealized foreign currency exchange (gain) loss |
|
|
(26,700 |
) |
|
|
9,532 |
|
|
|
(17,746 |
) |
Equity based compensation |
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
Equity income |
|
|
(8,043 |
) |
|
|
(27,639 |
) |
|
|
(136 |
) |
Amortization of deferred debt issuance costs |
|
|
3,375 |
|
|
|
1,660 |
|
|
|
737 |
|
Gain on sale of vessel (note 16b) |
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued interest and other net |
|
|
3,628 |
|
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
2,488 |
|
Change in operating assets and liabilities (note 14a) |
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
26,988 |
|
|
|
31,962 |
|
Expenditures for drydocking |
|
|
(12,727 |
) |
|
|
(9,729 |
) |
|
|
(11,966 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating cash flow |
|
|
174,970 |
|
|
|
171,384 |
|
|
|
149,570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excess of
purchase price over the contributed basis of Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings Corporation (note 11f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,192 |
) |
Distribution
to Teekay Corporation for the purchase of Kenai LNG Carriers (note 11h) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(230,000 |
) |
Proceeds on sale of 1% interest in Kenai LNG Carriers (note 11k) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution
to Teekay Corporation for the acquisition of Alexander Spirit LLC, Bermuda Spirit LLC and Hamilton Spirit LLC (note 11l) |
|
|
(33,997 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt |
|
|
100,945 |
|
|
|
220,050 |
|
|
|
936,988 |
|
Debt issuance costs |
|
|
(137 |
) |
|
|
(1,281 |
) |
|
|
(2,233 |
) |
Scheduled repayments of long-term debt |
|
|
(76,018 |
) |
|
|
(80,301 |
) |
|
|
(73,613 |
) |
Prepayments of long-term debt |
|
|
(72,000 |
) |
|
|
(185,900 |
) |
|
|
(321,000 |
) |
Scheduled repayments of capital lease obligations and other long-term liabilities |
|
|
(39,147 |
) |
|
|
(37,437 |
) |
|
|
(33,176 |
) |
Proceeds from equity offerings net of offering costs (note 3) |
|
|
50,921 |
|
|
|
162,559 |
|
|
|
202,519 |
|
Advances to and from affiliates |
|
|
16,545 |
|
|
|
24,041 |
|
|
|
17,147 |
|
Advances to and from joint venture partners |
|
|
(10,200 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
621 |
|
Repayment of joint venture partners advances |
|
|
(1,235 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in restricted cash |
|
|
30,741 |
|
|
|
30,710 |
|
|
|
28,340 |
|
Cash distributions paid |
|
|
(135,514 |
) |
|
|
(114,539 |
) |
|
|
(97,420 |
) |
Excess of purchase price over the contributed basis of Teekay Tangguh
Borrower LLC (note 11e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31,829 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Equity contribution from Teekay Corporation to Dropdown Predecessor
(notes 14c) |
|
|
466 |
|
|
|
1,567 |
|
|
|
3,281 |
|
Other |
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net financing cash flow |
|
|
(167,746 |
) |
|
|
(10,060 |
) |
|
|
403,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures (note 18) |
|
|
(35,169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds received from sale of vessel (note 16b) |
|
|
21,556 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances to joint venture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,856 |
) |
|
|
(278,723 |
) |
Repayments from joint venture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,310 |
|
Return of capital from Teekay BLT Corporation to joint venture
partners (note 11e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,000 |
) |
Receipt of Spanish re-investment tax credit (note 10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,431 |
|
Purchase of Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings Corporation (note 11f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(82,007 |
) |
Purchase of Teekay Tangguh Borrower LLC (note 11e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Receipts from direct financing leases |
|
|
5,746 |
|
|
|
4,426 |
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment |
|
|
(26,652 |
) |
|
|
(134,926 |
) |
|
|
(172,093 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net investing cash flow |
|
|
(34,519 |
) |
|
|
(170,615 |
) |
|
|
(527,082 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) Increase in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(27,295 |
) |
|
|
(9,291 |
) |
|
|
25,750 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the year |
|
|
108,350 |
|
|
|
117,641 |
|
|
|
91,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of the year |
|
|
81,055 |
|
|
|
108,350 |
|
|
|
117,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental cash flow information (note 14).
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
F-5
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES (Note 1)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN TOTAL EQUITY
(in thousands of U.S. dollars and units)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL EQUITY |
|
|
|
Dropdown |
|
|
Partners Equity |
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Predecessor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General |
|
|
controlling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity |
|
|
Common |
|
|
Subordinated |
|
|
Partner |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Units |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Units |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Balance as at December 31, 2007 |
|
|
1,118 |
|
|
|
22,540 |
|
|
|
454,459 |
|
|
|
14,735 |
|
|
|
227,133 |
|
|
|
26,582 |
|
|
|
141,378 |
|
|
|
850,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in parents equity in
Dropdown Predecessor (note 1) |
|
|
224,366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
224,366 |
|
Net loss and comprehensive loss |
|
|
894 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,906 |
) |
|
|
11,989 |
|
|
|
(40,698 |
) |
|
|
(21,212 |
) |
Cash distributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(65,002 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,996 |
) |
|
|
(4,422 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(97,420 |
) |
Proceeds from follow-on public offering
of units, net of offering costs of $6.2 million (note 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,114 |
|
|
|
198,345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
202,519 |
|
Re-investment tax credit (note 10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,431 |
|
Equity based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
369 |
|
Conversion of subordinated units
to common units (note 15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,684 |
|
|
|
46,040 |
|
|
|
(3,684 |
) |
|
|
(46,040 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture repayment
of contributed capital (note 11e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28,000 |
) |
|
|
(28,000 |
) |
Purchase of Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings
Corporation (note 11f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,307 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,908 |
) |
|
|
(977 |
) |
|
|
(69,818 |
) |
|
|
(98,010 |
) |
Purchase of Kenai LNG Carriers from
Teekay Corporation (note 11h) |
|
|
(226,378 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,305 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,203 |
) |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(230,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,338 |
|
|
|
634,212 |
|
|
|
11,051 |
|
|
|
134,291 |
|
|
|
37,348 |
|
|
|
2,862 |
|
|
|
808,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in parents equity in
Dropdown Predecessor (note 1) |
|
|
37,711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,711 |
|
Net income and comprehensive income |
|
|
5,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,037 |
|
|
|
5,180 |
|
|
|
29,310 |
|
|
|
81,937 |
|
Cash distributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(87,051 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,997 |
) |
|
|
(6,491 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(114,539 |
) |
Proceeds from follow-on public offering of
units, net of offering costs of $7.6 million (note 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,951 |
|
|
|
159,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162,559 |
|
Re-investment tax credit (note 10) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,795 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(813 |
) |
|
|
(92 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,700 |
) |
Equity based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
Conversion of subordinated units to
common units (note 15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,684 |
|
|
|
42,010 |
|
|
|
(3,684 |
) |
|
|
(42,010 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of interest rate swaps (note 11j) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,839 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(872 |
) |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,810 |
) |
Purchase of Teekay Tangguh Borrower
LLC from Teekay Corporation (note 11e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21,678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,952 |
) |
|
|
(1,199 |
) |
|
|
(20,665 |
) |
|
|
(52,494 |
) |
Sale of 1% interest in Kenai LNG Carriers
to Teekay General Partner (note 11k) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
43,013 |
|
|
|
44,973 |
|
|
|
754,414 |
|
|
|
7,367 |
|
|
|
67,745 |
|
|
|
38,059 |
|
|
|
13,807 |
|
|
|
917,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in parents equity in
Dropdown Predecessor (note 1) |
|
|
466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
466 |
|
Net income and comprehensive income |
|
|
2,258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,028 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,700 |
|
|
|
8,896 |
|
|
|
3,062 |
|
|
|
92,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118,114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,620 |
) |
|
|
(8,780 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(135,514 |
) |
Equity based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
151 |
|
Additional offering costs related to
November 2009 follow-on equity offering
(note 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
Purchase of Alexander Spirit LLC,
Bermuda Spirit LLC and Hamilton
Spirit LLC from Teekay Corporation (note 11l) |
|
|
(45,737 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,471 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,020 |
) |
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(49,376 |
) |
Conversion of subordinated units to
common units (note 15) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,367 |
|
|
|
61,787 |
|
|
|
(7,367 |
) |
|
|
(61,787 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of interest rate swap (note 11j) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,470 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,500 |
) |
Direct equity placement, net of offering costs
of $0.1 million (note 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,713 |
|
|
|
49,901 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,921 |
|
Purchase of Excalibur and Excelsior
Joint Ventures (note 18) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,053 |
|
|
|
37,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
761 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
38,324 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as at December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
55,106 |
|
|
|
856,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,779 |
|
|
|
17,123 |
|
|
|
913,323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.
F-6
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or unless otherwise indicated)
|
|
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States
generally accepted accounting principles (or GAAP). These financial statements include the
accounts of Teekay LNG Partners L.P., which is a limited partnership organized under the laws of
the Republic of The Marshall Islands, its wholly owned or controlled subsidiaries, the Dropdown
Predecessor, as described below, and certain variable interest entities (see Note 13).
Significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated upon consolidation. The
preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and
accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. |
|
|
The Partnership has accounted for the acquisition of interests in vessels from Teekay
Corporation as a transfer of a business between entities under common control. The method of
accounting for such transfers is similar to the pooling of interests method of accounting. Under
this method, the carrying amount of net assets recognized in the balance sheets of each
combining entity are carried forward to the balance sheet of the combined entity, and no other
assets or liabilities are recognized as a result of the combination. The excess of the proceeds
paid, if any, by the Partnership over Teekay Corporations historical cost is accounted for as
an equity distribution to Teekay Corporation. In addition, transfers of net assets between
entities under common control are accounted for as if the transfer occurred from the date that
the Partnership and the acquired vessels were both under the common control of Teekay
Corporation and had begun operations. As a result, the Partnerships financial statements prior
to the date the interests in these vessels were actually acquired by the Partnership are
retroactively adjusted to include the results of these vessels during the periods they were
under common control of Teekay Corporation and had begun operations. |
|
|
On March 17, 2010, the Partnership acquired two 2009-built Suezmax tankers, the Bermuda Spirit
and the Hamilton Spirit (or the Centrofin Suezmaxes), and a 2007-built Handymax Product tanker,
the Alexander Spirit, from Teekay Corporation and the related long-term, fixed-rate time-charter
contracts. On April 1, 2008, the Partnership acquired interests in two LNG vessels (the Kenai
LNG Carriers) from Teekay Corporation and immediately chartered the vessels back to Teekay
Corporation. These transactions were deemed to be business acquisitions between entities under
common control. As a result, the Partnerships balance sheet as at December 31, 2009 and the
consolidated statements of income (loss), cash flows and changes in total equity for the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 reflect these five vessels and their results of
operations, referred to herein as the Dropdown Predecessor, as if the Partnership had acquired
them when each respective vessel began operations under the ownership of Teekay Corporation.
