Hornbeck Offshore Services - IIS Windows...

Hornbeck Offshore ServicesHornbeck Offshore ServicesH O S

Investor PresentationSeptember 2008

James O. Harp, Jr.Executive VP and CFO

Todd M. HornbeckChairman, President and CEO

2

Hornbeck Offshore ServicesService with Energy

H O S

This presentation contains “forward-looking statements,” as contemplated by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in which the Company discusses factors it believes may affect its performance in the future. Forward-looking statements are all statements other than historical facts, such as statements regarding assumptions, expectations, beliefs and projections about future events or conditions. You can generally identify forward-looking statements by the appearance in such a statement of words like “anticipate,” “believe,”“continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “forecast,” “project,” “should” or “will” or other comparable words or the negative of such words. The accuracy of our assumptions, expectations, beliefs and projections depend on events or conditions that change over time and are thus susceptible to change based on actual experience, new developments and known and unknown risks. We give no assurance that the forward-looking statements will prove to be correct and does not undertake any duty to update them. Our actual future results might differ from the forward-looking statements made in this presentation for a variety of reasons, which include: our inability to successfully and timely complete our various vessel construction and conversion programs, especially our MPSV program, which involves the construction and integration of highly complex vessels and systems; unsuccessful operations of our MPSVs, which are a class of vessels that we have not previously owned or operated; the inability to successfully market our MPSVs at dayrates that we have forecasted; our inability to re-charter the Superior Achiever due to the bankruptcy proceedings involving Superior Offshore International, Inc.; further weakening of demand for our TTB services; our inability to offset the loss of TTB revenues with OSV revenue increases; our inability to effectively curtail TTB operating expenses from stacked vessels; unplanned customer suspensions; cancellations or non-renewals of vessel charters, or their failure to finalize commitments to charter vessels; loss of customers; uncollectible accounts receivable; the financial stability of our customers; industry risks; activity levels in the energy markets; changes in capital spending budgets by customers; effects of competition; fluctuations in oil and natural gas prices; variations in demand for vessel services; changes in demand for refined production products or methods of delivery; increases in operating costs; the inability to accurately predict vessel utilization levels and dayrates; changes in laws that affect our domestic or international operations; less than anticipated subseainfrastructure demand activity in the GoM and other markets; the level of fleet additions by competitors that could result in over-capacity; economic and political risks; weather related risks; the ability to attract and retain qualified marine personnel; regulatory risks; the repeal or administrative weakening of the Jones Act; our ability to successfully integrate acquisitions; our ability to maintain adequate levels of insurance; drydocking delays and cost overruns and related risks; vessel accidents; oil spills; acts of terrorism; unexpected litigation and insurance expenses; our ability to finance operations or access debt and equity markets; fluctuations in foreign currency valuations compared to the U.S. dollar; risks associated with foreign operations and the expansion thereof; adverse domestic or foreign taxconsequences; the strength of the global economy in general and the strength of the economies of the countries in which we conduct our operations in particular; that a strategic transaction involving the TTB business may not occur at all or within the expected timeframe or may occur on terms and conditions that are less favorable than expected; that the TTB business will continue to be a stable source of cash flow; the ability to maintain our reputation and promote our vessels and services and other risks described under the heading “Risk Factors” of our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K as well as other filings the Company has made with the Securities and Exchange Commission which can be found on the Company’s website www.hornbeckoffshore.com. The Company cautions readers that the information contained in this presentation is only current as of August 27, 2008, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update or publicly release any revisions to the forward-looking statements in this presentation hereafter to reflect the occurrence of any events or circumstances or any changes in its assumptions, expectations, beliefs and projections, except to the extent required by applicable law.

Forward-Looking Statements

http://www.hornbeckoffshore.com/


Company Overview

4


H O S

Company Profile

Relative Stock Price Performance(IPO to 27-Aug-2008)

2

Year Founded Jun 1997

Year of IPO Mar 2004

Market Cap @ IPO $ 267m

Total Cash1: $ 19m

Moody’s Rating Ba3

S&P Rating BB-

Total Debt1: $ 590m

Total Enterprise Value1: $ 1,766m

Market Cap @ Inception $ 1m

Market Cap @ 27-Aug-2008 $ 1,195m

OSX

HOS

OSV Peers

Russell 2000S&P 500

S&P SmlCap 600

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

Apr-04

Jul-0

4Oct-

04Ja

n-05

Apr-05

Jul-0

5Oct-

05Ja

n-06

Apr-06

Jul-0

6Oct-

06Ja

n-07

Apr-07

Jul-0

7Oct-

07Ja

n-08

Apr-08

Jul-0

8

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000Daily Trading Volume (000s)

OSV Peers include TDW, GLF, and CKH.

1 As of 30-Jun-2008 2 L3M average daily trading volume is ~832k shares

5


H O S

Diversified Oilfield Marine Service ProviderTugs and Tank Barges

DownstreamOffshore Supply Vessels

Upstream

Energy 13501, our first newbuild double-hulled tank barge, on her maiden voyage.

