NFE - Louisiana FLNG: Potential Catalyst as MARAD Streamlines Deepwater Port Licensing

**TLDR:** * Big regulatory tailwind (Jan 5, 2026): The U.S. shifted deepwater port licensing leadership to MARAD, with MARAD now running NEPA / environmental reviews and the Coast Guard focusing on safety + operations explicitly to streamline reviews and accelerate approvals. [transportation.gov+1](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-announces-maritime-administration-will) * Why NFE cares: NFE Louisiana FLNG is already a pending deepwater port application at 2.8 MTPA and is exactly the kind of project this change is meant to unstick [maritime.dot.gov+1](https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/deepwater-ports-and-licensing/pending-applications) * Project scale in plain English: Louisiana FLNG is designed as two \~1.4 MTPA trains (2.8 MTPA total), \~40 LNG carrier loadings/year, offshore Louisiana. [maritime.dot.gov](https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/deepwater-ports-and-licensing/pending-applications) * The bottleneck today: MARAD’s own docket notes the project has been in a stop clock phase pending additional info so anything that speeds agency throughput plus a clear lead agency mandate is directionally positive. [maritime.dot.gov](https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/deepwater-ports-and-licensing/pending-applications) * Execution credibility: NFE already proved its modular Fast LNG concept at scale with First LNG on a 1.4 MTPA unit offshore Mexico. [Business Wire](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240719283377/en/New-Fortress-Energy-Achieves-First-LNG-for-its-Fast-LNG-Asset) **How is NFE's Louisiana FLNG expected to perform?** **Capacity math (the key shortcut):** * 2.8 MTPA LNG ≈ 2.8M tonnes × 52 MMBtu/tonne = \~145.6M MMBtu/year. [maritime.dot.gov+1](https://www.maritime.dot.gov/ports/deepwater-ports-and-licensing/pending-applications) * Rule of thumb: every $1.00/MMBtu of net margin at full run-rate ≈ $146M/year of EBITDA potential (before corporate costs). **EBITDA scenarios (simple, easy to quote):** * Conservative fee-like margin ($2.00/MMBtu): \~$291M EBITDA/yr * Mid case ($3.00/MMBtu): \~$437M EBITDA/yr * Upside ($3.50/MMBtu): \~$510M EBITDA/yr Why use \~$3/MMBtu as a “mid” reference? A common modeling convention for US LNG uses \~$3/MMBtu tolling/liquefaction fee (often layered on top of Henry Hub-linked gas). [Oxford Energy](https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/OIES-Quarterly-Gas-Review-Issue-30.pdf) Revenue scenarios (if NFE sells LNG as “merchant” volumes): * **At $8–$12/MMBtu LNG pricing, gross LNG sales value would be roughly $1.16B–$1.75B per year at full utilization.** **What does it mean?** That would lead further to NFE being able to pay down debt and stabilize the business. Already they have the PR deal and the big plant in Brazil which have not yet started to generate revenue. This will free further EBITDA to pay down debt. The English Goverment Source: [Goverment Source](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-p-duffy-announces-maritime-administration-will) The Italian Article, talking about NFE and the general potential of easing: [Source](https://www.ilnautilus.it/news/internazionale/2026-01-07/la-casa-bianca-trasferisce-il-processo-delle-licenze-portuali-a-marad-nel-tentativo-di-accelerare-le-esportazioni-di-energia_179454/)