These vessels began operations under the ownership of Teekay Corporation on December 13 and 14,
2007 (the Kenai LNG Carriers), on May 27, 2009 (Bermuda Spirit), June 24, 2009 (Hamilton Spirit)
and September 3, 2009 (Alexander Spirit). The effect of adjusting the Partnerships financial
statements to account for these common control exchanges increased the Partnerships net income
(loss) by $2.3 million, $5.3 million and $0.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2010,
2009 and 2008, respectively. |
|
|
The Partnerships consolidated financial statements include the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Dropdown Predecessor. In the preparation of these consolidated
financial statements, general and administrative expenses and interest expense were not
identifiable as relating solely to the vessels. General and administrative expenses (consisting
primarily of salaries and other employee related costs, office rent, legal and professional
fees, and travel and entertainment) were allocated based on the Dropdown Predecessors
proportionate share of Teekay Corporations total ship-operating (calendar) days for the period
presented. In addition, the Dropdown Predecessor was capitalized in part with non-interest
bearing loans or equity from Teekay Corporation and its subsidiaries. These intercompany loans
and equity were generally used to finance the acquisition of the vessels. Interest expense
includes the allocation of interest to the Dropdown Predecessor from Teekay Corporation and its
subsidiaries based upon the weighted-average outstanding balance of these intercompany loans and
equity and the weighted-average interest rate outstanding on Teekay Corporations loan
facilities that were used to finance these intercompany loans and equity. Management believes
these allocations reasonably present the general and administrative expenses and interest
expense of the Dropdown Predecessor (see Note 11a). |
|
|
Certain of the comparative figures have been reclassified to conform to the presentation adopted
in the current period. |
F-7
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise indicated)
|
|
The consolidated financial statements are stated in U.S. Dollars and the functional currency of
the Partnership and its subsidiaries is the U.S. Dollar. Transactions involving other currencies
during the year are converted into U.S. Dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the time
of the transactions. At the balance sheet date, monetary assets and liabilities that are
denominated in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar are translated to reflect the year-end
exchange rates. Resulting gains or losses are reflected separately in the accompanying
consolidated statements of income (loss). |
|
|
Operating revenues and expenses |
|
|
The lease element of time-charters accounted for as operating leases are recognized by the
Partnership daily over the term of the charter as the applicable vessel operates under the
charter. The lease element of the Partnerships time charters that are accounted for as direct
financing leases are reflected on the balance sheets as net investments in direct financing
leases. The lease revenue is recognized on an effective interest rate method over the lease term
and is included in voyage revenues. The Partnership recognizes revenues from the non-lease
element of time-charter contracts daily as services are performed. The Partnership does not
recognize revenues during days that the vessel is off-hire. |
|
|
Voyage expenses are all expenses unique to a particular voyage, including bunker fuel expenses,
port fees, cargo loading and unloading expenses, canal tolls, agency fees and commissions.
Vessel operating expenses include crewing, repairs and maintenance, insurance, stores, lube oils
and communication expenses. Voyage expenses and vessel operating expenses are recognized when
incurred. |
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
The Partnership classifies all highly-liquid investments with a maturity date of three months or
less when purchased as cash and cash equivalents. |
|
|
Accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts |
|
|
Accounts receivable are recorded at the invoiced amount and do not bear interest. The allowance
for doubtful accounts is the Partnerships best estimate of the amount of probable credit losses
in existing accounts receivable. The Partnership determines the allowance based on historical
write-off experience and customer economic data. The Partnership reviews the allowance for
doubtful accounts regularly and past due balances are reviewed for collectability. Account
balances are charged off against the allowance when the Partnership believes that the receivable
will not be recovered. |
|
|
The Partnerships loan receivables are recorded at cost. The premium paid over the outstanding
principal amount, if any, is amortized to interest income over the term of the loan using the
effective interest rate method. The Partnership analyzes its loans for impairment during each
reporting period. A loan is impaired when, based on current information and events, it is
probable that the Partnership will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the
contractual terms of the loan agreement. Factors the Partnership considers in determining that a
loan is impaired include, among other things, an assessment of the financial condition of the
debtor, payment history of the debtor, general economic conditions, the credit rating of the
debtor, any information provided by the debtor regarding their ability to repay the loan. When a
loan is impaired, the Partnership measures the amount of the impairment based on the present
value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans effective interest rate and
recognizes the resulting impairment in earnings. |
|
|
The following table contains a summary of the Partnerships loan receivables and other financing
receivables by type of borrower and the method by which the Partnership monitors the credit
quality of its financing receivables on a quarterly basis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
Credit Quality |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
Class of Financing Receivable |
|
Indicator |
|
Grade |
|
$ |
|
Direct financing leases |
|
Payment activity |
|
Performing |
|
|
415,695 |
|
Other receivables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term receivable included in other assets |
|
Payment activity |
|
Performing |
|
|
410 |
|
Advances to joint venture partner |
|
Other internal metrics |
|
Performing |
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
426,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All pre-delivery costs incurred during the construction of newbuildings, including interest and
supervision and technical costs, are capitalized. The acquisition cost (net of any government
grants received) and all costs incurred to restore used vessels purchased by the Partnership to
the standards required to properly service the Partnerships customers are capitalized. |
|
|
Depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis over a vessels estimated useful life, less
an estimated residual value. Depreciation is calculated using an estimated useful life of 25
years for Conventional tankers, 30 years for LPG carriers and 35 years for LNG carriers, from
the date the vessel is delivered from the shipyard, or a shorter period if regulations prevent
the Partnership from operating the vessels for 25 years, 30 years, or 35 years, respectively.
Depreciation of vessels and equipment (including depreciation attributable to the Dropdown
Predecessor)
for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 aggregated $72.8 million, $69.0 million and
$64.2 million, respectively. Depreciation and amortization includes depreciation on all owned
vessels and amortization of vessels accounted for as capital leases.
|
F-8
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise indicated)
|
|
Vessel capital modifications include the addition of new equipment or can encompass various
modifications to the vessel which are aimed at improving and/or increasing the operational
efficiency and functionality of the asset. This type of expenditure is amortized over the
estimated useful life of the modification. Expenditures covering recurring routine repairs and
maintenance are expensed as incurred. |
|
|
Interest costs capitalized to vessels and equipment for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009
and 2008 aggregated $4.2 million, $8.0 million and $11.4 million, respectively. |
|
|
Gains on vessels sold and leased back under capital leases are deferred and amortized over the
remaining estimated useful life of the vessel. Losses on vessels sold and leased back under
capital leases are recognized immediately when the fair value of the vessel at the time of
sale-leaseback is less than its book value. In such case, the Partnership would recognize a loss
in the amount by which book value exceeds fair value. |
|
|
Generally, the Partnership drydocks each of its vessels every five years. In addition, a
shipping society classification intermediate survey is performed on the Partnerships LNG and
LPG carriers between the second and third year of the five-year drydocking period. The
Partnership capitalizes a portion of the costs incurred during drydocking and for the survey and
amortizes those costs on a straight-line basis from the completion of a drydocking or
intermediate survey over the estimated useful life of the drydock. The Partnership includes in
capitalized drydocking those costs incurred as part of the drydocking to meet regulatory
requirements, or expenditures that either add economic life to the vessel, increase the vessels
earning capacity or improve the vessels operating efficiency. The Partnership expenses costs
related to routine repairs and maintenance performed during drydocking that do not improve
operating efficiency or extend the useful lives of the assets. |
|
|
Drydocking activity for the three years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 is summarized as
follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, |
|
|
20,477 |
|
|
|
15,257 |
|
|
|
6,854 |
|
Cost incurred for drydocking |
|
|
12,727 |
|
|
|
9,729 |
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
Sale of vessel |
|
|
(1,477 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drydock amortization |
|
|
(7,334 |
) |
|
|
(4,509 |
) |
|
|
(3,563 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, |
|
|
24,393 |
|
|
|
20,477 |
|
|
|
15,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vessels and equipment that are held and used are assessed for impairment when events or
circumstances indicate the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. If the assets
net carrying value exceeds the net undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated over its
remaining useful life, the carrying amount of the asset is reduced to its estimated fair value.
Estimated fair value is determined based on discounted cash flows or appraised values. |
|
|
Investments in joint ventures |
|
|
The Partnerships investments in joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method of
accounting. Under the equity method of accounting, investments are stated at initial cost and
are adjusted for subsequent additional investments and the Partnerships proportionate share of
earnings or losses and distributions. The Partnership evaluates its investment in joint ventures
for impairment when events or circumstances indicate that the carrying value of such investments
may have experienced an other-than-temporary decline in value below its carrying value. If the
estimated fair value is less than the carrying value, the carrying value is written down to its
estimated fair value and the resulting impairment is recorded in the Partnerships statement of
income (loss). |
|
|
Debt issuance costs, including fees, commissions and legal expenses, are presented as other
assets and are deferred and amortized on an effective interest rate method over the term of the
relevant loan. Amortization of debt issuance costs is included in interest expense. |
|
|
Goodwill and intangible assets |
|
|
Goodwill and indefinite lived intangible assets are not amortized, but reviewed for impairment
annually or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. A fair value approach is used to
identify potential goodwill impairment and, when necessary, measure the amount of impairment.
The Partnership uses a discounted cash flow model to determine the fair value of reporting
units, unless there is a readily determinable fair market value. |
|
|
The Partnerships finite life intangible assets consist of acquired time-charter contracts and
are amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining term of the time-charters. Finite life
intangible assets are assessed for impairment when events or circumstances indicate that the
carrying value may not be recoverable.
|
F-9
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise indicated)
|
|
All derivative instruments are initially recorded at cost as either assets or liabilities in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets and subsequently remeasured to fair value, regardless
of the purpose or intent for holding the derivative. The method of recognizing the resulting
gain or loss is dependent on whether the derivative contract is designed to hedge a specific
risk and also qualifies for hedge accounting. The Partnership currently does not apply hedge
accounting to its derivative instruments. |
|
|
For derivative financial instruments that are not designated or that do not qualify as hedges
for accounting purposes, the changes in the fair value of the derivative financial instruments
are recognized in earnings. Gains and losses from the Partnerships non-designated interest rate
swaps and the Partnerships agreement with Teekay Corporation for the Suezmax tanker the Toledo
Spirit are recorded in realized and unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments in the
Partnerships statements of income (loss) (see Note 11g). |
|
|
The Partnership accounts for income taxes using the liability method. All but two of the
Partnerships Spanish-flagged vessels are subject to the Spanish Tonnage Tax Regime (or TTR).
