Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent LNG and natural gas feasibility study consultant preparing lender-, investor-, and agency-facing studies for gas processing and treating plants, small-scale liquefaction, CNG and LNG fueling infrastructure, and virtual pipeline operations. These projects are contracted-cash-flow credits with a commodity input, so the analysis holds two questions together: is the gas supply secure at a defensible cost, and is the offtake contracted firmly enough and for long enough to carry the debt after the construction period ends.
Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. Fixed fee quoted within one business day; standard delivery in ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Gas processing and LNG feasibility joins supply dedication to offtake certainty: the wellhead gas behind the plant, recovery economics across the NGL barrel, processing-agreement structure, and — for liquefaction and CNG/LNG fueling — the offtake contracts or fleet-conversion demand the capital depends on. Small-scale LNG and CNG fueling projects are evaluated on the specific fleet and corridor demand they serve.
Methodology draws on gas production and quality data, NGL pricing series, processing-agreement review, and fleet and corridor fuel-demand analysis for fueling infrastructure. Coverage is tested on contracted volumes with merchant sensitivity presented separately.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Oil, gas, and heavy-industrial projects reach us through conventional and institutional lending most commonly, with USDA B&I applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets and SBA programs serving owner-operator support businesses; each study is prepared to the corresponding compliance standard, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated plainly.
Wert-Berater has not published a completed LNG liquefaction or gas processing engagement as a public case study, and none is claimed here. The firm has completed and published a clean ammonia and hydrogen production facility feasibility study in Taft, California — a gas-fed process plant whose economics turn on the same variables that decide an LNG or processing credit: secured feedstock gas at a defensible delivered cost, conversion efficiency, contracted offtake, and coverage tested against construction and startup risk. That analytical family is the honest connection; a hydrogen and ammonia plant is not a liquefaction train, and it is not offered as one. Independence is non-negotiable — determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
An LNG and natural gas feasibility study consultant establishes whether contracted throughput and offtake, supported by secure gas supply, will service the debt from the first full year of operation through the loan term. The analysis reads the gas supply arrangement and the offtake agreements as executed documents, models the plant at achievable utilization rather than nameplate, and treats construction and commissioning as a distinct risk period with its own funding requirement rather than a line item that resolves itself.
The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform process, cryogenic, mechanical, or facilities engineering, does not prepare or verify FEED packages or liquefaction train design, and does not issue process-safety, siting, or regulatory approval opinions. Engineering studies, capacity analyses, and capital estimates prepared by qualified firms are treated as inputs and tested for internal consistency against the construction schedule and the financing plan.
A study for this asset class is built around the specific technical and commercial conditions that determine whether a processing plant, liquefaction unit, or fueling facility can service its debt. The narrative addresses feedstock supply, processing economics, offtake structure, and the regulatory path to operations—each section supported by the underlying data and model logic rather than industry averages. The financial model is a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, so a credit officer or agency reviewer can change any input and watch every ratio reprice in real time.
An explicit statement of conditions precedent—supply dedications, offtake commitments, permits, and interconnection agreements—closes the narrative so the lender knows exactly what must be in place before the projections are valid.
Feedstock gas is the dominant operating cost and the most common unexamined assumption in a sponsor pro forma. The study establishes where the gas comes from, whether the supply is contracted or merchant, the delivered cost including transport and any firm capacity charge, and the term of the arrangement against the term of the loan. Where supply is uncontracted, the exposure is stated and coverage is tested at higher sustained gas prices rather than at the sponsor's single assumed cost.
Gas quality drives treating cost and is analyzed accordingly. Carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen, water, and heavier hydrocarbons each require removal to specification before liquefaction or pipeline delivery, and the associated treating cost, shrinkage, and fuel consumption are modeled explicitly rather than folded into a single efficiency factor. Where the inlet stream is richer or more contaminated than the design case assumes, the study reports the effect on both operating cost and effective capacity.
Nameplate capacity is a design figure, not an operating forecast. The study models achievable throughput net of planned maintenance, unplanned downtime, ambient-condition derating where it applies, and the ramp period between mechanical completion and stable commercial operation. That ramp is modeled explicitly, because debt service typically begins before a plant reaches design output and the resulting gap is a frequent cause of early coverage failure.
Conversion efficiency is examined as a cost driver rather than a technical statistic: the fuel and power consumed per unit produced, the shrinkage between inlet and salable volume, and the boil-off and losses associated with storage and loading. Operating cost is built line by line — power, labour, maintenance, chemicals and catalyst, insurance, and property costs — from the operator's own history where the facility exists and from comparable operations where it does not.
Revenue certainty is established from the contract structure, and each structure carries a different exposure. A tolling arrangement, in which a customer supplies gas and pays a processing or liquefaction fee, largely removes commodity price risk but concentrates counterparty risk. A sale-and-purchase arrangement exposes the project to the spread between delivered gas cost and product price. Merchant sales carry both. The study models what the executed agreements actually create rather than a blended average revenue line.
