Image source: The Motley Fool.
GasLog Partners LPÂ (NYSE: GLOP)
Q4Â 2019 Earnings Call
Feb 6, 2020, 8:30 a.m. ET
Contents:
- Prepared Remarks
- Questions and Answers
- Call Participants
Prepared Remarks:
Operator
Greetings, my name is and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the GasLog Limited and Gaslog Partners Fourth Quarter 2019 Results Conference call. [Operator Instructions]
On today's call are Peter Livanos, Chairman of GasLog Ltd. And Director of GasLog Partners. Paul Wogan, Chief Executive Officer of GasLog Ltd; Andrew Orekar, Chief Executive Officer of GasLog Partners and Alastair Maxwell, Chief Financial Officer. Phil Corbett, Head of Investor Relations, will begin your conference.
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Good morning or good afternoon, and thank you for joining the GasLog Limited and GasLog Partners' Fourth Quarter 2019 Earnings Conference Call. For your convenience, this webcast and presentation are available on the Investor Relations section of our website, www.gaslogltd.com and www.gaslogmlp.com, where a replay will also be available. Please now turn to slide two of the presentation. Many of our remarks contain forward-looking statements. For factors that could cause actual results to differ materially for forward-looking statements, please refer to our fourth quarter earnings press releases. In addition, some of our remarks contain non-GAAP financial measures as defined by the SEC. A reconciliation of these is included in the appendix of this presentation.
During the presentation, and we will cover the partnerships fourth quarter, and four year 2019 highlights and the revised capital allocation strategy announced today. Paul will then cover an update on the LNG and LNG shipping markets before taking you through gas stocks fourth quarter and full year 2019 performance. We will then be happy to take your questions. But before we commence today's presentation, people upon us will make some introductory remarks.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Thank you, Phil. As we enter the new decade, I wanted to take the opportunity to give you my perspective on the LNG industry and the outlook for GasLog and GasLog partners. The world today is keen to deal with pressing concerns regarding climate change. Consequently, making the sustainability of any business a key value driver. The LNG transportation industry, and GasLog in particular, can and will play a key part in achieving this for an energy sector in transition. Firstly, I remain confident in the outlook for natural gas demand and LNG's key role of bring supply to meet the consumption both. This positive view is underpinned by the switching from coal to gas as a primary fuel source as well as playing a critical role in supporting the fast-developing renewable power sector.
In addition to the power sector, LNG will have a vital role in the ability of the shipping industry to achieve the stated IMO target. 25% reduction of co2 emissions by 2030 by providing the most effective and readily available fuel on the path to this transition, thereby adding yet another demand driver to the LNG story. We must not forget that the LNG industry involves significant investment over long term horizons. In any cyclical business, there may be a temporary mismatch between supply and demand, such as the one currently playing out of the global gas markets. However, as we have seen time again, low commodity prices are the catalysts for new and structural gas demand growth, particularly when there is also a clear environmental benefit from doing so. I'm pleased to see a growing commitment to new downstream LNG infrastructure projects, in particular the significant capital commitments in China and India to increasing each country's we gasification capacity.
Against this backdrop, we are seeing LNG demand continue to increase. This is characterized by the growing role of traders, emboldened by the greater liquidity in the spot LNG market. These changes are opening new markets and trade routes, positive for LNG shipping demand with the potential to increase ton miles, albeit unlikely to result in shorter-term order durations. In shipping, we have seen significant new building ordering in the past two years. This has been driven by historically low shipyard prices, coupled with improved propulsion and boil-off systems. However, we expect further technological advancements will be minimal over the next several years. The rapid changes in propulsion technology.
Steam power to diesel electric engines to medium speed diesel engines as well as a significant improvements in boil-off rate from 0.15% to 0.07%, coupled with the structural changes in vessel carrying capacity over the last 10 years, have reached levels where further optimization is either impractical or not cost-effective. Flattening technology curve, when combined with shorter charter durations inherent in a more liquid commodity environment, leads me to believe that speculative newbuilding order will abate relative to the levels of the last few years. Our track record of support from lenders and export credit agencies puts us in a preferred position relative to others in our industry, given the critical importance of capital cost to breakevens and returns. At GasLog, we remain committed to the 2-company structure, maintaining strong and beneficial links between GasLog Limited and GasLog Partners while allowing each company the autonomy to pursue their own strategies.
GasLog Limited, once our newbuilding program is fully delivered in 2021, we will have a fleet of 20 ships, of which 13 will be ultramodern vessels with compelling unit freight cost economics. These vessels have the additional benefit of being fully financed and supported by long-term charters that deliver attractive committed revenue and strong counterparties. I see this strategy as a key differentiator of GasLog Limited from our peers who may have uncommitted newbuilding orders. A portion of the GasLog fleet for TFDEs remain exposed to the spot market, and although somewhat less technologically advanced than our other ships, are very much in the upper half of the global LNG fleets technology cost curve. We are mitigating this exposure by developing opportunities in the floating storage segment into which we will deploy uncommitted TFDE ships on attractive long-term charters. Paul will be discussing two of these projects in his presentation.
Our revenue growth is underpinned by our commitment to operational excellence and the ability to deliver our new ships into service on time and on budget. This growth requires no incremental equity or debt and as such, I take great comfort in having a fully funded program. Consequently, our strategy at GasLog Ltd. for 2020 and the next few years is simple. We are concluding a chapter of material growth for the business, delivering modern vessels on a long-term charter to leading companies in the global LNG sector. We will now focus on harvesting the fruits of this strategy, while continuing to address our administrative and operational cost base. We will focus on deleveraging our balance sheet and use surplus free cash flow to reward our loyal shareholders, primarily through common and special dividends.
Moving on to GasLog Partners. Our daughter company, in which we are by far the largest shareholder. After several years of successful equity generation for the group, we are moving to a strategy that prioritizes the strengthening of our balance sheet through debt reductions. Setting the stage, Andy will talk to you about the book values of the steam fleet and rebasing the level of distributions. Andy will shortly be going through both these events in more detail. But suffice it to say, the rebased distribution will facilitate a further strengthening of the GasLog Partners' balance sheet over the next several years. This will position it as a cost-effective provider of LNG shipping. GasLog Partners' financial strength will act as a catalyst for growth when accretive opportunities appear in the coming years.