HOS Cornerstone approaching the drillship GSF CR Luigs

46 Vessels64 Pro Forma Vessels1

38 Vessels

2008E EBITDA = ~16%12008E EBITDA = ~84%1

1 As of 31-Jul-2008

6


H O S

Currently Focused on U.S.-Flagged Markets

New Orleans

Mexico4 OSVs1 AHTS (foreign-flagged)

3 Barges2 Tugs

Puerto RicoGoM

Trinidad~40% market share3 OSVs1 AHTS (foreign-flagged)29 OSVs

8 Tugs 9 Barges

Gulf of Mexico2nd largest

new generation OSV operator

6 Tugs7 Barges

East CoastTop 3

operator in short-haul market 1

2 OSVs(Military)

2 OSVs(Military)

(seasonal)Great Lakes

1 Tugs1 Barges

Vessel counts as of 31-Jul-2008.Excludes all announced vessels currently under construction, two OSVs currently working in Qatar and two OSVs currently working in Brazil.1 Based on barges in the size range of 50k to 150k barrels in the East Coast bluewater, or coastwise, market. East Coast is defined as the

entire Atlantic seaboard from the northeastern U.S. to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico region, Puerto Rico and the Great Lakes.

Non-Oilfield serviceOilfield service

7


H O S

Diversified Service Mix

Energy 13502 on deepwater well testat the semi-submersible Ocean Quest

HOS Port in Port Fourchon, LA(recently expanded)

HOS “enlists” 240 ED classOSVs in military service

BJ Blue Ray well stimulation vessel performing a 360° turn

An ROV being deployed from the 240E class DP2 HOS Innovator

8


H O S

Market Diversification Strategy1

By Geographic Area By Service-Offering

Brazil

TrinidadGreat Lakes

Northeast US

West Coast

GoM (Downstream)

Puerto Rico GoM (Upstream)

MexicoEast Coast

Qatar

Vessel Management

Port Services

Petroleum Transportation

Well Test

Oilfield Specialty

Oilfield Supply

Military Services

1 Based on current fleet complement and near-term outlook as of 31-Jul-2008. This slide is not intended to provide precise revenue estimates, but is only a representative graphical illustration of our market mix, as vessels often shift between geographic areas and/or service-offerings.

7 service-lines11 geographic markets

9


H O S

Favorable Macro Trends Driving Each SegmentUpstream (OSV) Downstream (TTB)

Source: Based on data contained in the “United States Coast Guard Report to Congress on the Progress to Replace Single Hull Tank Vessels with Double Hull Tank Vessels,” dated Sep-2001

-20,000

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Retiring Barrels (000's)

OPA ’90 Phase-Out of Single-Hulled Tank BargesCumulative Barrels of Capacity Retired

Cap

acity

(000

's)

Deepwater GoM Production% of Total U.S. Offshore Production from Deepwater

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Oil ProdGas Prod

Source: Minerals Management Service (MMS) “Gulf of Mexico OCS Deepwater Production Summary by Year,” dated Apr-2008

10


H O S

Other Public19%

Chouest36%

19%

Other Private

26%

Reinauer 12%

Penn 9%

Seaboard 7% Vane Bros

9%

Others 9%

Bouchard 14%

K-Sea 26%

East Coast Short-Haul Market 3

Est. Total Capacity (mbbls) = 12,806~38% owned by public companies

GoM New Generation Market 2

Est. Total Capacity (dwt) = 580,154

Upstream (OSV) Downstream (TTB)

~29% owned by public companies

HornbeckHornbeckOffshoreOffshore

13%

HornbeckHornbeckOffshoreOffshore

Competitor Profile by Segment 1

1 Source: Company estimates based on peer company websites and selected industry sources as of 31-Jul-20082 Represents vessels owned by HOS and OSV competitors currently operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico market, including 53 currently announced newbuilds with deliveries through 2011. 3 Represents vessels owned by HOS and TTB competitors currently operating barges in the size range of 50k to 150k barrels in the East Coast bluewater, or coastwise, market. East Coast is defined as the entire Atlantic seaboard from the northeastern U.S. to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico region, Puerto Rico and the Great Lakes.


OSV Market Overview

12


H O S

Gulf of Mexico – A Bifurcated OSV MarketConventional Fleet

~46% owned by public companiesNew Generation Fleet

~34% owned by public companies

Over 10 yrs old

5-10 yrs old

Newbuilds

Under 5yrs old

Over 25 yrs old

20-25 yrs old

Under 20 yrs old

120k DWT – 124 Vessels* 580k DWT -- 200 Vessels*• Shallow shelf onlyServicing: • All offshore areas

• Specialty servicesServicing:

* 95% are over 20 years old, with avg. age of 29 years

* 57% are newbuilds or under 5 years old,with avg. age of 6 years for existing vessels

Source: Company estimates and selected industry sources as of 31-Jul-2008; Conventional Fleet includes vessels that have been written off or cold-stacked by public competitors; New Generation Fleet includes 53 newbuilds currently announced for construction or conversion with projected deliveries through 2011.

13


H O S

HOS vs. Public Domestic OSV PeersHOS Utilization 30% > than OSV Peer GroupHOS Effective Dayrate = 2.5x OSV Peer Group

9-yr Effective Dayrate

Dayrates Utilization

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1Q99 1Q00 1Q01 1Q02 1Q03 1Q04 1Q05 1Q06 1Q07 1Q08

Hornbeck

OSV Peer Group

9-yr Average

9-yr Average

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

1Q99 1Q00 1Q01 1Q02 1Q03 1Q04 1Q05 1Q06 1Q07 1Q08

Hornbeck

OSV Peer Group

Average DayrateEffective Dayrate

9-yr Average

9-yr Average

9-yr Average UtilizationHornbeck = $12,193OSV Peer Group = $4,861

Hornbeck = 93%OSV Peer Group = 65%

Effective Dayrate = Average Dayrate x Utilization

Source: SEC filings from OSV public peers that operate vessels in the domestic GoM, including TDW, CKH, SBLK and TRMA, through 2Q2008.

