Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent midstream and pipeline feasibility study consultant preparing lender- and agency-facing studies for gathering systems, transmission laterals, truck and rail terminals, and tankage expansions. A midstream credit is a contract credit before it is a commodity credit, so the analysis begins with committed volume: who has signed, for how long, at what tariff, with what minimum volume commitment, and what happens to coverage when those contracts expire or a counterparty fails. Uncommitted throughput is modeled separately and never carries the base case.
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.
Midstream feasibility is throughput and contract analysis: the dedicated acreage or supply behind the gathering system, the take-or-pay and acreage-dedication terms that firm up revenue, terminal and tank-farm utilization against regional storage economics, and counterparty credit on the contracts the model depends on. Merchant exposure is separated from contracted revenue and priced accordingly.
The analysis uses pipeline and terminal capacity data, regional production and flow statistics, contract review at the term-sheet level, and capital budgets benchmarked against comparable midstream construction. Coverage is tested on contracted revenue alone before merchant upside is considered.
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 pipeline or midstream terminal engagement as a public case study, and none is claimed here. The firm's published fuel-infrastructure work sits downstream of the midstream chain — retail fuel and convenience engagements such as a convenience store and fuel study in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida — and that work is not offered here as evidence of pipeline or terminal experience. What transfers is the contract-analysis discipline the firm applies wherever revenue depends on counterparties rather than walk-in demand: committed volume read from the executed agreement rather than the term sheet, counterparty credit assessed on its own merits, and coverage tested at contract expiry. 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.
A midstream feasibility study consultant establishes whether contracted and reasonably expected throughput will service the debt across the loan term, and what the credit looks like when contracts roll. That means reading the actual transportation, gathering, processing, and storage agreements rather than a summary of them: committed volumes, primary term, tariff or fee escalation, deficiency and make-up provisions, and termination and force-majeure rights. Volume that is merely forecast is separated from volume that is contractually committed, and the two are never blended into a single revenue line.
The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform pipeline, hydraulic, mechanical, or facilities engineering, does not prepare integrity-management or corrosion programs, and does not issue route survey or right-of-way opinions. Engineering cost estimates, hydraulic capacity studies, and permitting analyses prepared by qualified firms are treated as inputs and tested for internal consistency against the construction schedule and capital plan the financing assumes.
A midstream feasibility study is not a general infrastructure report. It is a contract-by-contract, barrel-by-barrel examination of whether the revenue secured by executed agreements is sufficient to service the proposed debt before any uncontracted volume is counted. The scope is built around the specific asset — gathering system, transmission line, truck terminal, or tank farm — and the commercial structure behind it.
Contracted throughput is the foundation of the base case. The study builds a contract-by-contract schedule showing each shipper or customer, committed volume, primary term and expiry date, tariff or fee, escalation mechanism, and whether the commitment is a true take-or-pay obligation or merely a stated intention to ship. Deficiency payments and make-up rights are modeled as they actually work, because a make-up right can convert a deficiency payment into a deferred revenue obligation rather than income.
The critical test is the contract-expiry profile against the amortization schedule. Where the weighted average remaining contract term is shorter than the loan term, the study identifies the year in which contracted revenue begins to fall away and reports coverage on renewal assumptions that are stated and defended rather than assumed at one hundred percent. Uncommitted or interruptible volume is modeled as a separate upside layer, shown alongside the base case but never inside it.
Rates are examined for how they are set and whether they hold. The study distinguishes negotiated commercial rates from regulated or posted tariffs, identifies the escalation mechanism and whether it tracks an index or a fixed percentage, and tests whether the rate remains competitive against alternative takeaway or transport options available to the shipper. A rate that only works while the shipper has no alternative is a different credit from one supported by a genuine cost advantage, and the study says which it is.
Counterparty credit is analyzed rather than assumed. Revenue concentration is quantified — the share of committed volume attributable to the largest one, three, and five counterparties — and the financial standing of material counterparties is assessed from available information. Where a single shipper represents a dominant share of throughput, coverage is re-tested on that counterparty's loss, because a take-or-pay contract is only as good as the entity obligated to pay under it.
Each midstream segment earns differently and is modeled on its own terms. Gathering revenue is driven by wellhead volumes behind the system and therefore inherits the decline profile of the producing properties connected to it; the study examines the dedicated acreage, the drilling activity expected on it, and the decline that will erode volumes absent new connections. Transmission economics turn on capacity utilization against firm and interruptible commitments, and on the operating cost of moving each unit.
Storage and processing are analyzed on spread and fee capture rather than volume alone. Processing economics depend on the contract structure — fee-based, percent-of-proceeds, or keep-whole — and each carries a different commodity exposure that is modeled explicitly, since a keep-whole arrangement can turn negative in a weak liquids environment. Operating cost, fuel and lost-and-unaccounted-for gas, compression, electricity, and maintenance capital are built from the operator's own history where the system is in service, and from comparable operations where it is not.
For terminal projects the analysis centers on tankage economics. The study models leased versus proprietary tank capacity, the contracted lease rate per barrel of shell capacity per month, and throughput fees earned on product movement. Tank turns are the variable most often overstated in sponsor projections: a terminal earning throughput fees depends on how frequently inventory cycles, and an assumed turn rate that exceeds what the connected logistics can physically support is tested against truck rack capacity, rail spotting capability, marine berth availability, or pipeline receipt and delivery constraints.