GasLog Partners' fleet of 15 ships will consequently benefit from lower cash flow breakeven levels as a result of debt reductions and optimization of cost. Combined effects will allow GasLog Partners to prosper under the backdrop of an increasingly short-term and opportunistic LNG transportation market. In conclusion, we are laser-focused on balance sheet strength, commercial flexibility, efficiency and operational excellence. This will give us the ability to exploit changes in the LNG shipping market and to maximize the earnings and utilization of both GasLog and GasLog Partners' fleets. At the same time, there's an emphasis on cost control across all levels to enhance competitiveness. We believe that the changes already under way will deliver a leaner and more agile organization without sacrificing safety or our market-leading operational standards.
As the biggest single shareholder and against the positive but shifting outlook of our industry as well as GasLog's track record, our share price performance has been deeply frustrating. I do understand some of the drivers of our share price, global growth uncertainty, very weak gas pricing as well as a challenged MLP model. However, I strongly believe that the actions we have announced today provide a platform for all owners of our capital structure to benefit going forward. I fully endorse the initiatives taken by management to reduce costs and prioritize balance sheet strength. I believe all these actions underpin the investment case for both businesses going forward.
And with that, I will now hand over to Andy to take you through the partnership presentation.
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Thank you, Peter. I'll begin today with the partnership highlights for the quarter and full year 2019, after which, I will discuss the evolving commercial environment for our ships and the current challenges faced in the MLP capital markets. These two key issues underpinned our decision to take the conservative action of rebalancing our common unit distribution in the first quarter of 2020 in favor of strengthening our value. In time, we expect this approach will improve the competitive positioning of our fleet and allow us to continue our acquisition growth strategy in future years. Turn to slide five for a review of our performance in the fourth quarter and full year of 2019. And after a strong quarter of operational and financial performance.
Today, GasLog Partners partners reported our highest ever annual results for revenues, EBITDA, and distributable cash flow. During the fourth quarter, we met the distribution guidance we established for 2019 declaring a distribution that 56 spot one cents per unit, and we repurchase $3 million of our units bring our totals for the year at 23,000,001.2 million of our common units retired. Our strong financial performance enabled the partnership to return a total of 130 million to our common unit holders in 2019 or $2 and 71 cents per unit, an increase of 25% over 2018. Combining the capital we've returned in the form of common distributions plus the inner purchases we executed over the last 12 months. Deathlok partners is currently trading at a 26 and a half percent total return yield. We do not believe that continuing to pay such an elevated deal is the most long term value- Enhancing use of our capital, which I will discuss in more detail shortly.
Lastly, as of December 31, we recognized a noncash impairment charge of approximately $139 million related to our five steamships built in 2006 and 2007, primarily as a result of lower expected utilization and earnings estimates for these vessels. On slide six, you'll see our track record of fleet growth since our IPO. Including our vessel acquisition in 2019, and our fleet stands at 15 wholly owned LNG carriers with a revenue backlog of $945 million. Today, we are proud to say that the partnership is one of the largest independent owners of LNG carriers with a scale platform. Although our fleet has 81% of its operating days fixed in 2020, the partnership fleet is expected to be increasingly exploded the spot market in future years. This creates an opportunity to capture cyclical upside and a strong market for our ships but also significantly reduces our cash flow visibility relative to prior years.
Turning to slide seven. Despite our accomplishments in 2019, the backdrop for MLP capital markets has remained challenging. As you can see from the chart on the left, there have been nearly $5 billion of outflows from the MLP and midstream sector since January 2018. Issuance of common equity for the entire sector was just $2 billion last year and only $5 billion in total over the last two years. And lastly, the difficult environment for MLPs can be seen in the trading yield of the benchmark Alerian Index which has expanded by 300 basis points over the last several years and is now approximately 10%, indicative of a higher cost of capital for the industry as a whole. As the partnership has relied primarily on external capital to fund its growth, the challenging backdrop for common equity issuance makes funding additional acquisitions difficult for us to execute at this time. Turning to slide eight and a discussion of the recent industrywide trends for term chartering of steam vessels.
As you can see on the right-hand panel of this slide, only 16 vessels were fixed under term charters of one year or more during 2019, a poor result relative to 2018, which saw a total of 12 steams fixed under term deals. While this trend in the multi-year charter market has been disappointing, it is important to note that steam vessels continue to represent 42% of the global LNG shipping fleet. There remains a sizable spot market for steam as demonstrated by the total of 76 spot charters for steam vessels in 2019, representing more than 1/4 of all spot fixtures reported for the year. slide nine sets out our adjusted EBITDA guidance and capital allocation plan for 2020. In light of the capital markets and vessel utilization challenges I've just discussed. Today, the partnership is taking a proactive step to focus on further strengthening its balance sheet. While we did not take this difficult decision lightly.
We believe our plan for 2020 will be in the best interest of our unitholders over the long term. This morning, we announced adjusted EBITDA guidance of $230 million to $260 million for 2020. In preparing our guidance, our assumptions are based on our fleet generating approximately $200 million of adjusted EBITDA from our vessels with fixed rate charters, with the remaining $30 million to $60 million, subject to charter rates earned by vessels expected to operate in the spot market in 2020. In addition, today, the partnership declared a distribution of just over $0.56 for the fourth quarter of 2019. For 2020, beginning with the first quarter of this year, we expect to pay a quarterly distribution of $0.125 or $0.50 annually.
Our rebased annual common distribution represents only 10% of our adjusted EBITDA guidance for 2020, and we consider this level to be a conservative and sustainable payout of our earnings per unit. Our plan for 2020 will reduce the partnership's annual common distribution by $83 million and considerably decrease our cash outflows during the year. In the near term, we plan to prioritize debt repayment while continuing to opportunistically repurchase our common units. In time, we expect today's decision will create greater flexibility for the partnership to continue growing its assets with reduced reliance on common equity markets. Slide 10 sets out our balance sheet metrics, planned debt repayment over the next several years and capital commitments. The partnership's credit profile is robust, with net debt to trailing EBITDA of 4.6x. Our net debt-to-capital after the writedown of our steam fleet remains a strong 52%.