14


H O S

Growth in Deepwater Exploratory Rig Count

Source: ODS-Petrodata

• Deepwater GoM exploratory rig fleet expected to increase 54% over current levels by 2011• Plus, GoM is expected to attract some of the 70 add’l speculative world-wide deepwater rigs• Deepwater development accelerating due to proven technologies and operational efficiencies• Over 600 new blocks were bid during recent U.S. lease sale, with the majority in deepwater

GoM Deepwater Exploratory Rig Fleet

13 16 19 226

914

1629

32

3536

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008E 2009E 2010E 2011E

Deep Shelf Jackup Drillship Semisubmersible

48

74


Speculative Worldwide Deepwater Rig Deliveries

7

20

7022

192

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008E 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Total

Plus

As of Jul-2008.

15


H O S

Growth in Deepwater Production Infrastructure

Source: Infield Systems Limited

• Deepwater GoM production facilities are expected to grow 31% over current levels by 2009• GoM subsea tree installations are expected to grow 63% over current levels by 2011 • An estimated 75% of the deepwater discoveries have yet to be developed and produced• Increased infrastructure creates demand for subsea inspection, repair and maintenance (IRM)

10 14 15 20 26 27 32 37 41 4227

4763

83102

121140

159168

19

125

186232

288335

425

511

613

86

691

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007E 2008E 2009E0

150

300

450

600

750Floating Platforms Producing Fields Subsea Trees

Historical and ProjectedGoM Deepwater Production Infrastructure


29

104

13

15

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Current Construction Planned Under Study 2010E

Subsea Tieback Activity in the GoM(2008E-2011E)

As of Jul-2008.

16


H O S

Growth in Platform Decommissioning Activity

Source: MMS

• Average decommissioning age of GoM shelf platforms is approximately 17 years• Nearly 2,500 production platforms in the GoM are now over 15 years old• Since 1990, an average of 122 platforms have been decommissioned per year• 113 platforms destroyed during 2005 hurricanes, with 90 platforms still waiting to be removed

15-30 yrs old

Under 5 yrs oldOver 30

yrs old5-15

yrs old

Decommissioning of ShelfProduction Platforms in the GoM

~3,900 Platforms• > 60% over 15 years old• > 30% over 30 years old

Active Shelf Production Platforms in the GoM

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

Source: MMS

As of Jul-2008.

17


H O S

200 Class43%

240 Class28%

270 Class28%

HOS 370 Class1%

Visible Fleet Demand Through 2011

Visible Fleet SupplyThrough 2011

Total Visible Demand: > 215 OSVsTotal Visible Demand: > 215 OSVs Total Visible Supply: 200 U.S.Total Visible Supply: 200 U.S.--Flagged OSVsFlagged OSVs(operating in GoM)(operating in GoM)

Source: Company estimates based on publicly available information from ODS-Petrodata and other industry sources; assumes 100% rig utilization and new generation “boat multipliers” based on historical correlation per demand driver.

As of Jul-2008.

Source: Company estimates and MarineLog; includes 53 newbuilds currently announced or under construction or conversion with deliveries through 2011. Excludes 53 U.S.-flagged new generation OSVs currently operating in foreign or non-oilfield markets.

As of Jul-2008.

Potential Shortage of U.S.-FlaggedNew Generation OSVs

FPSOs2%

Deep Shelf Jackups

12%Semisubmersibles

Drilling35%

TLPs8%

Subsea Tiebacks

4%

Semisubmersibles Production

6%Drillships

15%

Specialty Services12%

SPARs8%


HOS Fleet Summary

19


H O S

HOS Fleet Growth (1998 to 2010E)1

Tank Barges(total barrel capacity)

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

180,000

210,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

E20

09E

2010

E

Newbuilds Acquisitions Conversions

Offshore Supply Vessels(total deadweight tons)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

E20

09E

2010

E

SH Acquisitions DH Acquisitions DH Newbuilds

14% 12-year CAGR52% 12-year CAGR

• HOS has constructed 19 OSVs and acquired 27 OSVs 2

• HOS currently has 14 OSVs and 4 MPSVs under construction or conversion• HOS has constructed 8 TBs and acquired 13 TBs

As of 31-Jul-2008.1 Excludes prior vessel divestures2 Includes 19 OSVs from recently acquired Sea Mar Fleet

20


H O S

New Generation OSVs

The 200 class HOS Crossfire, our first proprietary new-generation OSV

The 220 class HOS Voyager, one of six OSVs acquired from Candy Fleet

The 240E class HOS Innovator surveying hurricane damage at BP’s Thunderhorse

The 240ED class HOS Bluewater, our latest proprietary OSV design

The 265 class HOS Sandstorm, performing specialty services in the Mediterranean Sea

The 240 class HOS Navegante, one of twoacquired foreign-flagged AHTS vessels

21


H O S

Tugs and Tank Barges

Energy 13501, our first proprietary double-hulled tank barge newbuild

Energy 13501 on its maiden voyage, powered by the 6,140 hp Liberty Service

HOS tugs docked at our Brooklyn shore-based facility

Energy 6506, our first 60,000-bbl double-hulled tank barge newbuild

The Gulf Service, one of our 3,900 hpocean-going tugs, in New York Harbor

Two of our double-hulled newbuilds, the Energy 11104 and Energy 11105

22


H O S

Recent Newbuild Activity

The HOS Mystique, the first 250EDF delivered from a gulf coast shipyard

Outfitting of the HOS Centerline, our first DP-2 MPSV under conversion

The Erie Service, the fourth 3,000hp tug undergoing retrofit

The recently acquired Superior Achiever, completing vessel outfitting

The 240ED class HOS Polestar prior to launch at east coast U.S. shipyard

“Notch” stern of the Energy 6506just prior to launching

23


H O S

Highlights of MPSV-DP2 Vessel SpecsVessel Equivalents to 10,000 DWT

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Conv 180 200 240ED 270

Num

ber o

f OSV

s

Number of OSVs needed to equal thedeadweight tons of one HOS 370 class MPSV

Equals one HOS 370

• Proprietary HOS 370 class DP2 design• ~370-ft overall length• ~10k deadweight tons (dwt)• ~30k bbls of liquid mud capacity • Moon pool / 250 ton HC crane