Under this regime, the applicable tax is based on the weight (measured as net tonnage) of the
vessel and the number of days during the taxable period that the vessel is at the Partnerships
disposal, excluding time required for repairs. The income the Partnership receives with respect
to the remaining two Spanish-flagged vessels is taxed in Spain at a rate of 30%. However, these
two vessels are registered in the Canary Islands Special Ship Registry. Consequently, the
Partnership is allowed a credit, equal to 90% of the tax payable on income from the commercial
operation of these vessels, against the tax otherwise payable. This effectively results in an
income tax rate of approximately 3% on income from the operation of these two Spanish-flagged
vessels. |
|
|
The Partnership recognizes the benefits of uncertain tax positions when it is
more-likely-than-not that a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return will be
sustained upon examination, including resolution of any related appeals or litigation processes,
based on the technical merits of the position. If a tax position meets the more-likely-than-not
recognition threshold, it is measured to determine the amount of benefit to recognize in the
financial statements. |
|
|
Guarantees issued by the Partnership, excluding those that are guaranteeing its own performance,
are recognized at fair value at the time the guarantees are issued and are presented in the
Partnerships consolidated balance sheets as other long-term liabilities. The liability
recognized on issuance is amortized to either other (expense) income net or interest expense
on the Partnerships consolidated statements of income (loss) as the Partnerships risk from the
guarantees declines over the term of the guarantee. If it becomes probable that the Partnership
will have to perform under a guarantee, the Partnership will recognize an additional liability
if the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. |
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 the Partnerships comprehensive income
(loss) and net income (loss) were the same. |
|
|
Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements |
|
|
In January 2010, the Partnership adopted an amendment to Financial Accounting Standards Board
(or FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (or ASC) 810, Consolidations, that eliminates
certain exceptions to consolidating qualifying special-purpose entities, contains new criteria
for determining the primary beneficiary, and increases the frequency of required reassessments
to determine whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity. This
amendment also contains a new requirement that any term, transaction, or arrangement that does
not have a substantive effect on an entitys status as a variable interest entity, a companys
power over a variable interest entity, or a companys obligation to absorb losses or its right
to receive benefits of an entity must be disregarded. The elimination of the qualifying
special-purpose entity concept and its consolidation exceptions means more entities will be
subject to consolidation assessments and reassessments. During February 2010, the scope of the
revised standard was modified to indefinitely exclude certain entities from the requirement to
be assessed for consolidation. The adoption of this amendment did not have an impact on the
Partnerships consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
In July 2010, the FASB issued an amendment to FASB ASC 310, Receivables, that requires companies
to provide more information in their disclosures about the credit quality of their financing
receivables and the credit reserves held against them. The disclosures required on the adoption
of this amendment are included as part of this note. |
F-10
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
2. |
|
Fair Value Measurements |
|
|
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of
financial instrument: |
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash The fair value of the Partnerships cash and
cash equivalents and restricted cash approximates its carrying amounts reported in the
consolidated balance sheets. |
|
|
Long-term debt The fair values of the Partnerships fixed-rate and variable-rate long-term
debt are estimated using discounted cash flow analyses based on rates currently available for
debt with similar terms and remaining maturities. |
|
|
Advances to and from affiliates and joint venture The fair value of the Partnerships
advances to and from affiliates and joint venture approximates their carrying amounts reported
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets due to the current nature of the balances. |
|
|
Advances to and from joint venture partners The fair value of the Partnerships advances to
its joint venture partner as at December 31, 2010 is not determinable given the related party
nature of the balance. The fair value of the Partnerships advances from its joint venture
partners as at December 31, 2009 approximates its carrying amount reported in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets due to the current nature of the balance. |
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements The Partnership transacts all of its interest rate swap
agreements through financial institutions that are investment-grade rated at the time of the
transaction and requires no collateral from these institutions. The fair value of the
Partnerships interest rate swaps is the estimated amount that the Partnership would receive or
pay to terminate the agreements at the reporting date, taking into account the fixed interest
rate in the interest rate swap, current interest rates and the current credit worthiness of
either the Partnership or the swap counterparties depending on whether the swaps are in asset or
liability position. The estimated amount is the present value of future cash flows. |
|
|
Other derivative The Partnerships other derivative agreement is between Teekay Corporation
and the Partnership and relates to hire payments under the time-charter contract for the Suezmax
tanker Toledo Spirit (see Note 11g). The fair value of this derivative agreement is the
estimated amount that the Partnership would receive or pay to terminate the agreement at the
reporting date, based on the present value of the Partnerships projection of future spot market
tanker rates, which have been derived from current spot market tanker rates and long-term
historical average rates. |
|
|
The Partnership categorizes the fair value estimates by a fair value hierarchy based on the
inputs used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy has three levels based on the
reliability of the inputs used to determine fair value as follows: |
|
|
Level 1. Observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets; |
|
|
Level 2. Inputs, other than the quoted prices in active markets, that are observable either
directly or indirectly; and |
|
|
Level 3. Unobservable inputs in which there is little or no market data, which require the
reporting entity to develop its own assumptions. |
|
|
The estimated fair value of the Partnerships financial instruments and categorization using the
fair value hierarchy for those financial instruments that are measured at fair value on a
recurring basis is as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Asset |
|
|
Asset |
|
|
Asset |
|
|
Asset |
|
|
|
Hierarchy |
|
|
(Liability) |
|
|
(Liability) |
|
|
(Liability) |
|
|
(Liability) |
|
|
|
Level(1) |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
653,193 |
|
|
|
653,193 |
|
|
|
719,870 |
|
|
|
719,870 |
|
Advances to and from affiliates and joint venture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(127,218 |
) |
|
|
(127,218 |
) |
|
|
(81,904 |
) |
|
|
(81,904 |
) |
Long-term debt (note 9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,399,115 |
) |
|
|
(1,292,026 |
) |
|
|
(1,473,334 |
) |
|
|
(1,316,668 |
) |
Advances to and from joint venture partners (note 7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,141 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
(1,294 |
) |
|
|
(1,294 |
) |
Derivative instruments (note 12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements assets |
|
Level 2 |
|
|
66,870 |
|
|
|
66,870 |
|
|
|
36,744 |
|
|
|
36,744 |
|
Interest rate swap agreements liabilities |
|
Level 2 |
|
|
(201,463 |
) |
|
|
(201,463 |
) |
|
|
(134,946 |
) |
|
|
(134,946 |
) |
Other derivative |
|
Level 3 |
|
|
(10,000 |
) |
|
|
(10,000 |
) |
|
|
(10,600 |
) |
|
|
(10,600 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The fair value hierarchy level is only applicable to each financial instrument on the
consolidated balance sheets that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis. |
|
(2) |
|
The fair value of the Partnerships advances to its joint venture partner as at
December 31, 2010 was not determinable given the amounts are non-current with no fixed
repayment terms. |
F-11
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
Changes in fair value during the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 for assets (liabilities)
that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3) are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at January 1 |
|
|
(10,600 |
) |
|
|
(17,955 |
) |
Unrealized gains included in earnings |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
7,355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at December 31 |
|
|
(10,000 |
) |
|
|
(10,600 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No non-financial assets or non-financial liabilities were carried at fair value at December 31,
2010 or December 31, 2009. |
|
|
On April 23, 2008, the Partnership completed an equity offering of 5.0 million common units at a
price of $28.75 per unit, for gross proceeds of approximately $143.8 million. On May 8, 2008,
the underwriters partially exercised their over-allotment option and purchased an additional 0.4
million common units for an additional $10.8 million in gross proceeds to the Partnership.
Concurrently with the public offering, Teekay Corporation acquired 1.7 million common units of
the Partnership at the same public offering price for a total cost of $50.0 million. As a
result of these equity transactions, the Partnership raised gross equity proceeds of $208.7
million (including the General Partners 2% proportionate capital contribution), and Teekay
Corporations ownership in the Partnership was reduced from 63.7% to 57.7% (including its
indirect 2% general partner interest). The Partnership used the total net proceeds from the
equity offerings of approximately $202.5 million to reduce amounts outstanding under the
Partnerships revolving credit facilities that were used to fund the acquisitions of interests
in LNG carriers. |
|
|
On March 30, 2009, the Partnership completed an equity offering of 4.0 million common units at a
price of $17.60 per unit. As a result of the offering, the Partnership raised gross equity
proceeds of $71.8 million (including the General Partners 2% proportionate capital
contribution), and Teekay Corporations ownership in the Partnership was reduced from 57.7% to
53.05% (including its indirect 2% general partner interest). The Partnership used the total net
offering proceeds of approximately $68.7 million to prepay amounts outstanding on two of its
revolving credit facilities. |
|
|
On November 20, 2009, the Partnership completed an equity offering of 3.5 million common units
at a price of $24.40 per unit, for gross proceeds of approximately $85.4 million. On November
25, 2009, the underwriters partially exercised their over-allotment option and purchased an
additional 0.5 million common units for an additional $11.0 million in gross proceeds to the
Partnership. As a result of these equity transactions, the Partnership raised gross equity
proceeds of $98.4 million (including the General Partners 2% proportionate capital
contribution), and Teekay Corporations ownership in the Partnership was reduced from 53.05% to
49.2% (including its indirect 2% general partner interest). The Partnership used the total net
offering proceeds of approximately $93.7 million to prepay amounts outstanding on two of its
revolving credit facilities. |
|
|
On July 15, 2010, the Partnership completed a direct equity placement of 1.7 million common
units at a price of $29.18 per unit to an institutional investor. As a result of the offering,
the Partnership raised gross equity proceeds of $51.0 million (including the General Partners
2% proportionate capital contribution), and Teekay Corporations ownership in the Partnership
was reduced from 49.2% to 46.8% (including its indirect 2% general partner interest). The
Partnership used the total net offering proceeds of approximately $50.9 million to prepay
amounts outstanding on one of its revolving credit facilities and for general partnership
purposes. |
F-12
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
4. Segment Reporting
|
|
The Partnership has two reportable segments, its liquefied gas segment and its conventional
tanker segment. The Partnerships liquefied gas segment consists of LNG and liquefied petroleum
gas (or LPG) carriers subject to long-term, fixed-rate time-charters to international energy
companies and Teekay Corporation (see Note 11h). As at December 31, 2010, the Partnerships
liquefied gas segment consisted of seventeen LNG carriers (including six LNG carriers included
in joint ventures that are accounted for under the equity method) and two LPG carriers. The
Partnerships conventional tanker segment consisted of ten Suezmax-class crude oil tankers and
one Handymax Product tanker operating on long-term, fixed-rate time-charter contracts to
international energy and shipping companies. Segment results are evaluated based on income from
vessel operations. The accounting policies applied to the reportable segments are the same as
those used in the preparation of the Partnerships consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
The following table presents voyage revenues and percentage of consolidated voyage revenues for
customers that accounted for more than 10% of the Partnerships consolidated voyage revenues
during any of the periods presented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
(U.S. dollars in millions) |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Company Ltd.(2) |
|
$68.7 or 18% |
|
$68.7 or 20% |
|
$68.4 or 22% |
Repsol YPF, S.A.(2) |
|
$51.9 or 14% |
|
$51.5 or 15% |
|
$55.2 or 18% |
Compania Espanola de Petroleos(1) |
|
$44.0 or 12% |
|
$44.5 or 13% |
|
$65.3 or 21% |
The Tangguh Production Sharing Contractors(2) |
|
$42.8 or 11% |
|
Less than 10% |
|
|
|
|
Teekay Corporation(2) |
|
$36.5 or 10% |
|
$38.9 or 11% |
|
Less than 10% |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Conventional tanker segment |
|
(2) |
|
Liquefied gas segment |
F-13
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
The following tables include results for these segments for the years presented in these
financial statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquefied Gas |
|
|
Tanker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
264,816 |
|
|
|
109,192 |
|
|
|
374,008 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
2,013 |
|
|
|
2,042 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
46,496 |
|
|
|
38,081 |
|
|
|
84,577 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
60,954 |
|
|
|
28,393 |
|
|
|
89,347 |
|
General and administrative(1) |
|
|
12,239 |
|
|
|
11,008 |
|
|
|
23,247 |
|
Gain on sale of vessel |
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,340 |
) |
Restructuring charge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
149,438 |
|
|
|
29,522 |
|
|
|
178,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity income |
|
|
8,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,043 |
|
Investment in joint ventures |
|
|
172,898 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172,898 |
|
Total assets at December 31, 2010 |
|
|
2,866,541 |
|
|
|
568,393 |
|
|
|
3,434,934 |
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment(2) |
|
|
24,095 |
|
|
|
2,557 |
|
|
|
26,652 |
|