We expect to further strengthen our balance sheet in 2020, beginning with the expected retirement of approximately $115 million of debt this year. Lower common distributions and reducing debt balances will improve GasLog Partners' cash flow breakeven levels over time, which will enhance the competitiveness of our fleet. Lastly, it is important to note that the partnership has no committed growth capex this year, but we'll need to spend $20 million in maintenance capital expenditures related to four dry dockings with one schedule in each of the first two quarters, followed by two in the third quarter. Our four dry dockings are expected to cost a total of $13 million with an additional onetime cost of $6.8 million for the installation of ballast water treatment systems as required by regulatory compliance. Turning to slide 11 and a discussion of how our focus on debt repayment creates equity value for our common unitholders.
On this chart, we demonstrate how our amortizing debt build balance sheet capacity and book equity using our most recent acquisition of the GasLog Glasgow, as an example. This vessel has approximately $134 million of existing debt as of the end of 2019. All of GasLog Partners' debt is at the vessel level. And our debt amortizes at roughly twice the radar ships depreciate. As you can see from this slide, our loan to book value ratio on the Glasgow declined by over 9% from the end of 2019 through the end of 2021. During the same period, our book equity for the vessel is projected to increase by $14 million, a 10% compound annual growth rate in equity value. We believe that prioritizing debt reduction will support the partnership's future growth and book equity value per unit, which today stands at approximately $13 and well above the current trading price of our units. Turning to slide 12.
In summary, in the fourth quarter, the partnership delivered a strong operational and financial performance, resulting in record annual revenues and adjusted EBITDA for the full year 2019. We met our distribution guidance for the year, returning a total of $130 million in capital to our common unitholders in the form of quarterly distribution and unit repurchases. Our adjusted EBITDA guidance of $230 million to $260 million is supported by our 81% charter coverage for the year with approximately $200 million of adjusted EBITDA expected from our vessels operating under fixed rate charters.
We have taken a more conservative approach to capital allocation for 2020 and focusing on debt repayment, a well-covered common distribution and opportunistic share repurchases. We believe that strengthening our balance sheet today will position the partnership for accretive growth in future years. Finally, as one of the largest independent owners of LNG carriers, our scale and continued focus on operational excellence, cost control and reducing cash flow breakeven will improve the partnerships competitive positioning in a growing LNG market.
With that, I'll now turn it over to Paul to discuss the LNG macro and shipping outlook.
Paul Wogan -- Chief Executive Officer
Thank you, Andy. Let me first provide you with an update on the LNG and LNG shipping markets, and then take you through GasLog's fourth quarter earnings and outlook. Turning to slide 14. LNG supply in 2019 totaled 364 million tonnes, a 7% compound growth since 2000. Capacity is set to continue growing strongly. With a record 71 million tonnes per annum of new LNG production sanctioned in 2019. Wood Mackenzie estimates at least another 50 million tonnes per annum of new LNG capacity will take FID this year. Slide 15 shows LNG demand growth forecast by region. Wood Mackenzie expects net LNG demand to grow by 90 million tonnes between 2019 and 2025 or a 4% compound growth per annum.
Well, half a focus demand growth comes from the Pacific basin. Nearly three quarters of forecasted grow quickly, and account for approximately nine million tons of 10% of demand growth through 2025. Furthermore, LNG is a marine fuel is forecast to grow quickly and account for approximately nine million tonnes or 10% of demand growth through 2025. This trend is being driven by rapid growth and the number of LNG fuel chips, which are expected to rise more than five fold of the 2015 to 2025 period. On slide 16. Nearly 150 million pounds prime of new energy production is expected over the 2019 to 2025 period. In tandem regasification capacity is expected to double in the high growth markets of India and China. Slide 17 illustrates our shipping our view of shipping supply and demand through the end of 2021. Our demand range is in part based on the number of vessels needed to export one million tons of LNG per annum expressed as the shipping multiplier.
Our analysis supports a tight market through the 2020, '21 winter. However, recent headwinds in the global gas market, including the uncertainty caused by the coronavirus outbreak could have a dampening effect on near-term gas demand. Moving to slide 18. And here, I'd like to reiterate several of Peter's earlier messages that embody the GasLog investment case. We have seven medium-speed diesel, new buildings delivering through the third quarter of 2021, that are all on time and on budget. And they will join the five modern, medium-speed diesel vessels already in the GasLog fleet. These new buildings are backed by fixed rate charters to high-quality counterparties with an average eight-year duration resulting in annualized EBITDA of $145 million once fully delivered. Currently, we have no further plans to expand our fleet beyond this new building program.
As we enter this harvest period, we will focus on strengthening our balance sheet with over $1 billion of scheduled debt amortization during the 2020 to '23 period. In parallel, we will also look to continue executing on our strategy of enhancing shareholder returns, which resulted in nearly $1 per share of common and special dividends announced during 2019. We while the gas market is presently oversupplied, we are seeing low prices incentivize further gas demand growth, particularly switching from coal. With many regions of gas demand growth, also seeing indigenous production declines, we remain confident in the longer-term fundamentals of LNG and LNG shipping demand. Slide 19 shows the GasLog fleet, the majority of which are modern, medium speed diesel vessels contracted to high-quality counterparties.
As of December 31, 2019, the average duration of the GasLog limited charter fleet is seven years, delivering a backlog of approximately $3 billion. The bottom of this slide also highlights the FSU and FSRU opportunities we are currently developing. And slide 20 provides further details on these opportunities. In September last year, we announced a 10-year charter for the GasLog Singapore as a converted floating storage unit, supporting a power project being developed in Panama. The Singapore's conversion will take place in conjunction with a vessel scheduled five-year special survey later this year, enabling both cost and time synergies. The charter is expected to generate approximately $20 billion of EBITDA per annum. We will also tender for the supply of an FSRU into the Alexandroupolis gas import project in Greece, for which we already hold the operating contract. If successful, we will convert an existing TFDE into an FSRU before selling it into the project.
Additionally, this project has made meaningful progress. Last month, Gastrade launched the binding bid phase for customers to take capacity in the project. The Greek utility, Depa, agreed to acquire a 20% shareholding in gas trade, while the Bulgarian government is also close to acquiring the same level of ownership. We expect both parties will provide anchor throughput commitments to the project. Moving to slide 21. We had a strong year operationally. We took delivery of two newbuilds on time and on budget, enjoyed an exceptional safety record, high vessel uptime and strong service delivery to our customers. And we continue to develop new customer relationships through concluding long-term charters with Jera and Endesa and the fixing of two vessels on multiyear charters to convert at market-linked rates of higher. Financially, we delivered our highest ever net revenues and adjusted EBITDA, underpinned by our new building deliveries.