• World’s largest supply vessels (by dwt)• U.S. Jones Act qualified MPSVs• Unique U.S.C.G. Subchapter L-I-D notations • Deepwater well tests require Subchapter D • Liquid mud well-suited for ultra-deep spud loads

Vessel Specs

As of 31-Jul-2008.

Notable Vessel Attributes

24


H O S

Highlights of MPSV-DP3 Vessel Specs

• Proven Merwede T-22 class DP3 design • ~430-ft overall length• ~8k deadweight tons• ~15,000 bhp propulsion • Accommodations for 100 to 150• Moon pool / heli-deck (Super Puma class)

Vessel Specs

• Complementary to HOS DP2 MPSVs• U.S.-flag DP3 HOS Iron Horse will be unique to GoM• DP3 for live well intervention and sat-diving• High capacity cranes ideal for decommissioning• Ample accommodations for flotel services

Notable Vessel Attributes

Superior AchieverEstimated delivery in 4Q2008

HOS Iron HorseEstimated delivery in 4Q2009

Note: The above illustrations may not represent final vessel configurations

25


H O S

Comparison of HOS Vessel CapabilitiesUSCG

NotationTypical Features

and ServicesHOS 265 MPSV- DP2 MPSV-DP3

Platform Supply

Subchapter L:

Decommissioning

Subchapter I:

Trenching

Subchapter D:

Deep Well Intervention

Flexible Umbilical Pipelay

Power Cable / Fiber Optic

ROV Support

Saturation Dive Support

Subsea Construction / IRM

Petroleum Transportation

Deepwater Well Test

Yes, as designed Yes, with modifications Not as designed

26


H O S

MPSV Class19% Conventional

Class5%

200 Class23%

270 Class17%

240 Class36%

Hornbeck OSV Fleet ProfileHOS Fleet

(Prior to Sea Mar acquisition)Pro Forma HOS Fleet1

Total Deadweight Tons = 59,042New Gen US Flagged Market Share by DWT: 15%

Total Deadweight Tons = 174,332New Gen US Flagged Market Share by DWT: 19%

195%Growth200 Class

32%

240 Class44%

270 Class24%

1 Pro Forma HOS Fleet includes two new DP-2 MPSVs being converted and two new DP-3 MPSVs being constructed under our MPSV Program, 13 new proprietary 240 class OSVs and three 280 class OSVs being constructed under our OSV Newbuild Program #4 and the recently acquired Sea Mar Fleet comprised of 10 new generation OSVs and 9 conventional OSVs.

27


H O S

Hornbeck OPA ’90 Tank Barge Fleet Profile

200926%

201465%

Pre-Newbuild HOS Fleet1 Current HOS Fleet2

Double-Hulled51%

200913%

201436%

Total Capacity (Mbbls) = 878 Total Capacity (Mbbls) = 1,745

99%GrowthDouble-Hulled

9%

References to 2009 and 2014 represent the OPA ’90 retirement dates for certain single-hulled equipment.

1 Pre-Newbuild HOS fleet reflects the fleet capacity in January 2005 for 13 barges, immediately after the December 2004 OPA 90 retirement of three 90k-barrel single-hulled barges.

2 Current HOS Fleet reflects current fleet capacity for 21 barges.

28


H O S

Growth Capex Outlook1

Upstream (OSV) Before 2008 2008E 2 After

2008E Aggregate

$ 243m

OSV Newbuild Program #4 $ 89m $ 216m $ 175m $ 480m

Sea Mar Fleet $ 186m - - $ 186m

$ 61mMPSV Program $ 146m $ 450m

Downstream (TTB) Before 2008 2008E 2 After

2008E Aggregate

$ 69m -TTB Newbuild Program #2 $ 8m $ 77m

Total $ 490m $ 467m $ 236m $ 1,193m

1 As of 31-Jul-20082 As of 30-Jun-2008, $247m of the aggregate growth capex for 2008E has already been incurred.

Represents growth capex budget only for recent acquisitions and vessels under construction or conversion under announced programs.

29


H O S

Maintenance & Other Capex OutlookVessel 2008E

Revenue-generating modular equipment 1 $ 15m

$ 20m

$ 9m

Deferred drydocking charges

Other vessel capital improvements

Non-Vessel 2008E

HOS Port shore-base1 $ 23m

$ 5mOther non-vessel expenditures

Total 2008E

Other Capex1

Maintenance Capex

$ 38m

$ 34m

1 “Other Capex” is considered non-recurring items that are more analagous to “growth capex” than “maintenance capex”

As of 31-Jul-2008.


Financial Highlights

31


H O S

Track Record of Financial Growth

Revenue

$0$60

$120$180$240$300$360

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

OSVs Tank BargesCAGR 44%

($ in

mill

ions

)

EBITDA1

$0$40$80

$120$160$200

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

OSVs Tank Barges

CAGR 62%

($ in

mill

ions

)

1 EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure; see Appendix for definition and Regulation G reconciliation to GAAP. EBITDA for 2001, 2004 and 2005 has only been adjusted for loss on early extinguishment of debt of $3.0m, $22.4m and $1.7m, respectively.