Expenditures for drydock |
|
|
2,014 |
|
|
|
10,713 |
|
|
|
12,727 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquefied Gas |
|
|
Tanker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
252,854 |
|
|
|
90,194 |
|
|
|
343,048 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
2,034 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
50,919 |
|
|
|
31,455 |
|
|
|
82,374 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
59,088 |
|
|
|
23,598 |
|
|
|
82,686 |
|
General and administrative(1) |
|
|
11,033 |
|
|
|
8,731 |
|
|
|
19,764 |
|
Restructuring charge |
|
|
1,381 |
|
|
|
1,869 |
|
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
129,415 |
|
|
|
23,525 |
|
|
|
152,940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity income |
|
|
27,639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,639 |
|
Investment in and advances to joint venture |
|
|
93,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,320 |
|
Total assets at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
2,846,685 |
|
|
|
583,525 |
|
|
|
3,430,210 |
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment(2) |
|
|
133,563 |
|
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
134,926 |
|
Expenditures for drydock |
|
|
8,409 |
|
|
|
1,320 |
|
|
|
9,729 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquefied Gas |
|
|
Tanker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
222,318 |
|
|
|
92,086 |
|
|
|
314,404 |
|
Voyage expenses |
|
|
1,397 |
|
|
|
1,856 |
|
|
|
3,253 |
|
Vessel operating expenses |
|
|
49,400 |
|
|
|
27,713 |
|
|
|
77,113 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
57,880 |
|
|
|
19,000 |
|
|
|
76,880 |
|
General and administrative(1) |
|
|
11,247 |
|
|
|
8,954 |
|
|
|
20,201 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
3,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
102,394 |
|
|
|
30,915 |
|
|
|
133,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity income |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136 |
|
Investment in and advances to joint venture |
|
|
64,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64,382 |
|
Total assets at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
2,891,106 |
|
|
|
396,131 |
|
|
|
3,287,237 |
|
Expenditures for vessels and equipment(2) |
|
|
169,769 |
|
|
|
2,324 |
|
|
|
172,093 |
|
Expenditures for drydock |
|
|
6,179 |
|
|
|
5,787 |
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes direct general and administrative expenses and indirect general and
administrative expenses (allocated to each segment based on estimated use of corporate
resources). |
|
(2) |
|
Excludes non-cash investing activities (see Note 14). |
F-14
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
A reconciliation of total segment assets presented in the consolidated balance sheet is as
follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets of the liquefied gas segment |
|
|
2,866,541 |
|
|
|
2,846,685 |
|
Total assets of the conventional tanker segment |
|
|
568,393 |
|
|
|
583,525 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
81,055 |
|
|
|
108,350 |
|
Accounts receivable and prepaid expenses |
|
|
25,273 |
|
|
|
19,136 |
|
Advances to affiliates |
|
|
6,133 |
|
|
|
20,715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated total assets |
|
|
3,547,395 |
|
|
|
3,578,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
|
Leases and Restricted Cash |
Capital Lease Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RasGas II LNG Carriers |
|
|
470,752 |
|
|
|
470,138 |
|
Spanish-Flagged LNG Carrier |
|
|
81,881 |
|
|
|
119,068 |
|
Suezmax Tankers |
|
|
185,501 |
|
|
|
195,064 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
738,134 |
|
|
|
784,270 |
|
Less current portion |
|
|
267,382 |
|
|
|
41,016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
470,752 |
|
|
|
743,254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RasGas II LNG Carriers. As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership owned a 70% interest in Teekay
Nakilat Corporation (or Teekay Nakilat), which is the lessee under 30-year capital lease
arrangements relating to three LNG carriers (or the RasGas II LNG Carriers) that operate under
time-charter contracts with Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural Gas Co. Limited (II), a joint venture
between Qatar Petroleum and ExxonMobil RasGas Inc., a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation. All
amounts below and in the table above relating to the RasGas II LNG Carriers capital leases
include the Partnerships joint venture partners 30% share. |
|
|
Under the terms of the RasGas II LNG Carriers capital lease arrangements, the lessor claims tax
depreciation on the capital expenditures it incurred to acquire these vessels. As is typical in
these leasing arrangements, tax and change of law risks are assumed by the lessee. Lease
payments under the lease arrangements are based on certain tax and financial assumptions at the
commencement of the leases. If an assumption proves to be incorrect, the lessor is entitled to
increase the lease payments to maintain its agreed after-tax margin. |
|
|
During 2008, the Partnership agreed under the terms of its tax lease indemnification guarantee
to increase its capital lease payments for the three LNG carriers to compensate the lessor for
losses suffered as a result of changes in tax rates. The estimated increase in lease payments
was approximately $8.1 million over the term of the lease, with a carrying value of $7.7 million
as at December 31, 2010. This amount is included as part of other long-term liabilities in the
Partnerships consolidated balance sheets. In addition, the Partnerships carrying amount of the
remaining tax indemnification guarantee as at December 31, 2010 is $8.9 million and is also
included as part of other long-term liabilities in the Partnerships consolidated balance
sheets. |
|
|
The tax indemnification is for the duration of the lease contract with the third party plus the
years it would take for the lease payments to be statute barred, and ends in 2041. Although
there is no maximum potential amount of future payments, Teekay Nakilat may terminate the lease
arrangements on a voluntary basis at any time. If the lease arrangements terminate, Teekay
Nakilat will be required to pay termination sums to the lessor sufficient to repay the lessors
investment in the vessels and to compensate it for the tax effect of the terminations, including
recapture of any tax depreciation. |
F-15
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
At their inception, the weighted-average interest rate implicit in these leases was 5.2%. These
capital leases are variable-rate capital leases. As at December 31, 2010, the commitments under
these capital leases approximated $1.0 billion, including imputed interest of ($554.3) million,
repayable as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
Commitment |
|
2011 |
|
$ |
24,000 |
|
2012 |
|
$ |
24,000 |
|
2013 |
|
$ |
24,000 |
|
2014 |
|
$ |
24,000 |
|
2015 |
|
$ |
24,000 |
|
Thereafter |
|
$ |
905,128 |
|
|
|
As the payments in the next five years only cover a portion of the estimated interest
expense, the lease obligation will continue to increase. Starting 2024, the lease payments will
increase to cover both interest and principal to commence reduction of the principal portion of
the lease obligations. |
|
|
Spanish-Flagged LNG Carrier. As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership was a party to a capital
lease on one LNG carrier the Madrid Spirit which is structured as a Spanish tax lease. Under
the terms of the Spanish tax lease for the Madrid Spirit, which includes the Partnerships
contractual right to full operation of the vessel pursuant to a bareboat charter, the
Partnership will purchase the vessel at the end of the lease term in December 2011. The purchase
obligation has been fully funded with restricted cash deposits described below. At its
inception, the interest rate implicit in the Spanish tax lease was 5.8%. As at December 31,
2010, the commitments under this capital lease, including the purchase obligation, approximated
64.8 million Euros ($86.8 million), including imputed interest of 3.6 million Euros ($4.9
million), repayable in 2011. |
|
|
Suezmax Tankers. As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership was a party to capital leases on five
Suezmax tankers. Under the terms of the lease arrangements the Partnership is required to
purchase these vessels after the end of their respective lease terms, which may occur in 2011,
for a fixed price. At the inception of these leases, the weighted-average interest rate implicit
in these leases was 7.4%. These capital leases are variable-rate capital leases; however, any
change in the lease payments resulting from changes in interest rates is offset by a
corresponding change in the charter hire payments received by the Partnership. As at December
31, 2010, the remaining commitments under these capital leases, including the purchase
obligations, approximated $197.9 million, including imputed interest of $12.4 million, repayable
in 2011. |
|
|
The Partnerships capital leases do not contain financial or restrictive covenants other than
those relating to operation and maintenance of the vessels. |
Restricted Cash
|
|
Under the terms of the capital leases for the RasGas II LNG Carriers and the Madrid Spirit, the
Partnership is required to have on deposit with financial institutions an amount of cash that,
together with interest earned on the deposits, will equal the remaining amounts owing under the
leases, including the obligations to purchase the Madrid Spirit at the end of the lease period.
These cash deposits are restricted to being used for capital lease payments and have been fully
funded primarily with term loans (see Note 9). |
|
|
As at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the amount of restricted cash on deposit for the
three RasGas II LNG Carriers was $477.2 million and $479.4 million, respectively. As at
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the weighted-average interest rates earned on the
deposits were 0.4% and 0.4%, respectively. These rates do not reflect the effect of related
interest rate swaps that the Partnership has used to economically hedge its floating-rate
restricted cash deposit relating to the RasGas II LNG Carriers (see Note 12). |
|
|
As at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the amount of restricted cash on deposit for the
Madrid Spirit was 61.7 million Euros ($82.6 million) and 84.3 million Euros ($120.8 million),
respectively. As at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, the weighted-average interest
rates earned on these deposits were 5.1%. |
|
|
The Partnership also maintains restricted cash deposits relating to certain term loans, which
cash totaled 9.3 million Euros ($12.3 million) and 7.9 million Euros ($11.3 million) as at
December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. |
F-16
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
Operating Lease Obligations
|
|
Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture. |
|
|
On November 1, 2006, the Partnership entered into an agreement with Teekay Corporation to
purchase its 100% interest in Teekay Tangguh Borrower LLC (or Teekay Tangguh), which owns a 70%
interest in Teekay BLT Corporation (or the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture). The Partnership
ultimately acquired 99% of Teekay Corporations interest in Teekay Tangguh, essentially giving
the Partnership a 69% interest in the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture. As at December 31, 2010,
the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture was a party to operating leases whereby it is leasing its two
LNG carriers (or the Tangguh LNG Carriers) to a third party company (or Head Leases). The Teekay
Tangguh Joint Venture is then leasing back the LNG carriers from the same third party company
(or Subleases). Under the terms of these leases, the third party company claims tax depreciation
on the capital expenditures it incurred to lease the vessels. As is typical in these leasing
arrangements, tax and change of law risks are assumed by the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture. Lease
payments under the Subleases are based on certain tax and financial assumptions at the
commencement of the leases. If an assumption proves to be incorrect, the third party company is
entitled to increase the lease payments under the Sublease to maintain its agreed after-tax
margin. The Teekay Tangguh Joint Ventures carrying amount of this tax indemnification is $10.3
million and is included as part of other long-term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheets of the Partnership. The tax indemnification is for the duration of the lease contract with the
third party plus the years it would take for the lease payments to be statute barred, and ends
in 2033. Although there is no maximum potential amount of future payments, the Teekay Tangguh
Joint Venture may terminate the lease arrangements on a voluntary basis at any time. If the
lease arrangements terminate, the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture will be required to pay
termination sums to the third party company sufficient to repay the third party companys
investment in the vessels and to compensate it for the tax effect of the terminations, including
recapture of any tax depreciation. The Head Leases and the Subleases have 20 year terms and are
classified as operating leases. The Head Lease and the Sublease for each of the two Tangguh LNG
Carriers commenced in November 2008 and March 2009, respectively. |
|
|
As at December 31, 2010, the total estimated future minimum rental payments to be received and
paid under the lease contracts are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Lease |
|
|
Sublease |
|
Year |
|
Receipts (1) |
|
|
Payments (1) |
|
2011 |
|
$ |
28,875 |
|
|
$ |
25,072 |
|
2012 |
|
$ |
28,859 |
|
|
$ |
25,072 |
|
2013 |
|
$ |
28,843 |
|
|
$ |
25,072 |
|
2014 |
|
$ |
28,828 |
|
|
$ |
25,072 |
|
2015 |
|
$ |
22,188 |
|
|
$ |
25,072 |
|
Thereafter |
|
$ |
281,548 |
|
|
$ |
332,315 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
419,141 |
|
|
$ |
457,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Head Leases are fixed-rate operating leases while the Subleases have a
small variable-rate component. As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership had received
$91.2 million of Head Lease receipts and had paid $41.5 million of Sublease payments. Head
Lease receipts and payments are deferred and amortized on a straight line basis over the
lease terms and as at December 31, 2010, $31.3 million of Head Lease receipts has been
deferred and included in other long-term liabilities in the Partnerships consolidated
balance sheets. |
Net Investments in Direct Financing Leases
|
|
The Tangguh LNG Carriers commenced their time-charters with The Tangguh Production Sharing
Contractors in January and May 2009, respectively. Both time-charters are accounted for as
direct financing leases with 20-year terms and the following table lists the components of the
net investments in direct financing leases: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments to be received |
|
|
701,442 |
|
|
|
739,972 |
|
Estimated unguaranteed residual value of leased properties |
|
|
194,965 |
|
|
|
194,965 |
|
Initial direct costs |
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
619 |
|
Less unearned revenue |
|
|
(481,299 |
) |
|
|
(514,115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
415,695 |
|
|
|
421,441 |
|
Less current portion |
|
|
5,635 |
|
|
|
5,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
410,060 |
|
|
|
416,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As at December 31, 2010, estimated minimum lease payments to be received by the Partnership
under the Tangguh LNG Carrier leases in each of the next five succeeding fiscal years are
approximately $38.5 million per year for 2011 through 2015. Both leases are scheduled to end in
2029. |
Operating Leases
|
|
As at December 31, 2010, the minimum scheduled future revenues in the next five years to be