We secured a $1 billion newbuild finance and we achieved significant improvements to our covenants across all our bank debt at both GasLog and the partnership. We also took the strategic decision to relocate more of GasLog's people and most of the senior management to our Paris office in order to enhance execution, improve efficiency and reduce administrative costs. We expect that the restructuring will deliver annualized savings of approximately $6 million from 2021 onwards after one-off costs of a similar magnitude over 2019 and 2020. These savings are equivalent to approximately 14% of our underlying 2019 G&A. Slide 22 shows our financial performance for the year. Net revenues increased 4% year-on-year as initial contributions from the GasLog Warsaw and GasLog Gladston charters offset lower spot vessel revenues with unit opex broadly unchanged year-on-year. Adjusted EBITDA increased 3% on 2018.
The consolidated adjusted EBITDA figure excludes the $162 million impairment charge incurred in the fourth quarter on the consolidated fleet steam vessels as well as restructuring costs of $4.7 million, the benefits of which will help expected unit G&A to average around 10% less than 2019 levels. For 2020, we expect unit opex to average around $14,500 per day, subject to movements in exchange rates. Slide 23 shows the Q4 2019 performance of our variable rate bets. These vessels earned approximately $66,000 per day in Q4 2019, which is in line with our guidance of $60,000 to $70,000 per day. To reiterate, our commercial strategy has been, wherever possible, to charter those variable-rate vessels with scheduled dry dockings in 2020 right up to those drydocks to minimize both positioning costs and waiting time.
While this has resulted in a trade-off on charter rate, we believe this strategy will optimize the earnings of these vessels through to their dry dock. We've also favored multi-month charters of a spot business to mitigate any seasonality in rates following the Northern hemisphere winter. We expect that this commercial strategy will enhance utilization and reduce the volatility of variable rate earnings across quarters. The second chart on this slide shows GasLog and GasLog Partners contracted and open days by quarter during 2020. These figures exclude dry dockings, the details of which can be found in the appendix of today's presentation. For our variable rate charter TFDEs, we expect to earn a TCE of $50,000 to $60,000 a day in the first quarter. And again, further information for the vessels on variable rate charters during the first quarter are included in the appendix.
Slide 24 illustrates the successful financing our newbuilding program over recent years. At the start of 2018, the expected GasLog equity payments on the newbuilding program we're close to $300 million. Today, we've paid 75% of these commitments and have only $75 million of remaining equity payments. We expect to fund these payments through our unrestricted cash balances, available revolving credit facilities and operating cash flows from our growing fleet. The debt component of the newbuild financing is funded through the ECA facility announced in December, which extends GasLog's track record of accessing secured debt on highly attractive terms. So turning to slide 25. In summary, GasLog Limited has a young and increasingly modern fleet, underpinned by long-term charters to high-quality customers.
Which will deliver revenue growth through 2022 and average 70% charter coverage for the GasLog fleet over the 2020 to 2023 period. We have a clear commercial strategy to focus on utilization and charter cover for our variable rate fleet. As Peter advised, we have a laser-like focus on cost roll and operational efficiencies. And we will benefit from significant debt reduction over time. We believe that our two decades of experience in LNG shipping, our reputation for high operating and safety standards and a leaner and more agile organization, leave us well positioned to capitalize on a growing but fast-evolving and increasingly fragmented LNG shipping market.
And finally, our investment case is underpinned by our focus on delivering shareholder value for fleet growth, deleveraging and cash returns. Finally, on slide 26, we invite you all to our upcoming analyst and Investor Day to be held in New York on May 7, 2020, and where we look forward to providing you with an in-depth update on the group's strategy and outlook.
With that, I'd like to open up for Q&A. Operator, could you now please open the call for any questions.
Questions and Answers:
Operator
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Mike Webber with Webber Research. Your line is now open.
Mike Webber -- Webber Research -- Analyst
Morning. So obviously a busy quarter. And Peter, I'm going to take advantage of being on the call and thought some questions in your direction.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
[Technical Issues]
Mike Webber -- Webber Research -- Analyst
So starting out, obviously -- yes, I'm sure you did. The -- you're starting off with the capital allocation decision at GLOP. I know that was -- I'm sure that was a complicated decision for you. And I just -- as somebody gets some insight and I think about this within the context of the last eight to nine months, the MLP market has been challenged for a while. You guys had been kind of above the fray for quite a bit, to the point where you bought back the IDRs about seven months ago. Now I'm just curious, this ultimately came down to a decision between support from the sponsor and GasLog at the current level versus a redistribution. What about that math, specifically when you looked at your ability to tap different markets over the next 18 months and/or swap assets at the parent level. What about that math made you decide that this is a time to reconfigure the basis?
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Well, Mike, Andy mentioned it, a 26% yield is not sustainable and signals very clearly from the market that they expect us to be rebounding and rethinking the distribution levels. On the GasLog limited side, having come to the conclusion that we should use -- we should pause our growth trajectory, and there are number of reasons why that makes a very good sense, with our growth trajectory. The whole concept around needing to do drop-downs to fund growth became somewhat less of a priority for us. And that gave us the opportunity to take drastic action to address the financial strength of both the companies. And we feel that when times change, the people who change quickly with those times are the ones who will benefit most for it. And so we're taking that step and that's why we're doing it. I mean, it's interesting because GasLog Ltd. actually has a very interesting revenues -- committed revenue stream with our charters and our newbuildings, GasLog Partners over time becomes more opportunistic.
And strengthening his balance sheet means that his breakeven costs on those opportunistic ships will be lower. So he'll be more competitive and be able to trade them. And he'll be able to use this balance sheet, in the coming years, to be able to pick up assets when accretive assets become available. And I have no doubt in my mind, Michael, that there are some people who are going to find themselves in an uncomfortable position in the next two or three years with some of these speculative newbuildings. So we're getting ready, and we're getting ready to take advantage of that. It's not the most pleasant of things to do, but I -- if I didn't get ready for that, I wouldn't be able to say that I had a sustainable business. Sustainability is not fixed, it means you change, and that's what we're doing.