32


H O S

Industry Leading Growth5-year Trailing Revenue CAGR

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

TDW CKH1 GMRK HOS KEX

32%

Peer Average = 19%

Sources: Company SEC filings through 2007

1 CKH reflects the combined results of CKH and SBLK for periods prior to their merger on 1-Jul-2005.

33


H O S

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Industry Leading Margins8-year Average

HOS = 61% OSV Peers = 45%TTB Peers = 35%

Gross MarginHornbeck

OSV Peers

TTB Peers

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Operating Margin 8-year Average

HOS = 37% OSV Peers = 23%TTB Peers= 15%

TTB Peers

OSV Peers

Hornbeck

2007

HOS = 63% OSV Peers = 50%TTB Peers = 37%

2007

HOS = 43% OSV Peers = 34%TTB Peers= 20%

Sources: Company SEC filingsNote: OSV Peers include TDW, CKH, and GLF. TTB Peers include KEX and TUG (for periods prior to its acquisition by OSG) Gross margin defined as GAAP revenues minus GAAP operating expenses divided by GAAP revenues for each period.Operating margin defined as GAAP operating income divided by GAAP revenues for each period.Negative results of competitors have been excluded from the peer averages.

34


H O S

Industry Leading Returns

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

10.00%

11.00%

12.00%

13.00%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

HOS OSV Peers All Peers

5-year Trailing Average Return on Invested Capital (ROIC1)

1 Return on invested capital (ROIC) is defined as tax-affected GAAP operating income divided by average net book capital (BoY long-term debt less cash plus book equity + EoY long-term debt less cash plus book equity divided by 2). For comparison purposes, all data for the numerator has been conformed to the same definition of operating income using the effective tax rate for each period for HOS and each peer, respectively.

Each data point represents the 5-year trailing average ROIC for that respective calendar year. For example, for the year 2002, the data point represents the 5-year trailing average of the ROICs from 1998 through 2002.

Sources: Company SEC filings, Thomson First Call and analyst research reports

35


H O S

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

TDW

Offshore Drillers

All Drillers

Mid-Cap Equip

All Diversified Equip

Small-Cap Equip

Large-Cap Equip

HOS

5-yr Average CROCI1

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

TDW

Offshore Drillers

All Drillers

Mid-Cap Equip


Small-Cap Equip

Large-Cap Equip

HOS

Current WACC

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

TDW

Offshore Drillers

All Drillers

Mid-Cap Equip


Small-Cap Equip

Large-Cap Equip

HOS

5-yr Average EVA®1 (CROCI)

HOS vs. Oilfield Industry Peers in 5-yr EVA ®

Source: “Goldman Sachs Oil Service Weekly: Valuations and Fundamentals,” dated 8-Aug-2008. The companies represented above reflect the entire Goldman Sachs (GS) oil service equity research coverage universe, which is comprised of BHI, HAL, SLB, BJS, CAM, DRC, FTI, NOV, SII, WFT, OIS, ATW, DO, ESV, NE, PDE, RDC, RIG, BAS, NBR, HERO, HP, PTEN, TS, HOS and TDW.1 CROCI is Cash Tax-Affected Return on Capital Invested, as defined by Goldman Sachs. EVA equals CROCI minus WACC.Note: GS calculation of WACC differs from HOS calculation of WACC, but is consistently applied to all peers. See Appendix for detailed calculation of HOS WACC.

36


H O S

Strong Track Record of Value Creation

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

2001A 2002A 2003A 2004A 2005A 2006A 2007A 2008E

EVA = 8%

Current Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) = 5%

2007 ROIC 13%HOS 7-yr Average Cash Tax-Adjusted ROIC = 14%

HOS 7-yr Average CWIP-Adjusted ROIC = 13%

HOS 7-yr Average ROIC = 11%

EVA = ROIC - WACC

37


H O S

$402

$97

$36 $47 $59

$181

$54

$153$230

8%9%9% 16%

83%

75%

$0.0

$50.0

$100.0

$150.0

$200.0

$250.0

$300.0

$350.0

$400.0

$450.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008E Pro FormRun-Rate

($ in

mill

ions

)

a0x

2x

4x

6x

8x

10x

12x

14x

16x

18x

20x

EBIT

DA

/ In

tere

set E

xpen

se

Oilfield OSV EBITDA TTB EBITDAEBITDA / Cash Interest Expense Cash Interest Expense

2

Note: EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure; see Appendix for definition and Regulation G reconciliation to GAAP.

1 EBITDA for 2001, 2004 and 2005 has only been adjusted for loss on early extinguishment of debt of $3.0m, $22.4m and $1.7m, respectively.2 Annual and Pro Forma Run-Rate EBITDA estimates and EBITDA percentage contributions by segment reflect the mid-point of the Company’s latest 2008E guidance range

reported in its 31-Jul-2008 press release. See Appendix for detailed footnotes regarding Pro Forma Run-Rate assumptions.3 “Military OSV EBITDA” reflects estimated contribution from the Company’s vessels currently working for the military under long-term contracts.

