Last week I gave a lunchtime presentation to a local investment club organized by Elliot Miller, a friend and long-time investor in midstream energy. Afterwards one of the participants came up to me and, disclosing that he used to work as a nuclear physicist, asked me what I thought of the prospects for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

We recently received similar questions in response to a video (watch Why Not Nuclear?). Given my interlocutor’s background, I thought his opinion of SMRs was more relevant than mine, so I turned the question back to him. He was hopeful but not optimistic. SMRs have offered promise for many years. They could power some of the many data centers that are being built. Modular construction has lowered costs in many areas. Venture Global (VG), the LNG exporter that recently IPOd, has shown that modular construction of LNG export terminals can cut costs and construction time in half.

VG’s public flotation was a bust for investors, with the stock soon losing 40% of its initial value. But few dispute that the company has demonstrated excellence in construction.

I’ve sometimes mused that the US Navy, with 99 SMRs powering aircraft carriers and submarines, might have something to teach the civilian sector on the topic. This is not an original thought, and I learned some of the key reasons why it won’t work.

One is that military vessels use highly enriched uranium, as much as 70%. This is far above the levels deployed in civilian reactors and presents the risk of theft by terrorists. It’s covered under nuclear non-proliferation agreements, and there are no civilian reactors anywhere (apparently not even in China) that use this.

Trying to steal weapons grade uranium from an aircraft carrier or submarine would likely be brief and fatal.

There are other challenges. Military SMRs aren’t designed with cost per Megawatt Hour as a major consideration. They also operate under different regulations than the civilian nuclear sector. And they often use proprietary technology. It seems it’s impractical to copy what the US Navy has done.

Returning to VG – we continue to research the stock but haven’t yet invested. As we’ve noted previously, VG upset some of the world’s biggest LNG buyers. Their interpretation of “fully commissioned”, the point at which an LNG export terminal is ready to begin shipments under long term agreements, was different than buyers including Shell, BP, Galp and Repsol (see Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained).

Arguing that some remaining project elements were not yet resolved, VG sold LNG shipments themselves at the high global prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Their long term contract partners felt those shipments, along with the outsized profits, should have gone to them. The case is now in arbitration. It may cost VG up to $5BN. But they reaped $BNs in profits which they plowed into added capacity.

Perhaps worse than the potential settlement is the reputational hit. There’s aren’t hundreds of LNG buyers out there, and they know each other. Future contract negotiations are likely to eliminate the ambiguity VG relied upon. TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné recently said they rejected overtures from VG due to a lack of trust. Pouyanné added, “I don’t want to be in the middle of a dispute with my friends, with Shell and BP.”

Unlike Cheniere, which is the leading LNG exporter with half of US volume, VG doesn’t plan to rely heavily on long term contracts. Cheniere enjoys good cash flow visibility since 90% of its capacity is committed, which eliminates most of their exposure to gas prices. By contrast, VG plans to retain 50% of their capacity for resale in the spot market.

This is similar to Charif Souki’s strategy with Tellurian. If you believe a wide spread will persist between US prices and those in Europe/Asia, it can be attractive to retain this risk. However, Tellurian found it hard to obtain financing, because commodity price exposure can run in both directions. Higher US prices could eliminate the arbitrage, leaving an LNG business reliant on the spot market stranded with no customers.

As it became clear Tellurian couldn’t line up the financing to proceed, Souki memorably confessed in a video that he’d made a big mistake. He was soon forced out and the company was acquired by Australia’s Woodside Energy last year for $900 million.

VG has implemented Souki’s strategy with more success, albeit at the cost of relationships. Perhaps keeping more spot market exposure fits with a more limited set of potential long term customers anyway. Souki must be watching enviously, perhaps claiming insight as the architect of that strategy if not the successful practitioner.

VG remains an interesting stock but with high volatility given their history and embrace of gas price movements. We’ll be watching them closely.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.