Mike Webber -- Webber Research -- Analyst
Okay. A couple more on my end and kind of bigger picture, Peter, because I was finding your thoughts on this to be just particularly thoughtful. You mentioned a flattening technology curve. There's a notion out there that, that curve doesn't flatten in perpetuity, that they're going a kink to it as it pertains to secondary propulsion or some sort of sea change in terms of marine fueling that goes beyond simply LNG bunkering is something where GasLog would look to put some early feed work in? Or kind of looking to ways to meet 2050 targets as opposed to looking at 2030?
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Well, it's interesting that you mentioned that because the LNG shipping space is somewhat unique. And let me come back to that. We can meet the 2030 IMO targets as a shipping industry along all types from container to bulk carrier to tanker by shifting to LNG fuel and making some modest adjustments to the way we run these ships in terms of speed. There is no way that we will achieve the 2050 targets without a major change in propulsion systems. So if you then say, "Okay, what's the average asset life of a tanker or a Capesize bulk carrier or potentially containership?" 15, 18 years is probably the commercial life of that ship. So I can order one of those today and still see my way clear to meeting the 2030 targets with LNG fuel on the ship, which, by the way, is significantly cheaper today than diesel. But let's not go there.
And so -- and then I get to sort of 2030. By then, I'll have a clearer line of sight on what the new technology will be. Is it going to be hydrogen? Is it going to be ammonia? Is it going to be biofuels? And I'll be able to order my next set of ships. The LNG fleet, on the other hand, has a 30 or 35-year asset life, and everybody who's running the economics of buying these ships is running them on a 30, 35-year level. So we're at 2020 today. For 35 years, we're past 2050. That means that every LNG ship today gets to 2050 and probably is technologically challenged in terms of residual value. And that's pretty unique. And I don't think that the industry has picked up on that.
And when we start seeing ships being ordered in '24 and '25 for the projects that are coming out there, Mozambique, Qatar expansion,etc. The people who order those ships are going to have to run the math on a 25-year life and not a 35-year life. And that's going to make those ships somewhat less economically efficient compared to the ships that are out there today. The technology curve. The boil-off level. It's reached pretty close to shoreside boil-off levels. It's unreasonable to think that, that's going to get better. We might see some improvements in reliquefaction technology or some cost savings in that, but it's pretty much there. We've seen the sizes go from 138,000 cubic meter stems all the way up to Q maxes and then back again. We just sort of hit on the 170,000, 180,000 size as the long-haul ship and the 155,000, 160,000 size as the short-haul ship.
And the same thing happened in tankers, where we went from small ships to ULCCs and then the ULCC fell out of favor. So I think the size of the ships have sort of reached a stability level. Propulsion systems. We talked about that earlier, went from steam turbines to tri-fuel diesel/electric to medium-speed diesels. The next propulsion system is going to be something completely different and it's going to use a completely different fuel and it's not there yet. So the technology curve is -- you're right to say it's a kink. It's not flattened in perpetuity. But certainly, one would be well advised to watch it very carefully as one looks at 2025, 2026 deliveries around new projects and the potential useful life of those assets in the changing environment. I hope that helps you get some clarity on that.
Mike Webber -- Webber Research -- Analyst
No, it does. It does. And just one more before I turn it over. And it dovetails with the distribution cut and just the thought process of handling the residual value to the steam assets. The notion of placing assets into downstream projects and storage or in building out a regas presence. So we've talked about that for several years. It's been, I guess, relatively successful, but I would probably venture to say you probably haven't put as many assets into the downstream market as you would have expected several years ago. And when we talk to the World Bank or other players, there seems to be a pretty big divergence between project developers and a long list of people that are willing to put assets into these projects, but very few people that can provide both.
So I'm curious, when you talk about the downstream market, and you've got Alexandroupolis, which has been going on for quite a while and your South American business, what do you need to do to get an advantage? If you're not going to sink the cost into local knowledge and really the on the ground -- the boots on the ground that are probably required to actually develop one of these projects on your own on a large scale, or several of them, what do you need to do to better differentiate GasLog from the long list of other potential asset providers? Guys with steam assets that are more than willing to put an asset deal project and take a 7% IRR on that.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Well, hang on a second. For many of these downstream projects, the steam doesn't work because you need massive power generation to run a regas ship. And so having a steamship do that is -- unless you're getting shore power connected, doesn't work. I think we're going to focus -- I think, I know, we're going to focus on what we know how to do best, which is the transportation of LNG as a commodity. We think we have some interesting operational advantages in terms of the size of our fleet and flexibility, and we're working on some very interesting structures around how these ships will be chartered-in the future.
And I think we're going to focus on that, to spend a lot of time and money and investment in developing downstream projects. You said -- I mean, you quite rightly say we've been working on Alexandroupolis for a long time. We certainly have been frustrating for all of us to see how long these things take. And the other thing that happens is, it's a -- the counterparty risk in these projects is not as attractive in many cases is one what would need to get the proper financing in place. So we're going to be opportunistic about that. We've got Panama. That was a great deal.
We have a crucial position in Alexandroupolis as a shareholder there, and we have the operating contract. But we're not going to spend a lot of the company's resources on trying to develop more of these projects. So at GasLog Ltd, we don't have that many open ships anyway. At GasLog Partners, Andy is going to get to the point where his breakeven levels are going to be low enough that he will be able to trade these things opportunistically in the spot market and make money. And I think that's a much more cohesive strategy for the two companies than trying to spend a lot of money trying to open up other market sectors in an area that's clearly oversupplied at this point.
Operator
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Greg Lewis with BTIG. Your line is open.
Greg Lewis -- BTIG -- Analyst
Yes, thank you, I think Good morning. Good afternoon. Um, yeah, I guess I'd like to touch a little bit more about the strength of the balance sheet. I mean, clearly, this has been a theme on the call. Andy, I mean, you mentioned the scheduled debt repayments, and you kind of highlighted that the net debt-to-EBITDA is 4.6x. Could you talk a little bit more about how we should be thinking about that? Are there targets? Where do you expect to be maybe by how are you thinking about that beyond '20 into '21? Because it's clearly -- it we're going to delever in the near-term to be opportunistic down the road. So just kind of curious on any color around on how you're thinking about that. And then does that involve prepayments and things like that?