Contract terms are scheduled individually: committed volume, primary term and expiry, fee or price and its escalation, take-or-pay and deficiency provisions, and termination rights. The weighted average remaining contract term is compared against the amortization schedule, and where contracts expire first, coverage is re-tested on stated renewal assumptions. Counterparty concentration is quantified and coverage re-tested on loss of the largest offtaker.
Small-scale projects are demand-driven rather than contract-driven, and are analyzed differently. For CNG and LNG fueling infrastructure, the study identifies the specific fleets that will convert — refuse, transit, regional trucking, or industrial — the vehicle counts committed, and the fuel volume each represents. Conversion economics for the customer are examined directly, because a fueling station is only viable if the payback on the customer's vehicle investment justifies switching, and that payback moves with the diesel-to-gas price differential.
Virtual pipeline operations, which truck compressed or liquefied gas to customers off the pipeline grid, are modeled on delivered cost per unit including trailer fleet, drivers, and round-trip distance, then tested against the customer's alternative fuel cost. The study states plainly how much of projected volume rests on signed fuel supply agreements versus prospective conversions, and carries only the committed volume in the base case.
Demand analysis for this asset class does not begin with a regional market-size figure. It begins with the specific molecules behind the plant and the specific buyers or users at the other end. For a midstream processing facility, the analyst works from well-production records, operator reserve reports, and pipeline interconnection-queue filings to establish how much gas will actually reach the inlet over the study period and at what quality. Decline curves and infill-drilling schedules are reviewed against public operator disclosures and state regulatory production data rather than assumed.
For LNG and CNG fueling infrastructure, demand is built from fleet-operator fuel-consumption records, corridor traffic counts from state DOT sources, and signed or letter-of-intent fuel-supply agreements. Trade-association data from organizations that track alternative-fuel adoption in heavy trucking and marine applications provides a cross-check on conversion timelines, but contracted volume is always presented separately from merchant or conversion-dependent volume so the lender can see the coverage floor on committed demand alone.
Competitive-supply analysis draws on FERC pipeline tariff filings, state public-utility commission records, and publicly available plant-capacity data to identify existing processing capacity, throughput utilization where disclosed, and announced capacity additions in the relevant basin. Utility interconnection queues are reviewed for projects with power-generation or electric-compression components. The goal is to give the lender a documented, source-cited picture of supply-side competition rather than a narrative assertion that the market is underserved.
Every feasibility study for a processing or liquefaction asset turns on a small number of inputs whose movement produces the largest swings in debt-service-coverage. Identifying those inputs, documenting the basis for each, and then stressing each one independently—and in combination—is the analytical core of the engagement. A model that cannot isolate input sensitivity is not a credit tool; it is a presentation.
All inputs resolve into a fully linked model with no hardcoded values, producing a ten-year pro forma, annual and period debt-service coverage, and the coverage minimum applicable to the financing program. Contracted revenue, uncontracted revenue, and renewal assumptions are reported as separate layers, and the construction and ramp period is funded in the model with interest during construction and any required reserve shown explicitly.
Sensitivity is run on delivered gas cost, plant utilization and availability, conversion efficiency, contracted volume and renewal rate, product or tolling fee, construction cost overrun and commissioning delay, and interest rate. The study identifies the utilization and fee combination at which coverage reaches the lender's minimum. Engineering capacity studies and capital estimates prepared by qualified firms are used as inputs; this study does not replace process engineering or a FEED package.
SBA lenders reviewing a processing or fueling-infrastructure project under SOP 50 10 8 require a global cash-flow analysis that demonstrates 1.15x operating coverage and 1.00x global coverage across all obligations of the borrowing entity. For an owner-operator support business—a fueling facility serving a fleet the borrower also operates, for example—the global analysis must capture both the facility debt and any existing obligations. The study states each coverage ratio explicitly, identifies the year of minimum coverage, and explains what operating condition produces that trough.
USDA Business & Industry lenders apply 7 CFR Part 5001 and look specifically at rural-area eligibility, the economic-development rationale, and the adequacy of collateral relative to loan exposure. For processing assets in rural producing basins, the study addresses job creation or retention, local tax-base impact, and the relationship between the facility and agricultural or energy producers in the service area where that connection exists. REAP eligibility may apply to projects with a renewable-natural-gas or energy-efficiency component, and the study notes that applicability without overstating it.
Conventional institutional lenders for midstream and LNG assets focus on contract tenor relative to loan maturity, counterparty credit quality, and the mechanics of revenue waterfall under a processing agreement. They want to see that the coverage analysis uses contracted volumes at contracted fees, that merchant upside is excluded from the base case, and that the model can be re-run at lender-specified inputs without analyst intervention. The live client-portal model satisfies that last requirement directly.