received by the Partnership for the lease and non-lease elements under time-charters that were
accounted for as operating leases were approximately $333.5 million (2011), $339.8 million
(2012), $338.9 million (2013), $338.9 million (2014) and $335.7 million (2015). The minimum
scheduled future revenues should not be construed to reflect total charter hire revenues for any
of the years. |
F-17
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
6. |
|
Intangible Assets and Goodwill |
|
|
As at December 31, 2010 and 2009 intangible assets consisted of time-charter contracts with a
weighted-average amortization period of 19.2 years. The carrying amount of intangible
assets for the Partnerships reportable segments is as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquefied Gas |
|
|
Tanker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liquefied Gas |
|
|
Tanker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Segment |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Gross carrying amount |
|
|
179,813 |
|
|
|
2,739 |
|
|
|
182,552 |
|
|
|
179,813 |
|
|
|
2,739 |
|
|
|
182,552 |
|
Accumulated amortization |
|
|
(56,743 |
) |
|
|
(2,263 |
) |
|
|
(59,006 |
) |
|
|
(47,889 |
) |
|
|
(1,988 |
) |
|
|
(49,877 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net carrying amount |
|
|
123,070 |
|
|
|
476 |
|
|
|
123,546 |
|
|
|
131,924 |
|
|
|
751 |
|
|
|
132,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization expense of intangible assets is $9.1 million for each of the years ended December
31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. Amortization of intangible assets in each of the five years following
2010 is approximately $9.1 million per year. |
|
|
The carrying amount of goodwill as at December 31, 2010 and 2009 for the Partnerships liquefied
gas segment is $35.6 million. In 2008 the Partnership conducted an impairment review of its
reporting units and determined that the fair value attributable to the Partnerships
Conventional tanker reporting unit was less than its carrying value. As a result, a goodwill
impairment loss of $3.6 million was recognized during 2008. In 2010 and 2009, the Partnership
conducted a goodwill impairment review of its liquefied gas segment and concluded that no
impairment existed at December 31, 2010 and 2009. |
7. |
|
Advances to and from Joint Venture Partners |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances to BLT LNG Tangguh Corporation |
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances to joint venture partner |
|
|
10,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances from Qatar Gas Transport Company Ltd. (Nakilat) |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
Advances from BLT LNG Tangguh Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,179 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances from joint venture partners |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
1,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances to and from joint venture partners are non-interest bearing and unsecured. The
Partnership did not recognize any interest income or incur any interest expense from the
advances during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage and vessel expenses |
|
|
11,173 |
|
|
|
17,610 |
|
Interest |
|
|
19,912 |
|
|
|
16,945 |
|
Payroll and benefits (note 17)(1) |
|
|
6,534 |
|
|
|
6,495 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,053 |
|
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
38,672 |
|
|
|
41,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As at December 31, 2010 and 2009, $3.0 million and $2.6 million, respectively, of
accrued liabilities relates to crewing and manning costs payable to the subsidiaries of Teekay
Corporation (see Note 11a). |
F-18
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated Revolving Credit Facilities due through 2018 |
|
|
188,000 |
|
|
|
181,000 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated Term Loans due through 2019 |
|
|
371,685 |
|
|
|
396,601 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated Term Loans due through 2021 |
|
|
332,248 |
|
|
|
342,644 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated Term Loans due through 2021 |
|
|
120,599 |
|
|
|
126,013 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated Unsecured Demand Loan |
|
|
13,282 |
|
|
|
14,658 |
|
Euro-denominated Term Loans due through 2023 |
|
|
373,301 |
|
|
|
412,418 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,399,115 |
|
|
|
1,473,334 |
|
Less current portion |
|
|
76,408 |
|
|
|
75,647 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,322,707 |
|
|
|
1,397,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership had three long-term revolving credit facilities
available, which, as at such date, provided for borrowings of up to $526.6 million, of which
$338.6 million was undrawn. Interest payments are based on LIBOR plus margins. The amount
available under the revolving credit facilities reduces by $32.2 million (2011), $32.9 million
(2012), $33.7 million (2013), $34.5 million (2014), $84.1 million (2015) and $309.2 million
(thereafter). All the revolving credit facilities may be used by the Partnership to fund general
partnership purposes and to fund cash distributions. The Partnership is required to repay all
borrowings used to fund cash distributions within 12 months of their being drawn, from a source
other than further borrowings. The revolving credit facilities are collateralized by
first-priority mortgages granted on seven of the Partnerships vessels, together with other
related security, and include a guarantee from the Partnership or its subsidiaries of all
outstanding amounts. |
|
|
The Partnership has a U.S. Dollar-denominated term loan outstanding, which, as at December 31,
2010, totaled $371.7 million, of which $203.5 million bears interest at a fixed-rate of 5.39%
and requires quarterly payments. The remaining $168.2 million bears interest based on LIBOR plus
a margin and will require bullet repayments of approximately $56.0 million per vessel due at
maturity in 2018 and 2019. The term loan is collateralized by first-priority mortgages on three
vessels to which the loan relates, together with certain other related security and certain
guarantees from the Partnership. |
|
|
The Partnership owns a 69% interest in the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture. The Teekay Tangguh
Joint Venture has a U.S. Dollar-denominated term loan outstanding, which, as at December 31,
2010, totaled $332.2 million. Interest payments on the loan are based on LIBOR plus margins with
margins ranging between 0.30% and 0.63%. Interest payments on one tranche under the loan
facility are based on LIBOR plus 0.30%, while interest payments on the second tranche are based
on LIBOR plus 0.625%. One tranche (total value of up to $324.5 million) reduces in quarterly
payments while the other tranche (total value of up to $190.0 million) correspondingly is drawn
up with a final $95.0 million bullet payment per vessel due 12 years and three months from each
vessel delivery date. This loan facility is collateralized by first-priority mortgages on the
two vessels to which the loan relates, together with certain other security and is guaranteed by
the Partnership. |
|
|
At December 31, 2010, the Partnership had a U.S. Dollar-denominated term loan outstanding in the
amount of $120.6 million. Interest payments on one tranche under the loan facility are based on
six month LIBOR plus 0.30%, while interest payments on the second tranche are based on six-month
LIBOR plus 0.70%. One tranche reduces in semi-annual payments while the other tranche
correspondingly is drawn up every six months with a final $20 million bullet payment per vessel
due 12 years and six months from each vessel delivery date. This loan facility is collateralized
by first-priority mortgages on the two vessels to which the loan relates, together with certain
other related security and is guaranteed by Teekay Corporation. |
|
|
The Partnership has a U.S. Dollar-denominated demand loan outstanding owing to Teekay Nakilats
joint venture partner, which, as at December 31, 2010, totaled $13.3 million. Interest payments
on this loan, which are based on a fixed interest rate of 4.84%, commenced in February 2008. The
loan is repayable on demand no earlier than February 27, 2027. |
|
|
The Partnership has two Euro-denominated term loans outstanding, which as at December 31, 2010
totaled 278.9 million Euros ($373.3 million). Interest payments are based on EURIBOR plus a
margin, which margins ranged from 0.60% to 0.66% as of December 31, 2010. The term loans have
varying maturities through 2023. The term loans are collateralized by first-priority mortgages
on two vessels to which the loans relate, together with certain other related security and
guarantees from one of the Partnerships subsidiaries. |
|
|
Also at December 31, 2010, the Partnership had a $122.0 million credit facility that will be
secured by three LPG Carriers (or the Skaugen LPG Carriers), of which two were acquired from I.
M. Skaugen ASA (or Skaugen) in April 2009 and November 2009, and two Multigas ships to be
acquired from Teekay Corporation in 2011 (or the Skaugen Multigas Carriers). The facility amount
is equal to the lower of $122.0 million and 60% of the aggregate purchase price of the vessels.
The facility will mature, with respect to each vessel, seven years after each vessels first
drawdown date. The Partnership expects to draw on this facility in 2011 to repay a portion of
the amount it borrowed to purchase two Skaugen LPG Carriers in April 2009 and November 2009. As
at December 31, 2010, the Partnership had access to draw $40 million on this facility. The
Partnership intends to use the remaining available funds from the facility to assist in
purchasing the remaining Skaugen LPG Carrier and the Skaugen Multigas Carriers. |
F-19
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
The weighted-average effective interest rate for the Partnerships long-term debt outstanding at
December 31, 2010 and 2009 was 1.7%. This rate does not reflect the effect of related interest
rate swaps that the Partnership has used to economically hedge certain of its floating-rate debt
(see Note 12). At December 31, 2010, the margins on the Partnerships outstanding long-term debt
ranged from 0.3% to 0.7%. |
|
|
All Euro-denominated term loans are revalued at the end of each period using the then-prevailing
Euro/U.S. Dollar exchange rate. Due primarily to the revaluation of the Partnerships
Euro-denominated term loans, capital leases and restricted cash, the Partnership recognized an
unrealized foreign exchange gain (loss) of $27.5 million, ($10.8) million and $18.2 million for
the year ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
|
|
The aggregate annual long-term debt principal repayments required for periods subsequent to
December 31, 2010 are $76.4 million (2011), $277.9 million (2012), $78.9 million (2013), $79.4
million (2014) $128.8 million (2015) and $757.7 million (thereafter). |
|
|
Certain loan agreements require that minimum levels of tangible net worth and aggregate
liquidity be maintained, provide for a maximum level of leverage, and require one of the
Partnerships subsidiaries to maintain restricted cash deposits. The Partnerships ship-owning
subsidiaries may not, among other things, pay dividends or distributions if the Partnership is
in default under its term loans or revolving credit facilities. One of the Partnerships term
loans is guaranteed by Teekay Corporation and contains covenants that require Teekay Corporation
to maintain the greater of a minimum liquidity (cash and cash equivalents) of at least $50.0
million and 5.0% of Teekay Corporations total consolidated debt which has recourse to Teekay
Corporation. As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership and its affiliates were in compliance with
all covenants relating to the Partnerships credit facilities and capital leases. |
|
|
The components of the provision for income taxes were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Current |
|
|
(1,340 |
) |
|
|
(500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Deferred |
|
|
(330 |
) |
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
(1,670 |
) |
|
|
(694 |
) |
|
|
(205 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The significant components of the Partnerships deferred tax assets (liabilities) included in
other assets were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Derivative instruments |
|
|
13,229 |
|
|
|
9,180 |
|
Taxation loss carryforwards |
|
|
13,444 |
|
|
|
11,953 |
|
Vessels and equipment |
|
|
18,998 |
|
|
|
11,179 |
|
Capitalized interest |
|
|
(3,604 |
) |
|
|
(3,713 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42,067 |
|
|
|
28,599 |
|
Valuation allowance |
|
|
(38,420 |
) |
|
|
(24,943 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets |
|
|
3,647 |
|
|
|
3,656 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Partnership has tax losses in the United Kingdom (or UK) of $41.0 million as at December 31,
2010 that are available indefinitely for offset against future taxable income in the UK. The
Partnership also has tax losses in Spain of 49.0 million Euros (approximately $65.5 million) as
at December 31, 2010 that are available to be carried forward for fifteen years for offset
against future taxable income in Spain. |
|
|
As of December 31, 2007, the Partnership had unrecognized tax benefits of 3.4 million Euros
(approximately $5.4 million) relating to a re-investment tax credit related to a 2005 annual tax
filing. During the third quarter of 2008, the Partnership received the refund on the
re-investment tax credit and met the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold. As a result,
the Partnership reflected this refund as a credit to equity as the original vessel sale
transaction was a related party transaction reflected in equity. The relevant tax authorities
have challenged the eligibility of the re-investment tax credit. As a result, the Partnership
believes the more-likely-than-not threshold is no longer met and recognized a liability of 3.4
million Euros (approximately $4.7 million) and reversed the benefit of the refund against equity
as of December 31, 2009. As at December 31, 2010, a liability of 4.0 million Euros
(approximately $5.4 million) relating to the re-investment tax credit is included in other
long-term liabilities. |
|
|
The Partnership recognizes interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions in income
tax expense. As of December 31, 2010 and 2009, the Partnership had $1.0 million and $0.5
million, respectively, of accrued interest and penalties relating to income taxes. The tax years
2007 through 2010 currently remain open to examination by the major tax jurisdictions to which
the Partnership is subject to. |
F-20
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
11. |
|
Related Party Transactions |
a) The Partnership and certain of its operating subsidiaries have entered into services
agreements with certain subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation pursuant to which the Teekay
Corporation subsidiaries provide the Partnership with administrative, crew training, advisory,
technical and strategic consulting services. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008, the Partnership incurred $14.9 million, $11.4 million and $9.4 million, respectively, for
these services. In addition, as a component of the services agreements, the Teekay Corporation
subsidiaries provide the Partnership with all usual and customary crew management services in
respect of its vessels. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership
incurred $30.5 million, $27.4 million and $20.1 million, respectively, for crewing and manning
costs, of which $3.6 million and $3.7 million were payable to the subsidiaries of Teekay
Corporation as at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, and is included as part
of accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the Partnerships consolidated balance sheets.