Alastair Maxwell -- Chief Financial Officer
Greg, it's Alistair. I'll take that, and I'll address that for both GasLog and GasLog Partners. So clearly at the group level, we will be taking on more debt as we draw on the new ECA facility for the vessels that delivered during 2020 and 2021. So the peak will be at the end of 2020 and animals and incremental debt for new deliveries in 2021 are more or less balanced. And then after that, group leverage will start to fall at about $275 million per year. And as Paul said in his remarks, that's about $1 billion over the period of 2020 to 2023. So clearly, in terms of leverage targets as measured by net debt to EBITDA, it depends on what the variable rate ships are going to be earning over that period of time at the group level. But it's very much our ambition to see net debt-to-EBITDA fall down toward 5x and even below over time.
And we will provide more information on the financial framework for the group at the time of the Investor Day in May. As far as GasLog Partners is concerned, as Andy said, we're amortizing at about $110 million, $115 million per year. That would take net debt-to-EBITDA down, all other things being equal, by 0.5, 0.6x EBITDA on an annual basis. Depending on how the market performs, what charters were able to put in place what our available cash flow is, it will then be a discussion around how best to allocate that incremental cash flow as you go toward deleveraging. Does it go toward incremental growth in the future should there be really interesting opportunities? But that's a sort of feel for how we expect leverage to behave over time. As I said, we'll provide a much more comprehensive framework for both companies in May.
Greg Lewis -- BTIG -- Analyst
Okay, great. And then just one follow-up for me. Clearly, we're seeing the challenges the steam vessels. If we were to go back, I guess, 12, 18 months ago, when gas log, not to steam steels, but the other vessels were part of the cold pool, maybe it was a function of the market just right place, right time, but it seemed like those vessels performed very well or at least above kind of above in line with market expectations. Is there any thought about trying to partner with other steam owners and maybe starting sort of a steamship pool? Just given the fact that it's a lot more spotty work, it's -- you need to be in the right place at the right time. Just kind of curious. You were once in a pool, is that something that we should be thinking about maybe reentering it? And is there a value in that kind of in this kind of new environment?
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Yes. Greg, it's Paul here. Yes, I mean, we have, as you said, had a very good experience being a pool with the partners there. That worked well at the time for us as the sort of partner strategy is diverge, then that came back to us. I think pools in shipping have been very successful. I think the one we had with -- on the LNG side. Performed very well. So yes, we're very open to that in future on the steamships. But I think we're also very confident chartering those ships ourselves with the relationships that we have, that we will be able to do a very good job, especially as the cash breakeven of those vessels comes down, that we'll do a very good job in being able to generate cash flow. So I think we'll be opportunistic rather than driving sort of a pool consolidation in the steamships, but certainly always open to it.
Greg Lewis -- BTIG -- Analyst
Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Thank you.
Operator
And our next question comes from the line of Jon Chapell with Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Jon Chapell -- Evercore ISI -- Analyst
Good morning and good afternoon. Guys, I wanted to just say I think you did a lot of right things here from the distribution cut proactively, Peter's involvement on this call and support to the transparency in the appendix, which is incredibly helpful. I think the one thing I'm not fully clear about on the strategy because it's a pretty compelling investment call on GasLog Ltd. on why the need still for two companies now that the distribution's been cut and there's no competitive cost of capital at the MLP. I get you're trying to delever there and there may be some opportunities in the future, but it almost seems like the weaker link here is dragging down the investment profile of the stronger link, which is GasLog. So Peter, if you could just maybe dig a little deeper on why the need for two publicly traded entities at this point.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
You ask an interesting question, and we may yet come to the conclusion that we don't want to have two publicly traded entities. And that could come in many different permutations, whether it be combining the two or potentially taking one off the stock market. That being said, I like the fact that we have two very clear and easily explained strategies for each of those two entities. So you've got GasLog Ltd., which has an ultramodern fleet with committed charter revenues and minimal exposure to the stock market, and we'll be using that to get committed revenue to deleverage. You've got GasLog Partners that's going to become more and more opportunistic.
It will also be strengthening its own balance sheet and financial position and could then become the vehicle we use for accretive growth through the acquisition of ships, companies, etc, whether it be from GasLog Ltd. or from others there. And I'm -- as I said to Mike Webber's question, I'm quite sure that we will see opportunities to acquire assets at significantly attractive valuation points going forward. And I'd like to have GasLog Partners in a position where it can leap in and do that without complicating the GasLog Ltd. story, which is about delivering our new fleet and recurring our revenues as a result of our long-term charters. It seemed to me clearer to keep the two pictures out there and easily explain than it is to try slam them both together and then end up with two strategies in one company. two strategies, two companies. That's at least how I see it from this perspective.
Jon Chapell -- Evercore ISI -- Analyst
That makes sense. The second question is on buyback for both entities then. So GasLog Partners is -- has a lot of liquidity now going forward post the distribution cut. And it's certainly going to open today at a much lower level. So maybe Andy's views on buyback. I get that deleveraging as a focus, but there is a lot of liquidity freed up. And then for GasLog Ltd., I mean, I assume you guys were kind of in a holding pattern because you had this major news coming in the distribution cut. Maybe Paul -- or Peter, specifically, from not even just the corporate buyback from an insider buying perspective, what you think the cadence will be on buyback across the GasLog Ltd. entity in the coming months and years.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Well, look, I think there's compelling value at GasLog Limited. And we have been buying shares, and we'll continue to do so. I have a very strong belief in the sustainability and long-term future of this group and much. So why wouldn't I do that? In terms of corporate buybacks, I'm much more in favor in GasLog Limited of distributing the money to shareholders, letting them go buy their own shares. I think that sends a stronger message to the loyal shareholders that we have, and we have some very loyal shareholders, not the least of which in my family, which is the largest shareholder, and the ANASYS foundation has been with me since the beginning.
As opposed to deploying money into share buyback programs, Andy has a slightly different perspective on it. I know -- and I'll let him answer in a second. I know he is very focused, and his Board is very focused, on debt and reduction of debt on the basis that it makes his entire fleet simply more cost effective. And that's the right place to be when you're in a more opportunistic sector. The lower your operating costs are in terms of chartering the ships, the more value you'll have. So I think that's what his focus will be. Whether we opportunistically buy back shares is going to be a decision that he and the Board will look at over time. But let me add -- turn it over to Andy as he has some thoughts as well.
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Sure. So Jon, we're very cognizant that the total return as a result of our new capital allocation plan is lower with a lower common distribution. We did repurchase what we would describe as a meaningful amount of units last year as an additional component of that return, and we think it's important to continue that. And as you say, we expect that there will be some volatility in the unit price and hope that having the increased authority back to $25 million will allow us to take advantage of that on an opportunistic basis. But absolutely, our first priority with our capital in 2020 is debt reduction.