Significant Operating Leverage with Stable Base

Military OSV EBITDA3

111

2

38


H O S

($ in millions)31-Dec-2005

ActualCash and Equivalents $272 $474 $19

Revolving Credit Facility due 2011 $0 $0 $406.125% Senior Notes due 2014 300 300 3001.625% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 0 250 250Total Debt 300 550 590Common Equity 430 455 619Total Capitalization $730 $1,005 $1,209

Total Debt / Total Capitalization 41% 55% 49%Net Debt / Net Capitalization 6% 14% 48%

Total Available Liquidity $332 1 $574 2 $229 3Revolver Coupon (Min) L+150 L+50 L+50Revolver Coupon (Max) L+350 L+150 L+150Moody’s Rating Ba3 Ba3 Ba3Standard & Poor’s Rating BB- BB- BB-

Strong Balance Sheet and Liquidity

31-Dec-2006Actual

30-Jun-2008Actual

1 Equals cash plus immediately available $ 60.0m borrowing base under Revolving Credit Facility.2 Equals cash plus immediately available $100.0m borrowing base under Revolving Credit Facility.3 Equals cash plus immediately available $210.0m borrowing base under Revolving Credit Facility.

39


H O S

Improving Credit Statistics

0.00x

1.00x

2.00x

3.00x

4.00x

5.00x

6.00x

2000

A

2001

A

2002

A

2003

A

2004

A

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

EPro

Forma

Leve

rage

Rat

io

Debt to Adjusted EBITDA Net Debt to EBITDA

Leverage Ratio

0.00x

2.00x

4.00x

6.00x

8.00x

10.00x

12.00x

14.00x

2000A 2001A 2002A 2003A 2004A 2005A 2006A 2007A 2008E ProForma

Inte

rest

Cov

erag

e R

atio

Adjusted EBITDA to Int Expense

Coverage Ratio

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

2000

A

2001

A

2002

A

2003

A

2004

A

2005

A

2006

A

2007

A

2008

EPro

For

ma

Cap

italiz

atio

n R

atio

Debt to Cap Net Debt to Net Cap

Capitalization Ratio

Note: Pro Forma columns in each chart reflect the Company’s latest Pro Forma Run-Rate EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA guidance and projected post-construction capital structure. See Appendix for Pro Forma Run-Rate assumptions and definition and reconciliation of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA. As of 31-Jul-2008

40


H O S

Investment Highlights• Leading presence in strategic markets

• Premium fleet well positioned to capitalize on macro trends

• Industry leading growth, margins and returns

• Diversified operating leverage with stable cash flow foundation

• Proven track record of profitable growth through market cycles

• Balance sheet strength and liquidity to fund growth initiatives

• Effective use of capital markets to lower overall cost of capital

• Long-term earnings growth visibility

• Currently trading at attractive valuation multiples


Investor PresentationSeptember 2008

James O. Harp, Jr.Executive VP and CFO

Todd M. HornbeckChairman, President and CEO


Appendix

43


H O S

Regulation G EBITDA ReconciliationThis presentation contains references to the non-GAAP financial measures of earnings (net income) before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, and Adjusted EBITDA. The Company views EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA primarily as liquidity measures and, therefore, believes that the GAAP financial measure most directly comparable to such measures is cash flows provided by operating activities. Reconciliations of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to cash flows provided by operating activities are provided in the table below. Management's opinion regarding the usefulness of EBITDA and the components of Adjusted EBITDA to investors and a description of the ways in which management uses such measures can be found in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC. The following data is as of 27-Aug-2008.

Reconciliation of EBITDA to Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities ($m)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008E1Pro Forma Run-Rate2,3

Components of EBITDA:Net income (loss) (1.4)$ (1.8)$ (4.5)$ 7.0$ 11.6$ 11.2$ (2.5)$ 37.4$ 75.7$ 94.8$ 108.1$ 185.4$ Interest expense, net:

Debt obligations 1.2 5.3 8.2 10.7 16.2 18.5 17.7 12.6 17.7 15.7 7.9 24.4 Put warrants 1.5 2.3 7.3 3.0 - - - - - - - - Interest income (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) (1.5) (0.7) (0.2) (0.4) (3.2) (16.1) (18.4) (1.5) (3.4)

Total interest expense, net 2.6 7.5 15.2 12.2 15.5 18.3 17.3 9.4 1.6 (2.7) 6.4 21.0 Income tax expense (benefit) (0.2) 0.3 1.6 5.7 7.1 6.9 (1.3) 21.5 43.1 53.8 61.6 105.7 Depreciation 0.9 2.4 4.2 6.5 10.4 14.4 17.4 20.0 24.1 23.0 35.2 60.5 Amortization 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.9 3.2 5.7 7.3 8.0 12.2 18.7 29.7 EBITDA 2.3$ 9.1$ 17.5$ 32.6$ 46.5$ 54.0$ 36.6$ 95.6$ 152.5$ 181.1$ 230.0$ 402.3$ Loss on early extinguishment of debt 4 - - - 3.0 - - 22.4 1.7 - - - - Stock-based compensation expense - - - - - - - - 5.2 7.4 11.4 11.4 Interest income 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.4 3.2 16.1 18.4 1.5 3.4 Adjusted EBITDA 2.4$ 9.2$ 17.8$ 37.1$ 47.2$ 54.2$ 59.4$ 100.5$ 173.8$ 206.9$ 242.9$ 417.1$

EBITDA Reconciliation to GAAP:

EBITDA 2.3$ 9.1$ 17.5$ 32.6$ 46.5$ 54.0$ 36.6$ 95.6$ 152.5$ 181.1$ 230.0$ 402.3$ Cash paid for deferred drydocking charges (1.7) (2.4) (1.5) (1.7) (2.4) (6.1) (8.5) (6.8) (12.9) (19.8) (19.4) (30.9) Cash paid for interest (0.4) (4.5) (7.1) (5.6) (19.1) (19.7) (24.0) (17.9) (18.5) (22.6) (25.7) (22.6) Cash paid for taxes - - - - - - - - (1.4) (4.8) (5.7) (2.8) Changes in working capital 5 4.7 (0.6) (2.9) 1.9 (0.5) (2.0) (5.0) 5.1 8.6 (4.1) 19.1 (24.2) Stock-based compensation expense - - - - - - - - 5.2 7.4 11.4 11.4 Loss on early extinguishment of debt 4 - - - 3.0 - - 22.4 1.7 - - - -

Changes in other, net 5 (1.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 0.3 (0.7) (0.2) (1.9) (1.7) (1.7) (2.2) (2.2) Cash flows provided by operating activities 3.6$ 1.9$ 5.9$ 30.3$ 24.8$ 25.5$ 21.3$ 75.8$ 131.8$ 135.5$ 207.5$ 331.0$

1

2

3

4

5

Year Ended December 31,

Projected cash flows provided by operating activities are based, in part, on estimated future “changes in working capital” and “changes in other, net,” that are susceptible to significant variances due to the timing at quarter-end of cash inflows and outflows, most of which are beyond the Company’s ability to control. However, any future variances in those two line items from the above forward-looking reconciliations should result in an equal and opposite adjustment to actual cash flows provided by operating activities.

“Pro Forma Run-Rate” scenario illustrates the estimated incremental operating results from the recently acquired Sea Mar Fleet, recently-delivered newbuild or rebuilt vessels and all remaining vessels, if any, that are currently under construction or conversion under the Company's MPSV program and fourth OSV newbuild program, assuming all of those vessels were placed in service as of January 1, 2008 and were working at their contracted dayrates or current market dayrates commensurate with their relative size and service capabilities. All other key assumptions related to the Company’s current operating fleet, including vessel dayrates, utilization, cash operating expenses, SG&A and income tax expense, are consistent with the Company’s current 2008 guidance.

Total interest expense, net, for the "Pro Forma Run-Rate" scenario assumes $24.4m of interest expense (without any capitalization of construction period interest) on a projected post-construction debt balanace of $550.0m, offset by $3.4m of interest income at an assumed rate of 2.25% on a projected post-construction cash balance of at least $150.0m.

Results for 2001 were impacted by a $2.0m after-tax ($0.19 per diluted share) charge on early extinguishment of debt relating to a July 2001 debt refinancing. Results for 2004 were impacted by a $14.7m after-tax ($0.75 per diluted share) charge on early extinguishment of debt relating to 91% of the November 2004 refinancing of our 10.625% Senior Notes due 2008. Results for 2005 were impacted by a $1.1m after-tax ($0.05 per diluted share) charge on early extinguishment of debt relating to the January 2005 redemption of the final 9% of our 10.625% Senior Notes due 2008.

Reflects mid-point of latest reported Company guidance and estimates for each income statement metric. Company guidance for 2008E reflects a partial-year contribution from one 60,000-barrel tank barge delivered during 2008 under the Company's TTB Newbuild Program #2. TTB segment EBITDA for 2008E is expected to be approximately 16% of the mid-point of the latest company-wide 2008E guidance range.

44


H O S

Weighted-Average Cost of Capital

2007 Capital Structure1 Book Equity $ 562m 51%Debt $ 550m 49%Total Capital $ 1,112m

Cost of Equity = Rf + β(Rm - Rf)Risk-free Rate (Rf) 3.78% (vs. 4.59% in 2006)

Cost of Equity 6.89%

Industry Beta2 (β) 0.68% (vs. 1.88 in 2006)Market Risk Premium3 (Rm – Rf) 4.57%

Cost of Debt = i x (1-t)Average Debt Interest Rate (i) 4.094%Marginal Tax Rate (t) 36.5%After-Tax Cost of Debt 2.60%

Equity DebtWACC = (6.89% x 51%) + (2.60% x 49%) = 4.78%

1 Based on historical methodology, consistently applied, as of 31-Dec-20072 Levered 3-yr adjusted beta versus the S&P 500 Index as of 01-Feb-20083 Mid-point of Goldman Sachs estimates based on recent HOS 6.125% bond yields

45


H O S

Return on Invested Capital (ROIC1)BoY EoY2 Avg

Construction WIP $ 96.7m $ 299.0m $ 197.9m

Invested Capital less CWIP $ 433.4m $ 639.2m $ 536.3m

Deferred Tax Liability $ 54.5m $ 101.1m $ 77.8m

Invested Capital plus DTL $ 584.6m $ 1,039.3m $ 812.0m

Book Equity $ 454.9m $ 562.3m $ 508.6m

Plus Debt $ 549.5m

$ 474.3m

$ 530.1m

$ 549.5m

Less Cash

$ 549.5m

$ 173.6m

Invested Capital

$ 324.0m

$ 938.2m $ 734.2m

2007 Average Invested Capital

ROIC (2007)EBITDA $ 181.1m

Effective Tax Rate 36.2%Depreciation/Amortization $ 35.2m

Change in Deferred Income Taxes $ 48.5mROIC 12.7%CWIP-Adjusted ROIC 17.3%Cash Tax-Adjusted ROIC 17.4%

1ROIC equals tax-affected EBIT divided by average net book capital; EBIT equals EBITDA minus Depreciation/Amortization2Reflects 2007 year-end capital structure

46


H O S

Rationale for 2006 Convertible Notes Offering

• Opportunistic financing allowed HOS to monetize its high stock volatility and strong credit profile

• Lowest-cost source of capital available to HOS at ~560 bps less than a fixed-rate HYD tack-on