|
|
On March 31, 2009, a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation paid $3.0 million to the Partnership for
the right to provide certain ship management services to certain of the Partnerships vessels.
This amount is deferred and amortized on a straight-line basis until 2012 and is included as a
reduction of general and administrative expense in the Partnerships consolidated statements of
income (loss). |
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, $0.7 million, $1.6 million and $0.5
million, respectively, of general and administrative expenses attributable to the operations of
the Centrofin Suezmaxes, Alexander Spirit and the Kenai LNG Carriers were incurred by Teekay
Corporation and have been allocated to the Partnership as part of the results of the Dropdown
Predecessor. |
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, $0.3 million, $0.4 million and $3.1
million, respectively, of interest expense attributable to the operations of the Alexander
Spirit and the Kenai LNG Carriers was incurred by Teekay Corporation and has been allocated to
the Partnership as part of the results of the Dropdown Predecessor. |
b) The Partnership reimburses the General Partner for all expenses incurred by the General
Partner or its affiliates that are necessary or appropriate for the conduct of the Partnerships
business. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership incurred $0.8
million for each of these three years of these costs.
c) The Partnership was a party to an agreement with Teekay Corporation pursuant to which Teekay
Corporation provided the Partnership with off-hire insurance for certain of its LNG carriers.
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership incurred nil, $0.5
million and $1.5 million respectively of these costs. The Partnership did not renew this
off-hire insurance with Teekay Corporation, which expired during the second quarter of 2009.
The Partnership currently obtains third-party off-hire insurance for certain of its LNG carriers
and self-insures the remaining vessels in its fleet.
d) In connection with the Partnerships initial public offering in May 2005, the Partnership
entered into an omnibus agreement with Teekay Corporation, the General Partner and other related
parties governing, among other things, when the Partnership and Teekay Corporation may compete
with each other and certain rights of first offer on LNG carriers and Suezmax tankers. In
December 2006, the omnibus agreement was amended in connection with the initial public offering
of Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. (or Teekay Offshore). As amended, the agreement governs, among
other things, when the Partnership, Teekay Corporation and Teekay Offshore may compete with each
other and certain rights of first offer on LNG carriers, oil tankers, shuttle tankers, floating
storage and offtake units and floating production, storage and offloading units.
e) On November 1, 2006, the Partnership agreed to acquire from Teekay Corporation its 70%
interest in the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture, which owns the two Tangguh LNG Carriers and the
related 20-year, fixed-rate time-charters to service the Tangguh LNG project in Indonesia. The
customer under the charters for the Tangguh LNG Carriers is The Tangguh Production Sharing
Contractors, a consortium led by BP Berau Ltd., a subsidiary of BP plc. The Partnership has
operational responsibility for the vessels. The remaining 30% interest in the Teekay Tangguh
Joint Venture is held by BLT LNG Tangguh Corporation, a subsidiary of PT Berlian Laju Tanker
Tbk.
|
|
On August 10, 2009, the Partnership acquired 99% of Teekay Corporations 70% ownership interest
in the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture (giving the Partnership a 69% interest in the joint venture)
for a purchase price of $69.1 million (net of assumed debt). This transaction was concluded
between two entities under common control and, thus, the assets acquired were recorded at
historical book value. The excess of the purchase price over the book value of the assets of
$31.8 million was accounted for as an equity distribution to Teekay Corporation. The remaining
30% interest in the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture is held by BLT LNG Tangguh Corporation. For the
period November 1, 2006 to August 9, 2009, the Partnership consolidated Teekay Tangguh as it was
considered a variable interest entity whereby the Partnership was the primary beneficiary. |
|
|
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture repaid $28 million of
its contributed capital to its joint venture partners, Teekay Corporation and BLT LNG Tangguh
Corporation. |
f) On November 1, 2006, the Partnership agreed to acquire from Teekay Corporation its 100%
interest in Teekay Nakilat (III) Holdings Corporation (or Teekay Nakilat (III)) which in turn
owns 40% of Teekay Nakilat (III) Corporation (or the RasGas 3 Joint Venture). The remaining 60%
interest in the RasGas 3 Joint Venture is held by QGTC Nakilat (1643-6) Holdings Corporation (or
QGTC 3). RasGas 3 Joint Venture owns four LNG carriers (or the RasGas 3 LNG Carriers) and
related 25-year, fixed-rate time-charters (with options to extend up to an additional 10 years)
to service the expansion of a LNG project in Qatar. The customer is Ras Laffan Liquefied Natural
Gas Co. Limited (3), a joint venture company between Qatar Petroleum and a subsidiary of
ExxonMobil Corporation. The delivered cost of the four double-hulled RasGas 3 LNG Carriers of
217,000 cubic meters each was approximately $1.0 billion, excluding capitalized interest, of
which the Partnership was responsible for 40% upon its acquisition of Teekay Corporations
interest in the joint venture. The four vessels delivered between May and July 2008. The
Partnership has operational responsibility for the vessels in this project, although QGTC 3 may
assume operational responsibility beginning 10 years following delivery of the vessels. Teekay
Nakilat (III) accounts for its investment in the RasGas 3 Joint Venture using the equity method.
F-21
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
On May 6, 2008, the Partnership acquired Teekay Corporations 100% ownership interest in Teekay
Nakilat (III) in exchange for a non-interest bearing and unsecured promissory note. The purchase
price (net of assumed debt) of $110.2 million has been paid by the Partnership. This transaction
was concluded between two entities under common control and, thus, the assets acquired were
recorded at historical book value. The excess of the purchase price over the book value of the assets was accounted for as an
equity distribution to Teekay Corporation. For the period November 1, 2006 to May 5, 2008, the
Partnership consolidated Teekay Nakilat (III) as it was considered a variable interest entity
whereby the Partnership was the primary beneficiary. Subsequent to May 6, 2008, Teekay Nakilat
(III) was no longer a variable interest entity and the Partnership consolidates Teekay Nakilat
(III) as it has voting control. |
|
|
On December 31, 2008 Teekay Nakilat (III) and QGTC 3 novated a term loan of such parties to the
RasGas 3 Joint Venture relating to the RasGas 3 LNG Carries along with the related accrued
interest and deferred debt issuance costs. Also on December 31, 2008, Teekay Nakilat (III) and
QGTC 3 novated their interest rate swap agreements to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture for no
consideration. As a result, the RasGas 3 Joint Venture assumed all the rights, liabilities and
obligations of Teekay Nakilat (III) and QGTC 3 under the terms of the original term loan and the
interest rate swap agreements. |
g) The Partnerships Suezmax tanker the Toledo Spirit, which was delivered in July 2005,
operates pursuant to a time-charter contract that increases or decreases the otherwise
fixed-hire rate established in the charter depending on the spot charter rates that the
Partnership would have earned had it traded the vessel in the spot tanker market. The remaining
term of the time-charter contract is 15 years as of December 31, 2010, although the charterer
has the right to terminate the time-charter in July 2018. The Partnership has entered into an
agreement with Teekay Corporation under which Teekay Corporation pays the Partnership any
amounts payable to the charterer as a result of spot rates being below the fixed rate, and the
Partnership pays Teekay Corporation any amounts payable to the Partnership as a result of spot
rates being in excess of the fixed rate.
|
|
During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership realized losses of $1.9
million, $0.9 million and $8.6 million, respectively, for amounts paid to Teekay Corporation as
a result of this agreement (see Note 12). The amounts payable or receivable from Teekay
Corporation are settled at the end of each year. |
h) In April 2008, the Partnership acquired the two 1993-built LNG carriers (or the Kenai LNG
Carriers) from Teekay Corporation for $230.0 million. The Partnership financed the acquisition
with borrowings under one of its revolving credit facilities. The Partnership chartered the
vessels back to Teekay Corporation at a fixed-rate for a period of ten years (plus options
exercisable by Teekay Corporation to extend up to an additional 15 years). During the years
ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Partnership recognized revenues of $36.5 million,
$38.9 million and $29.6 million, respectively, from these charters.
i) In July 2008, subsidiaries of Teekay Corporation (or the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries)
signed contracts for the purchase of the Skaugen Multigas Carriers from Skaugen, which are two
technically advanced 12,000-cubic meter newbuilding ships capable of carrying LNG, LPG or
ethylene. The Partnership agreed to acquire the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries from Teekay
Corporation upon delivery of the vessels. The vessels are expected to be delivered in 2011 for a
total cost of approximately $106 million. Each vessel is scheduled to commence service under
15-year fixed-rate charters to Skaugen (see Note 13a).
j) In June and November 2009, in conjunction with the acquisition of the two Skaugen LPG
Carriers, Teekay Corporation novated interest rate swaps, each with a notional amount of $30.0
million, to the Partnership for no consideration. During the year ended 2010, the Partnership
agreed to acquire an interest rate swap, with a notional amount of $30.0 million, relating to
the third Skaugen LPG Carrier from Teekay Corporation for no consideration and the Partnership accounted
for this swap during the year. The actual acquisition of
this interest rate swap is concurrent with the delivery of the third Skaugen LPG Carrier. These
transactions were concluded between related parties and thus the interest rate swaps were
recorded at their carrying values which were equal to their fair values. The excess of the
liabilities assumed over the consideration paid amounting to $1.6 million, $3.2 million and $1.5
million, respectively, were charged to equity.
k) In November 2009, the Partnership sold 1% of its interest in the Kenai LNG Carriers to the
General Partner for approximately $2.3 million in order to structure this project in a tax
efficient manner for the Partnership.
l) On March 17, 2010, the Partnership acquired from Teekay Corporation two 2009-built Suezmax
tankers, the Bermuda Spirit and the Hamilton Spirit, and a 2007-built Handymax Product tanker,
the Alexander Spirit, and the associated long-term fixed-rate time-charter contracts for a total
cost of $160 million. As described in Note 1, the acquisition was accounted for as a
reorganization of entities under common control and accounted for on a basis similar to the
pooling of interest basis. The Partnership financed the acquisition by assuming $126 million of
debt, drawing $24 million on its existing revolvers and using $10 million of cash. In addition,
the Partnership acquired approximately $15 million of working capital in exchange for a
short-term vendor loan from Teekay Corporation. The excess of the purchase price over the
historical carrying value of the assets acquired was $3.6 million and is reflected as a
distribution of capital to Teekay Corporation.
m) As at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, non-interest bearing advances to affiliates
totaled $6.1 million and $20.7 million, respectively, and non-interest bearing advances from
affiliates totaled $133.3 million and $104.3 million, respectively. These advances are unsecured
and have no fixed repayment terms, however, they are expected to be settled within the next
fiscal year.