Jon Chapell -- Evercore ISI -- Analyst
Okay, thanks, Andy. And thanks a lot, Peter.
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Thank you.
Operator
And our following question comes from Chris Wetherbee with Citi. Your line is open.
Chris Wetherbee -- Citi -- Analyst
Hey, great. Thanks. Great. Peter, could I ask you to expand a little bit more on the 2-company strategy? I'm not sure I understand completely the nuance between the two public entities at this point. And so I want to make sure I better understand sort of the reason and the strategy that differs between the two companies at this point.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Okay. Effectively, we will be maintaining two balance sheets and two strategies. So the GasLog Partners strategy is around a more opportunistic fleet by virtue of where it sits with its fleet today and where it sits with its long-term charter commitments running off. And the GasLog Ltd. strategy is around the delivery of the new ships into these long-term charters and the recouping of the revenues from the successful performance of these long-term charters there. In a funny sort of way, the two companies have flipped. And what GasLog Partners did in the past in terms of its strategy of long-term charters is now what GasLog is doing and GasLog Partners is now doing what GasLog Ltd. is doing, which was being more opportunistic.
I'd like to leave a little bit more to say at the Investor Day on May 7, which I hope you'll have a chance to come and join us, on where we will be able to give you some very clear direction, projections, etc, in terms of how we see these two strategies playing out over the next several years. But it's -- in my mind, it makes complete sense to keep these two balance sheets separate and to treat them in different ways in terms of how we look at our strategy toward LNG shipping.
Chris Wetherbee -- Citi -- Analyst
Okay. And if I think about the -- I guess, if I think about where GasLog Partners might trade in the market post the distribution reduction, how do you view the value potential of that group of assets in the context, you talked about potential opportunistic M&A in the future? People who might be in a scenario where they might need to sell, it would seem to me, with the equity value implied this morning, that, that might be the most attractive set of assets on the market over the course of the next several months. I don't know your perspective on that and how you think about that, if that's even something that you can consider after taking this action.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
I'll answer that and then I'll turn it over to Andy. I'm definitely looking at this over the next several years, not over the next several months. I think the next several months will be a period of flux in terms of where the share trades. But as the situation stabilizes, the value proposition for GasLog Partners is compelling in terms of its cost-effective fleet and in terms of its strength in balance sheet, it should be in a position to be able to do accretive purchases going forward. Andy, do you want to add to that?
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
No, I think you covered it. Yes.
Chris Wetherbee -- Citi -- Analyst
Okay. Thank you.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Thank you.
Operator
And our next question comes from the line of Randy Giveans with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Randy Giveans -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Howdy gentlemen, how's it going? All right. So following the sell-off in GLOG shares and the distribution cut at GLOP, the GasLog Ltd. yield is currently higher than GLOP. So how do you view the dividend at GasLog parent? And should investors be comfortable that this will be maintained at $0.15 per quarter going forward?
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Very comfortable. Next.
Randy Giveans -- Jefferies -- Analyst
All right, next question. I noticed you removed the slide showing the charter backlog at GasLog Partners. So what is the status of the methane Victoria? And then looking at the Methane Rita Andrea, with the charter running off in the next, I guess, two months, have you been in talks for maybe a one-year time charter at I guess a lower rate than expected? Or just kind of plan on trading that in the spot market?
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Sure. Randy, it's Andy here. So nothing else in Victoria has been in the spot market since January. She's actually worked a couple of quite interesting spot charters for work in the Pacific. And there continues to be, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, a steady group of steam ships that are being chartered on a spot basis, call it, less than one year. So they're -- particularly for some of the older projects with smaller cargo size, things like Northwest shelf in Australia and others, there's absolutely a place in the market for the steam hips, but not on the 1-plus term year -- term charter basis, as I mentioned. So we're continuing to examine both term and spot opportunities for both of those ships. And as you mentioned, the next one comes back to us in April.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
And if I may just add a little bit to what Andy said. I believe that we will see a short-sea market developing, where the steamships will be less challenged in their competitiveness. Middle East, India is a market that is going to start to move as India puts in more downstream infrastructure. There's actually currently a requirement of, interestingly, going from what is a Abu Dhabi to Kuwait, which is like a 2-day voyage. All these short voyages play to the strength of the steamships in terms of their ability to move them without having too big a disadvantage on fuel consumption or size. So those markets will develop there are 40% of the fleet is indeed steam. That simply cannot go away any time soon. And so you'll see a 2-tier market developing around steam and modern diesel electric and medium-speed diesel ships. And the rates will be lower for the steams. So the key is to get the competitive level -- cost levels of the steams down enough so that they can trade in these short-sea opportunities.
Randy Giveans -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Okay. That makes sense. And since the first question was only a 1-word answer, quickly, a third question. GasLog, historically the growth vehicle; GLOP, the income vehicle. So any thoughts on switching some assets from the spot-exposed assets from GLOP back up to the parent and then dropping down some longer-term charters to the partnership?
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Sounds a little bit Rube Goldberg to me. We're trying to keep it simple. I think there's great value in having a very simple, easy-to-explain strategy for each of these companies over the next couple of years. And we're certainly focused on primarily on cost reduction and lowering breakeven levels, but we're also focused on simplicity and transparency. And I think that's really, really important, particularly in a world that is sadly lacking of simplicity and transparency.
Randy Giveans -- Jefferies -- Analyst
So thank you.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Thank you.
Operator
And our next question comes from the line of Ben Nolan with Stifel. Your line is open.
Ben Nolan -- Stifel -- Analyst
Thanks. Actually, I was going to ask about the short-sea LNG stuff, and you addressed it a little bit. But just to follow-on with that a little bit as it relates to steamships. The -- does a really low LNG price, which obviously impacts the voyage length, oftentimes, but also the boil-off, is that creating something of a renaissance, perhaps for maybe some of these smaller, older steam-power ships? But that would not be the case if LNG prices were $10.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Renaissance might be just a little bit too overly enthusiastic. However, what I would say that the delta on competitiveness shrinks, obviously, with the lower fuel cost. The delta on competitiveness in terms of size, shrinks with the relatively shorter distances. And so moving those assets into the most optimum area for them would be, again, short short-haul wages. But the low gas price means that what we're really seeing is that we're basically using gas to move these ships all the time because it's cheaper than using diesel fuel. And that's really interesting because it's lowering the breakeven costs of running these ships on a day-to-day basis. So even when the ship is not on charter, we try to keep as much heal as we can in the ships, so that we can burn that gas on balanced legs while we're looking for other employment. Every little bit helps. And that has been a meaningful advantage of being able to burn gas at this stage.