• Lowered weighted-average fixed-rate cash coupon on company-wide debt from 6.125% to 4.1%

• Favorable interest rate arbitrage of ~350 bps versus current money market rates on invested cash

• Immediately accretive to 2007E diluted EPS

Illustration of Convertible Financing Versus Alternative Sources of Capital

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

$35.26 $43.26 $51.26 $59.26 $67.26 $75.26 $83.26 $91.26 $99.26 $107.26 $115.26 $123.26 $131.26

Stock Price at Year 7

7-yr

Pre

-Tax

Cos

t of C

apita

l

Reference: CommonStock

Reference: HY Debt(7.25% Fixed)

Reference: Revolver(5.85%; L+50)

Hedged Convert

Hedged Convert +Stock Buy-Back

$116.96HY Debt

Breakeven

$62.59Effective

Conversion Price

$96.01 Stock Buy-Back

Breakeven

As of 13-Nov-2006

47


H O S

New Low4.8x

Buy-Back5.8x

Historic High11.6x

Prior Low6.4x

Follow-On 9.4x

IPO9.1x

HOS Avg 8.7x

Sector Avg 10.2x

2.0x

4.0x

6.0x

8.0x

10.0x

12.0x

14.0x

Mar2004

Jun2004

Aug2004

Nov2004

Jan2005

Apr2005

Jun2005

Aug2005

Nov2005

Jan2006

Mar2006

Jun2006

Aug2006

Oct2006

Jan2007

Mar2007

May2007

Aug2007

TEV/EBITDA HOS Avg Sector Avg

Rationale for 2006 HOS Common Stock Buy-Back

• HOS was trading near its historic low TEV/Forward EBITDA multiples

• HOS was trading below Oct-2005 follow-on pricing, despite a substantial increase in forward EPS guidance

• Severe multiple contraction created an opportunity to buy HOS stock at “private company” multiples

TEV / Forward EBITDA Multiples

1 HOS issued 6.1m shares of common stock at $13.00 on 31-Mar-20042 HOS issued 6.1m shares of common stock at $35.35 on 6-Oct-20053 Per Goldman Sachs equity research report dated 3-Aug-20074 HOS bought 1.8m shares of common stock at $35.26 on 13-Nov-2006

3

1

2

4

3

As of 13-Nov-2006

48


H O S

Rationale for MPSV Program Expansion• “Off-the-rack” approach rather than developing proprietary designs “from scratch”

– Same basic concept as originally envisioned in OSV#4 Phase 1, only larger in scope– Allows speed to market given current U.S. shipbuilding market conditions– Existing DP3 design was adapted by HOS to meet our customers’ objectives in the GoM

• Signed contract with reputable European shipyard for world-class DP3 MPSV– 4Q2009 delivery was earliest available slot for a DP3 vessel of this size and capability– Other worldwide shipyard order books were full with earliest deliveries in 2010-2012– Subsea DP3 vessel expertise currently resides in European shipyards– Proven “T-22” design with five recent “sister” newbuilds reportedly on multi-year charters

• Customer-driven need for additional high-end ultra-deepwater vessels– Worldwide and GoM markets are expanding and require this type of specialized equipment– More ultra-deepwater construction vessels are still needed for post-2009 market – U.S.-flagged vessels with multi-purpose DP3 capabilities will be unique in the GoM market

• Complements HOS 370 MPSV-DP2 vessels and expands GoM service-offering– Gives HOS a total of up to five high-end MPSVs with broadest array of service capabilities – Along with HOS Port, represents latest element of our “bundled service” strategy– Will be only MPSV-DP3 design to be owned by a U.S. operator in the GoM

• Subsea construction market is currently dominated by foreign vessels– HOS plans to U.S.-flag the foreign-built Merwede T-22 for certain strategic benefits– 4-year exclusive license agreement to build up to two Jones Act “sister” vessels in U.S.– Jones Act qualified vessels would have precedence over foreign-flag MPSVs in GoM

As of 3-May-2007

49


H O S

Sea Mar Fleet Acquisition• Deal Summary

– Acquired Sea Mar Fleet from affiliates of Nabors for $186m in an all-cash asset deal– Sea Mar Fleet was comprised of 10 new generation OSVs and 10 conventional OSVs– Purchased 285-ft DP2 OSV newbuild with 4Q2008 delivery for expected total cost of $34m– Agreed to manage five Mexican vessels owned by Nabors and five vessels owned by others

• Strategic Fleet Acquisition– All Sea Mar vessels are U.S.-flagged and Jones Act qualified, except one conventional OSV– Sea Mar “Super 200” OSVs are a “hybrid” (in size) between a HOS 200 and 240 class OSV– Represents 40% increase in the current HOS U.S.-flagged new generation OSV fleet– Ten conventional OSVs are considered by HOS as non-core assets and may be sold

• Complementary Culture– Sea Mar had outstanding reputation for quality and safety, similar to HOS– Professional mariners and shoreside managers and support staff had long tenure with Sea Mar– HOS was successful in retaining nearly 100% of eligible Sea Mar mariners and shoreside staff

• Customer Diversification– Two Super 200 OSVs on long-term contracts in Mexico providing well stimulation support– Two Super 200 OSVs on long-term contracts in Qatar

• Accretive Transaction– Immediately accretive to diluted EPS– Purchase price was funded with cash on-hand, which was earning interest income at 5.25%– Deal economics are expected to meet all HOS target investment parameter hurdles

As of 8-Aug-2007

Hornbeck Offshore Services - IIS Windows...

Documents

Transcript of Hornbeck Offshore Services - IIS Windows...