12. |
|
Derivative Instruments |
|
|
The Partnership uses derivative instruments in accordance with its overall risk management
policy. The Partnership has not designated these derivative instruments as hedges for accounting
purposes. |
|
|
The Partnership enters into interest rate swaps which either exchange a receipt of floating
interest for a payment of fixed interest or a payment of floating interest for a receipt of
fixed interest to reduce the Partnerships exposure to interest rate variability on its
outstanding floating-rate debt and floating-rate restricted cash deposits. |
F-22
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
As at December 31, 2010, the Partnership was committed to the following interest rate swap
agreements: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value / |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
Average |
|
|
Fixed |
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Principal |
|
|
Assets |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
(Liability) |
|
|
Term |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
Index |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
(years) |
|
|
(%) (1) |
|
LIBOR-Based Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps (2) |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
437,458 |
|
|
|
(60,154 |
) |
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps (2) |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
215,685 |
|
|
|
(48,353 |
) |
|
|
8.2 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
90,000 |
|
|
|
(12,214 |
) |
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
(17,725 |
) |
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps (3) |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
231,250 |
|
|
|
(37,593 |
) |
|
|
18.0 |
|
|
|
5.2 |
|
LIBOR-Based Restricted Cash Deposit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Dollar-denominated interest rate swaps (2) |
|
LIBOR |
|
|
471,535 |
|
|
|
66,870 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
EURIBOR-Based Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Euro-denominated interest rate swaps (4) |
|
EURIBOR |
|
|
373,301 |
|
|
|
(25,424 |
) |
|
|
13.5 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,593 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes the margins the Partnership pays on its drawn floating-rate debt, which,
at December 31, 2010, ranged from 0.3% to 0.7%. |
|
(2) |
|
Principal amount reduces quarterly. |
|
(3) |
|
Principal amount reduces semiannually. |
|
(4) |
|
Principal amount reduces monthly to 70.1 million Euros ($93.8 million) by the
maturity dates of the swap agreements. |
|
|
The Partnership is exposed to credit loss in the event of non-performance by the counterparties
to the interest rate swap agreements. In order to minimize counterparty risk, the Partnership
only enters into derivative transactions with counterparties that are rated A- or better by
Standard & Poors or A3 by Moodys at the time of the transactions. In addition, to the extent
practical, interest rate swaps are entered into with different counterparties to reduce
concentration risk. |
|
|
In order to reduce the variability of its revenue, the Partnership has entered into an agreement
with Teekay Corporation under which Teekay Corporation pays the Partnership any amounts payable
to the charterer of the Toledo Spirit as a result of spot rates being below the fixed rate, and
the Partnership pays Teekay Corporation any amounts payable to the Partnership by the charterer
of the Toledo Spirit as a result of spot rates being in excess of the fixed rate. The fair
value of the derivative at December 31, 2010 is a liability of $10.0 million (December 31, 2009
$10.6 million). |
|
|
The following table presents the location and fair value amounts of derivative instruments,
segregated by type of contract, on the Partnerships balance sheets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
portion of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
portion of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts |
|
|
derivative |
|
|
Derivative |
|
|
Accrued |
|
|
derivative |
|
|
Derivative |
|
|
|
receivable |
|
|
assets |
|
|
assets |
|
|
liabilities |
|
|
liabilities |
|
|
liabilities |
|
As at December 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
4,587 |
|
|
|
16,758 |
|
|
|
45,525 |
|
|
|
(11,498 |
) |
|
|
(50,603 |
) |
|
|
(139,362 |
) |
Toledo Spirit time-charter derivative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,587 |
|
|
|
16,758 |
|
|
|
45,525 |
|
|
|
(11,498 |
) |
|
|
(50,603 |
) |
|
|
(149,362 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
4,613 |
|
|
|
16,337 |
|
|
|
15,794 |
|
|
|
(11,539 |
) |
|
|
(50,056 |
) |
|
|
(73,351 |
) |
Toledo Spirit time-charter derivative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,600 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,613 |
|
|
|
16,337 |
|
|
|
15,794 |
|
|
|
(11,539 |
) |
|
|
(50,056 |
) |
|
|
(83,951 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-23
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
The following table presents the gains (losses) for those derivative instruments not designated
or qualifying as hedging instruments. All gains (losses) are presented as realized and
unrealized loss on derivative instruments in the Partnerships consolidated statements of income
(loss). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
gains |
|
|
gains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
(losses) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
(42,495 |
) |
|
|
(34,906 |
) |
|
|
(77,401 |
) |
|
|
(36,222 |
) |
|
|
(11,143 |
) |
|
|
(47,365 |
) |
|
|
(6,788 |
) |
|
|
(82,543 |
) |
|
|
(89,331 |
) |
Toledo Spirit time-charter derivative |
|
|
(1,919 |
) |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
(1,319 |
) |
|
|
(940 |
) |
|
|
7,355 |
|
|
|
6,415 |
|
|
|
(8,620 |
) |
|
|
(2,003 |
) |
|
|
(10,623 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,414 |
) |
|
|
(34,306 |
) |
|
|
(78,720 |
) |
|
|
(37,162 |
) |
|
|
(3,788 |
) |
|
|
(40,950 |
) |
|
|
(15,408 |
) |
|
|
(84,546 |
) |
|
|
(99,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. |
|
Commitments and Contingencies |
a) The Partnership consolidates certain variable interest entities (or VIEs) within its
consolidated financial statements. In general, a variable interest entity is a corporation,
partnership, limited-liability company, trust or any other legal structure used to conduct
activities or hold assets that either (1) has an insufficient amount of equity to carry out its
principal activities without additional subordinated financial support, (2) has a group of
equity owners that are unable to make significant decisions about its activities, or (3) has a
group of equity owners that do not have the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive
returns generated by its operations. A party that is a variable interest holder is required to
consolidate a VIE if it has both (a) the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most
significantly impact the entitys economic performance and (b) the obligation to absorb losses
of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits
from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE.
|
|
The Partnership has consolidated Teekay Tangguh and Teekay Nakilat (III) effective November 2006
and the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries effective July 2008, as each of these entities became VIEs
and the Partnership became their primary beneficiary on the date the Partnership agreed to
acquire all of Teekay Corporations interests in these entities (see Notes 11e, 11f and 11i).
Upon the Partnerships acquisition of Teekay Nakilat (III) on May 6, 2008 and of Teekay Tangguh
on August 10, 2009, Teekay Nakilat (III) and Teekay Tangguh were no longer VIEs. |
|
|
The following table summarizes the balance sheets of the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries as at
December 31, 2010 and 2009: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vessels and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances on newbuilding contracts |
|
|
79,535 |
|
|
|
57,430 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
651 |
|
|
|
651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
|
80,186 |
|
|
|
58,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND DEFICIT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued liabilities and other |
|
|
587 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
Advances from affiliates |
|
|
79,612 |
|
|
|
57,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
80,199 |
|
|
|
58,089 |
|
Total deficit |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and total deficit |
|
|
80,186 |
|
|
|
58,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The assets and liabilities of the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries are reflected in the
Partnerships financial statements at historical cost as the Partnership and the VIEs are under
common control. The Partnerships maximum exposure to loss as of December 31, 2010 and December
31, 2009, as a result of its commitment to purchase Teekay Corporations interests in the
Skaugen Multigas is limited to the purchase price of its interest in both vessels, which is
expected to be approximately $106 million. The assets of the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries
cannot be used by the Partnership and the creditors of the Skaugen Multigas Subsidiaries have no
recourse to the general credit of the Partnership. |
b) The Partnership has an agreement to acquire the third Skaugen LPG Carrier upon delivery for
approximately $33.0 million. The third vessel is expected to deliver in 2011 and upon delivery,
the vessel will be chartered to Skaugen at fixed rates for a period of 15 years.
F-24
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
14. |
|
Supplemental Cash Flow Information |
a) The changes in operating assets and liabilities for years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and
2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
(8,442 |
) |
|
|
3,888 |
|
|
|
4,875 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other operating assets |
|
|
4,018 |
|
|
|
5,677 |
|
|
|
4,322 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(326 |
) |
|
|
(6,203 |
) |
|
|
2,790 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
(6,222 |
) |
|
|
9,504 |
|
|
|
2,111 |
|
Unearned revenue and other operating liabilities |
|
|
2,767 |
|
|
|
10,301 |
|
|
|
19,643 |
|
Advances to and from affiliates and joint venture partners |
|
|
11,234 |
|
|
|
3,821 |
|
|
|
(1,779 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
3,029 |
|
|
|
26,988 |
|
|
|
31,962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) Cash interest paid (including interest paid by the Dropdown Predecessor and realized losses
on interest rate swaps) on long-term debt, advances from affiliates and capital lease
obligations, net of amounts capitalized, during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008
totaled $135.5 million, $105.0 million and $154.7 million, respectively.
c) Net change in parents equity in the Dropdrown Predecessor includes the equity of the
Dropdown Predecessor when initially pooled for accounting purposes and any subsequent non-cash
equity transactions of the Dropdown Predecessor.
d) On December 31, 2008 Teekay Nakilat (III) and QGTC 3 novated their interest rate swap
obligations of $69.2 million to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture for no consideration. This
transaction was treated as a non-cash transaction in the Partnerships consolidated statements
of cash flows.
e) On December 31, 2008 Teekay Nakilat (III) and QGTC 3 novated their external long-term debt
and accrued interest of $871.3 million and related deferred debt issuance costs of $4.1 million
to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture. As a result of this transaction, the Partnerships long-term debt
and accrued interest have decreased by $871.3 million and other assets decreased by $4.1 million
offset by a decrease in the Partnerships advances to the RasGas 3 Joint Venture. These
transactions were treated as non-cash transactions in the Partnerships consolidated statements
of cash flows.
f) During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Tangguh LNG Carriers commenced their external
time-charter contracts under direct financing leases. The initial recognition of the net
investments in direct financing leases for both vessels of $425.9 million were treated as
non-cash transactions in the Partnerships consolidated statements of cash flows.
g) Teekay Nakilat and the Teekay Tangguh Joint Venture entered into lease contracts,
respectively, whereby it guarantees to make payments to a third party company for any losses
suffered by the third party company relating to tax law changes. The initial liabilities
recorded of $29.8 million were treated as non-cash transactions in the Partnerships
consolidated statements of cash flows.
h) In June and November 2009, Teekay Corporation novated interest rate swaps, each with a
notional amount of $30.0 million, to the Partnership for no consideration. During the year ended
2010, the Partnership agreed to acquire an interest rate swap from Teekay Corporation for no
consideration. The transactions were concluded between related parties and thus the interest
rate swaps were recorded at their carrying value. The excess of the liabilities assumed over the
consideration received, amounting to $1.6 million, $3.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively,
were charged to equity and treated as non-cash transactions in the Partnerships consolidated
statements of cash flows.
i) In November 2010, the $37.3 million portion of the purchase price relating to the
Partnerships 50% acquisition of the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures through the issuance
of 1.1 million common units was treated as a non-cash transaction in the Partnerships
consolidated statements of cash flows.