The fee for a natural gas processing or LNG feasibility study is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day of an inquiry, and does not change based on the finding. No portion of the fee is contingent on a positive conclusion, a loan approval, or any outcome. That structure is the foundation of the independence that lenders and agencies require from a third-party analyst.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For a processing project, a complete data room includes: wellhead production and quality data, gathering and processing agreements, equipment specifications or EPC proposals, financial statements for the operating entity, and any existing offtake or fuel-supply contracts. For LNG and CNG fueling projects, fleet fuel-consumption records and any signed or letter-of-intent supply agreements are added to that list. Incomplete data rooms delay delivery; the engagement clock starts when the data room is complete, not when the engagement letter is signed.
Rush delivery is available when the lender's credit timeline requires it. Every completed engagement is published to a secure client portal where the linked Excel model remains live. A reviewer who wants to stress a different throughput assumption or change a commodity-price input can do so without requesting a revised report. The model recalculates every ratio, every coverage test, and every sensitivity table in real time. Wert-Berater has completed 4,000+ engagements representing $41.2 billion in evaluated project value, and every engagement—regardless of size or program—is delivered to the same model standard.
Gas processing and liquefaction sit between production and end use, and financings commonly pair them with the assets on either side.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of inquiry. It does not vary based on the finding, the loan amount, or the outcome of the credit decision. No portion is contingent on approval. Because scope varies by project complexity—a small CNG fueling facility differs materially from a cryogenic processing plant—the firm quotes after a brief intake conversation rather than publishing a flat rate.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. The data room for a processing project typically includes production and quality data, gathering and processing agreements, equipment proposals, entity financial statements, and any offtake contracts. Rush delivery is available. The engagement clock starts when the data room is complete, not when the engagement letter is signed.
Three factors create underwriting complexity that most other asset classes do not share: feedstock supply is probabilistic and declines over time, NGL revenues depend on commodity spreads that move independently of each other, and processing-contract structure—keep-whole versus percent-of-proceeds versus fixed-fee—determines which party bears which risk. A study that does not isolate each of those variables and stress them independently does not give the lender the information it needs to make a credit decision.
Every SBA engagement is prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. The study states each ratio explicitly, identifies the year of minimum coverage, and presents the global cash-flow analysis required for owner-operator structures. The firm does not represent that any agency has pre-approved or endorsed its methodology; compliance is demonstrated through the content of the deliverable, which the lender and SBA review on their own authority.
USDA B&I is applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets where the project meets rural-area eligibility and the economic-development criteria of 7 CFR Part 5001. The feasibility study addresses rural eligibility, job creation or retention, and the relationship between the facility and local producers where that connection exists. REAP eligibility may also apply to projects with a renewable-natural-gas or energy-efficiency component. Each program's applicability is assessed on the specific project facts.
A complete data room for a processing project includes wellhead production and quality data, gathering and processing agreements, equipment specifications or EPC proposals, three years of entity financial statements, and any existing offtake or fuel-supply contracts. LNG and CNG fueling projects add fleet fuel-consumption records and signed or letter-of-intent supply agreements. Incomplete data rooms delay delivery; the firm will identify gaps at intake so the sponsor can assemble materials efficiently.
The consultant establishes gas supply security and delivered cost, treating requirements and their effect on cost and capacity, achievable throughput net of downtime and ramp, and the contracted offtake or tolling revenue that must carry the debt. The work is economic and financial; process, cryogenic, and facilities engineering are separate disciplines whose reports are used as inputs.
The study establishes the source, whether supply is contracted or merchant, the delivered cost including transport and firm capacity charges, and the term of the arrangement against the loan term. Where supply is uncontracted, coverage is tested at materially higher sustained gas prices rather than at a single assumed cost, and the exposure is stated as a credit finding.
They are modeled separately because they create different exposures. A tolling arrangement removes most commodity price risk but concentrates counterparty risk; a sale-and-purchase structure exposes the project to the spread between gas cost and product price; merchant sales carry both. The study models what the executed agreements create rather than a blended revenue line.
No. Throughput is modeled at achievable utilization net of planned maintenance, unplanned downtime, ambient derating where applicable, and the ramp period between mechanical completion and stable commercial operation. That ramp is modeled explicitly, because debt service commonly begins before a plant reaches design output.
No. Wert-Berater does not perform process, cryogenic, mechanical, or facilities engineering, and does not prepare or verify FEED packages or train design. Engineering studies, capacity analyses, and capital estimates from qualified firms are treated as inputs and tested for consistency against the construction schedule and financing plan.
Demand is built from the specific fleets expected to convert, the vehicle counts committed, and the fuel volume each represents, rather than from regional fuel consumption. The customer's own conversion payback is examined directly, since it depends on the diesel-to-gas differential. Only volume supported by signed fuel supply agreements is carried in the base case.
Carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen, water, and heavier hydrocarbons each require removal to specification, so treating cost, shrinkage, and fuel consumption are modeled explicitly rather than folded into a single efficiency factor. Where the inlet stream is richer or more contaminated than the design case, the study reports the effect on both operating cost and effective capacity.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.