Ben Nolan -- Stifel -- Analyst
All right. I appreciate that, Peter. And I think the strategic part of it has been touched on as much as I think it can be. So I'll stick to another sort of industry question. There's a lot of noise in the market about tenders from Qatar, Exxon, etc, on new projects. But currently, freight rates are pretty low. And I think the expectation is they're not going to pick up immediately. Is there any activity? Or are you guys potentially looking to tenders on existing equipment into some of those companies rather than having adding more to the newbuild order book?
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
To the extent that the tenders allow us to tender existing equipment. We look at it, and we will be doing that, and we're encouraging the people who put these tenders out based on the flattening technology curve to allow existing ships to come in. And if you -- again, I think that we're going to have to be very thoughtful about the useful life of the asset going into 2050? And what does that mean in terms of the cost at which you can tender into a new ship in a newbuilding delivery in 2026. Now there's a difference. If you have to write the ship off in 25 years, or like we are running the ship off in 30 years, where we have line of sight to its use.
Ben Nolan -- Stifel -- Analyst
Yeah. All right. Well, I appreciate it. I'll turn it over. Thanks.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Liam Burke with B. Riley. Your line is open.
Liam Burke -- B. Riley -- Analyst
Yes. Thank you, Andy. one of your slides highlights the FSRU opportunity for the -- for GLOP. How do you look at this market vis-a-vis the traditional market? Do you look at as a better return, or do you look at this as a way to change the direction of the fleet?
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Well, Liam, it's Andy. I think it was actually on Paul's slide. But I'll comment first, then Paul, you can add on. We have seen some success at the GasLog Ltd. level on the FSU market, which is developing. I think there's only two or three projects in operation today globally, but there's many more that are on the drawing board. And the interesting thing about the FSU versus FSRU is there's less capital required to convert an existing vessel. And often, there's a shore-based power solution, so both steams and TSDs can be applicable. And so that market, as Peter mentioned, I think we'll look at opportunistically. I think our core business will be shipping under spot and term charters for a very long time, but it is a developing market for the types of assets we have. Paul, I don't know if you'd add anything to that.
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Yes. I think the other thing I would add is, it's very interesting. Having secured the Panama project we, actually got a couple of phone calls from people saying, "Oh, you're in the FSU trade, how about helping us with x y and z?" So what's interesting is once you're into that market, it does start to open up some possibilities. But I wouldn't overplay that. I think like the FSRU, there will be a limited number of projects around that probably will be able to move quicker than the FSRU because the permitting side of it, etc, will probably be less onerous. But even so, I think what you need to be is pretty agile and opportunistic in that market to see where you can place your assets rather than basing your strategy on it. And I think we've -- we're going to base our strategy, especially with the older variable rate ships, on getting our costs down as far as possible, breaking down those break -- bringing down those breakevens and having a commercial strategy which really drives the best earnings from those ships.
Liam Burke -- B. Riley -- Analyst
Great, thank you
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Thank you.
Operator
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Mark Solecitto with Barclays. Your line is open.
Mark Solecitto -- Barclays -- Analyst
Hi, good morning. Maybe asking one of the earlier questions a bit differently. Is there a minimum leverage level at the MLP that you'd like to achieve before looking to resume drop-downs? And is there maybe like a max level that you have in mind that you'd be willing to go to?
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Mark, I don't think that there is a -- I don't think I see the read a minimum or a maximum, clearly, the trend we see is heading downwards. I think if you look at what you might call best practice for this kind of business with this kind of operational and commercial profile. I think it's probably in the 3s, sort of the mid- 3s, something like that, which I think a, it gets your cost and your breakevens down to where you'd like them to be competitive. B, it gives you a little bit of headroom to be opportunistic if opportunities come along. So I don't think there's any firm targets. But clearly, with the direction of travel we're on at the partnership, I definitely see us heading down into this.
Mark Solecitto -- Barclays -- Analyst
Great. And then just to clarify, is the plan to fund any future acquisitions at the MLP would retain cash and balance sheet capacity? Or like how should we think about the funding strategy going forward?
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
I think it's a good question. I think it's difficult to tell at this stage. It depends how the units trade over time. We've always said in the past, and we continue to believe it's true, that we have access to multiple sources of capital. We're a very established issuer in the pref market. And as Andy said several times in his prepared remarks, over time, we will create additional financing capacity on the balance sheet. But I think it's very difficult to say at this stage what opportunities might arise and what might be the optimum way of financing them.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
If I may add, I think it would be wrong to assume that the strategy is to rapidly get to the old model of drop downs. GasLog Partners is moving into a new world. And its ability to do accretive acquisitions maybe for ships that do not have committed charters against them. And that requires a strong balance sheet. And that's what Andy's objective is. It is to be able to find value-accretive deals without the hindrance of having to look at clear line of sight revenue streams as he has had to do in the past.
Mark Solecitto -- Barclays -- Analyst
Understood, thanks.
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. And I'm not showing any further questions at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to your speakers.
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Thank you, Sidney. Thank you to everyone for listening in and your continued interest in GasLog Ltd. and GasLog Partners today. It has clearly been a challenging period for all of us. And like Peter, I'm simply frustrated by our unit price performance. But I very strongly believe the steps we have announced today will meaningfully secure the future success of our business. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our Investor Relations team. Thank you.
Operator
[Operator Closing Remarks]
Duration: 73 minutes
Call participants:
Phil Corbett -- Head of Investor Relation
Peter G. Livanos -- Chairman
Andrew J. Orekar -- Chief Executive Officer
Paul Wogan -- Chief Executive Officer
Alastair Maxwell -- Chief Financial Officer
Mike Webber -- Webber Research -- Analyst
Greg Lewis -- BTIG -- Analyst
Jon Chapell -- Evercore ISI -- Analyst
Chris Wetherbee -- Citi -- Analyst
Randy Giveans -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Ben Nolan -- Stifel -- Analyst
Liam Burke -- B. Riley -- Analyst
Mark Solecitto -- Barclays -- Analyst