15. |
|
Total Capital and Net Income (Loss) Per Unit |
|
|
At December 31, 2010, of the Partnerships total number of units outstanding, 53.2% were held by
the public and the remaining units were held by a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation. |
|
|
On November 4, 2010, the Partnership issued 1.1 million common units as part of the acquisition
of the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures (see note 18) and on July 15, 2010, the
Partnership completed a direct equity placement of 1.7 million common units. During April 2008,
March 2009 and November 2009, the Partnership completed follow-on equity offerings of 7.1
million common units, 4.0 million common units and 4.0 million common units, respectively (see
Note 3). |
|
|
During 2010, the board of directors of the General Partner authorized the award by the
Partnership of 1,007 common units to each of the four non-employee directors with a value of
approximately $30,000 for each award. The Chairman was awarded 2,181 common units with a value
of approximately $65,000. These common units were purchased by the Partnership in the open
market in May 2010 and were fully vested upon grant. During 2009 and 2008, the Partnership awarded 1,644 and 1,049 common units, respectively,
as compensation to each of the four non-employee directors. The awards were fully vested in
September 2009 and April 2008, respectively. The compensation to the non-employee directors are
included in general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income (loss). |
F-25
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
Limited Total Rights
|
|
Significant rights of the Partnerships limited partners include the following: |
|
|
Right to receive distribution of available cash within approximately 45 days after the
end of each quarter. |
|
|
No limited partner shall have any management power over the Partnerships business and
affairs; the General Partner shall conduct, direct and manage Partnerships activities. |
|
|
The General Partner may be removed if such removal is approved by unitholders holding
at least 66-2/3% of the outstanding units voting as a single class, including
units held by our General Partner and its affiliates. |
Subordinated Units
|
|
All of the Partnerships subordinated units were held by a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation.
Under the partnership agreement, during the subordination period applicable to the Partnerships
subordinated units, the common units had the right to receive distributions of available cash
from operating surplus in an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.4125 per
quarter, plus any arrearages in the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution on the common
units from prior quarters, before any distributions of available cash from operating surplus may
be made on the subordinated units. Distribution arrearages do not accrue on the subordinated
units. The purpose of the subordinated units was to increase the likelihood that during the
subordination period there would be available cash to be distributed on the common units. |
|
|
On May 19, 2008, 25% of the subordinated units (3.7 million units) issued to Teekay Corporation
in connection with the Partnerships formation and initial public offering were converted into
common units on a one-for-one basis as provided for under the terms of the partnership agreement
and began participating pro rata with the other common units in distributions of available cash
commencing with the August 2008 distribution. The price of the Partnerships units at the time
of conversion was $29.07. |
|
|
On May 19, 2009, an additional 3.7 million subordinated units were converted into an equal
number of common units as provided for under the terms of the partnership agreement and
participate pro rata with the other common units in distributions of available cash commencing
with the August 2009 distribution. The price of the Partnerships units at the time of
conversion was $17.66. |
|
|
The subordination period ended on April 1, 2010 and the remaining 7.4 million subordinated units
converted into an equal number of common units. The price of the Partnerships units at time of
conversion was $29.95. For the purpose of the subordinated net income (loss) per unit
calculation, weighted average number of units outstanding as at December 31, 2010 was 1.8
million units due to the conversion of these units on April 1, 2010 and as a result, the
subordinated net income per unit for the year ended December 31, 2010 is $2.04. |
Incentive Distribution Rights
|
|
The General Partner is entitled to incentive distributions if the amount the Partnership
distributes to unitholders with respect to any quarter exceeds specified target levels shown
below: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarterly Distribution Target Amount (per unit) |
|
Unitholders |
|
|
General Partner |
|
Minimum quarterly distribution of $0.4125 |
|
|
98 |
% |
|
|
2 |
% |
Up to $0.4625 |
|
|
98 |
% |
|
|
2 |
% |
Above $0.4625 up to $0.5375 |
|
|
85 |
% |
|
|
15 |
% |
Above $0.5375 up to $0.65 |
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
25 |
% |
Above $0.65 |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
During 2010, cash distributions exceeded $0.4625 per unit and, consequently, the assumed
distribution of net income resulted in the use of the increasing percentages to calculate the
General Partners interest in net income for the purposes of the net income (loss) per unit
calculation. |
|
|
In the event of a liquidation, all property and cash in excess of that required to discharge all
liabilities will be distributed to the unitholders and the General Partner in proportion to
their capital account balances, as adjusted to reflect any gain or loss upon the sale or other
disposition of the Partnerships assets in liquidation in accordance with the partnership
agreement. |
Net Income (Loss) Per Unit
|
|
Net income (loss) per unit is determined by dividing net income (loss), after deducting the
amount of net income (loss) attributable to the Dropdown Predecessor, the non-controlling
interest and the General Partners interest, by the weighted-average number of units outstanding
during the period. |
F-26
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
The General Partners, common unitholders and subordinated unitholders interests in net income
(loss) are calculated as if all net income (loss) was distributed according to the terms of the
Partnerships partnership agreement, regardless of whether those earnings would or could be
distributed. The partnership agreement does not provide for the distribution of net income
(loss); rather, it provides for the distribution of available cash, which is a contractually
defined term that generally means all cash on hand at the end of each quarter after
establishment of cash reserves determined by the Partnerships board of directors to provide for the proper
conduct of the Partnerships business including reserves for maintenance and replacement capital
expenditure and anticipated credit needs. In addition, the General Partner is entitled to
incentive distributions if the amount the Partnership distributes to unitholders with respect to
any quarter exceeds specified target levels. Unlike available cash, net income (loss) is
affected by non-cash items, such as depreciation and amortization, unrealized gains or losses on
non-designated derivative instruments and foreign currency translation gains (losses). |
|
|
Pursuant to the Partnership agreement, allocations to partners are made on a quarterly basis. |
a) In December 2007, a consortium in which Teekay Corporation has a 33% ownership interest
agreed to charter four newbuilding 160,400-cubic meter LNG carriers for a period of 20 years to
the Angola LNG Project, which is being developed by subsidiaries of Chevron Corporation,
Sociedade Nacional de Combustiveis de Angola EP, BP Plc, Total S.A. and Eni SpA. The vessels
will be chartered at fixed rates, with inflation adjustments, commencing in 2011 and 2012 upon
deliveries of the vessels. Mitsui & Co., Ltd. and NYK Bulkship (Europe) have 34% and 33%
ownership interests in the consortium, respectively. In March 2011, the Partnership agreed to
acquire Teekay Corporations 33% ownership interest in these vessels and related charter
contracts for a total equity purchase price of approximately $73 million (net of assumed debt)
subject to adjustment based on actual cost incurred at the time of delivery.
b) On November 5, 2010, the Partnership sold one of its LPG carriers, the Dania Spirit, for
proceeds of $21.5 million, resulting in a gain of $4.3 million.
|
|
During 2009 the Partnership restructured certain ship management functions from the
Partnerships office in Spain to a subsidiary of Teekay Corporation and the change of the
nationality of certain seafarer positions. During the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 the
Partnership incurred expenses of $0.2 million and $3.3 million, respectively, in connection with
these restructuring plans. The carrying amount of the liability as at December 31, 2010 and 2009
was nil and $0.6 million, which is included as part of accrued liabilities in the Partnerships
consolidated balance sheets. |
18. |
|
Equity Method Investments |
|
|
The Partnership has a 40% interest in the RasGas 3 Joint Venture (see Note 11f) and on November
4, 2010, the Partnership acquired a 50% interest in the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures
from Exmar NV for a total purchase price of approximately $72.5 million. The Partnership
financed $37.3 million of the purchase price by issuing to Exmar NV approximately 1.1 million
new common units with the balance financed by drawing on one of the Partnerships revolving
credit facilities. As part of the transaction the Partnership agreed to guarantee its 50% share
of the $206 million of debt secured by the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures. The excess
of the Partnerships investment in the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures over its
underlying equity in the net assets, which amounts to approximately $50 million, has
substantially been accounted for as an increase to the carrying value of the vessels of the
Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures, in accordance with the preliminary purchase price
adjustments. |
|
|
These joint ventures are accounted for using the equity method. The RasGas 3 Joint Venture and
the Excelsior Joint Venture are considered variable interest entities; however, the Partnership
is not the primary beneficiary and consolidation is not required. The Partnerships maximum
exposure to loss as a result of its involvement with the RasGas3 Joint Venture and the Excelsior
Joint Venture is the amount it has invested in these joint ventures, which were $98.4 million
and $47.9 million, respectively, as at December 31, 2010 and the Partnerships guarantee of the
Excelsior Joint Ventures debt of $50.7 million. |
F-27
TEEKAY LNG PARTNERS L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(all tabular amounts stated in thousands of U.S. dollars, except unit and per unit data or
unless otherwise
indicated)
|
|
The following table presents aggregated summarized financial information of the RasGas 3,
Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures in their entirety excluding the impact from purchase
price adjustments arising from the acquisition of the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
Current assets |
|
|
80,907 |
|
|
|
48,265 |
|
Restricted cash(1) |
|
|
165,322 |
|
|
|
|
|
Vessels and equipments |
|
|
234,757 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net investments in direct financing leases(2) |
|
|
1,034,509 |
|
|
|
1,046,868 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
6,560 |
|
|
|
9,434 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
|
1,522,055 |
|
|
|
1,104,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
19,040 |
|
|
|
23,498 |
|
Long-term debt(3) |
|
|
1,017,092 |
|
|
|
839,891 |
|
Obligations under capital lease(4) |
|
|
157,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative instruments(5) |
|
|
57,200 |
|
|
|
41,067 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
|
|
Equity |
|
|
270,509 |
|
|
|
200,111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity |
|
|
1,522,055 |
|
|
|
1,104,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes current portion of restricted cash of $4.7 million as at December 31,
2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes current portion of net investments in direct financing leases of $12.0
million and $11.1 million as at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes current portion of long-term debt of $55.3 million and $36.6 million as
at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes current portion of obligations under capital lease of $0.3 million as at
December 31, 2010. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes current portion of derivative instruments of $14.3 million and $14.0
million as at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2010(1) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voyage revenues |
|
|
106,371 |
|
|
|
99,593 |
|
|
|
47,016 |
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
22,379 |
|
|
|
18,642 |
|
|
|
15,911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from vessel operations |
|
|
83,992 |
|
|
|
80,951 |
|
|
|
31,105 |
|
Interest expense net |
|
|
(27,947 |
) |
|
|
(31,968 |
) |
|
|
(21,834 |
) |
Realized and unrealized (loss) gain on derivative instruments |
|
|
(35,173 |
) |
|
|
10,692 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other (expense) income |
|
|
(780 |
) |
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
|
20,092 |
|
|
|
59,918 |
|
|
|
9,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The results included for the Excalibur and Excelsior Joint Ventures were from
November 4, 2010 to December 31, 2010. |
19. |
|
Accounting Pronouncements Not Yet Adopted |
|
|
In September 2009, the FASB issued an amendment to FASB ASC 605, Revenue Recognition, that
provides for a new methodology for establishing the fair value for a deliverable in a
multiple-element arrangement. When vendor specific objective or third-party evidence for
deliverables in a multiple-element arrangement cannot be determined, the Partnership will be
required to develop a best estimate of the selling price of separate deliverables and to
allocate the arrangement consideration using the relative selling price method. This amendment
will be effective for the Partnership on January 1, 2011. It is expected that this amendment
will not have an impact on the Companys consolidated financial statements. |
|
|
In March 2011, the Partnership agreed to acquire Teekay Corporations 33% ownership interest in
four LNG carriers and related charter contracts for a total equity purchase price of
approximately $73 million (net of assumed debt) subject to adjustment based on actual costs
incurred at the time of delivery. |
F-28