Ancillary revenue is examined for durability rather than accepted at face value: additive injection, blending, heating, ethanol and biodiesel handling, rail transloading, and demurrage. Each is tied to a contract or a demonstrated operating history, or it is excluded from the base case. Where the terminal serves a retail fuel network, the relationship between terminal throughput and downstream retail demand is stated explicitly so the lender can see the true source of volume.
Demand analysis for a midstream or terminal asset begins with the supply basin, not with regional consumption. The question is whether enough hydrocarbons or refined product will move through or be stored at this specific facility to sustain the contracted throughput or utilization rate over the loan term. That answer is assembled from multiple independent data streams rather than from a single market-research report.
Production and rig-activity data from state oil and gas commission filings, EIA production surveys, and publicly available well-completion records establish the upstream supply picture. Pipeline interconnection and capacity data from FERC Form 2 and 2-A filings, as well as state utility commission records, identify existing competing takeaway capacity and any queue of proposed projects. Trade association throughput statistics and terminal operator public disclosures provide regional utilization context. For refined-product terminals, commercial truck-traffic counts, rack pricing history, and distributor market-share data inform the demand side. Where a gathering system depends on a single operator's drilling program, that operator's public investor presentations and reserve reports are reviewed for consistency with the volume projections in the borrower's model. Competitive supply work maps every permitted or operating facility within the relevant service radius and assesses whether uncommitted capacity exists that could divert merchant volume away from the subject asset.
Four categories of input account for the majority of coverage-ratio movement in a midstream or terminal model. Each is tested across the full sensitivity range before a determination is issued, and the contracted-revenue floor is established before any merchant or spot assumption is introduced.
The financial model is fully linked 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 shown as separate layers so a credit officer can see exactly how much of coverage rests on volume that is legally committed today.
Sensitivity is run on the variables that decide a midstream credit: throughput volume, tariff or fee rate, contract renewal rate at expiry, loss of the largest counterparty, operating cost per unit, construction cost overrun and delay, and interest rate. Breakeven throughput is identified — the volume at which coverage falls to the lender's minimum — and expressed as a percentage of contracted commitments, which is the number most lenders want first. Engineering cost estimates and hydraulic capacity analyses prepared by qualified firms are used as inputs; this study does not replace them.
Credit officers and agency reviewers approach midstream and terminal projects with a specific set of concerns that differ from those applied to real estate or retail business lending. Understanding those concerns shapes how the feasibility study is structured and what it must demonstrate.
For SBA engagements prepared to SOP 50 10 8, the study must demonstrate 1.15x operating debt-service coverage and 1.00x global coverage on a historical or projected basis acceptable to the reviewing lender. Because many midstream assets are new construction with no operating history, the projection methodology and its assumptions carry the full evidentiary burden; the study must show how each material assumption was derived and tested. USDA Business & Industry lenders reviewing rural gathering or terminal projects under 7 CFR Part 5001 focus on community economic impact, borrower equity injection, and the environmental review conditions that must be satisfied before closing. Conventional institutional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage on contracted revenue alone and want explicit treatment of merchant exposure as upside rather than base-case support. Across all three channels, lenders raise the same core questions: How much revenue is truly contracted and for how long? Who is the counterparty and what is their credit quality? What does coverage look like if throughput falls 15 percent? The feasibility study answers each question with documented evidence, not assertion, and states any conditions precedent that must be met before the projections are achievable.
Every engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. The fee does not vary with the study's finding, and no portion is contingent on loan approval or project outcome. That structure is not incidental: because Wert-Berater's fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency rather than to the borrower, a contingent fee arrangement would be structurally incompatible with an independent determination.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For midstream and terminal projects, a complete data room includes executed or term-sheet-level contracts, acreage-dedication maps, throughput history or producer drilling schedules, capital cost budgets with contractor support, right-of-way and permit status documentation, and the borrower's own financial projections. Rush delivery is available when the lending timeline requires it. Once the engagement is underway, the financial model and draft narrative are published to a secure client portal. The model remains live: when an input changes — because a contract is revised, a capital cost is updated, or a lender requests a different interest-rate scenario — the workbook recalculates in full without requiring a new engagement. The final deliverable is a bound narrative report accompanied by the fully linked Excel model, a ten-year pro forma, sensitivity tables, interest-rate stress analysis, and an explicit statement of the conditions that must be satisfied for the projections to be achievable. No hardcoded values appear anywhere in the model, so any reviewer can verify every calculation independently.
Midstream assets sit between production and processing, and financings frequently pair them with adjacent facilities. These engagements cover the connected links in that chain.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of the initial inquiry. It does not vary with the study's conclusion and no portion is contingent on loan approval or project outcome. Because scope varies by asset complexity — a single truck terminal differs materially from a multi-county gathering system — the quote is project-specific. Contact the firm with a brief project description to receive a fixed-fee quote.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For midstream and terminal projects, completeness means executed or term-sheet-level throughput contracts, acreage-dedication or supply documentation, capital budgets with contractor support, and permit status records. Rush delivery is available when a lender's commitment timeline requires it. Incomplete data rooms are the most common cause of delay.
The core difficulty is that revenue depends on contracts with third-party producers or shippers whose own drilling or distribution decisions are outside the borrower's control. A take-or-pay agreement firms up the floor, but counterparty credit quality, contract tenor relative to loan maturity, and the risk of upstream production decline all require explicit analysis. Merchant or spot revenue cannot be treated as base-case support without a documented competitive-supply rationale.
Wert-Berater prepares SBA engagements to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. The study is structured to meet the standard a reviewing lender and the SBA must apply. No firm can guarantee agency acceptance of any document, and Wert-Berater does not represent that any agency has endorsed or pre-approved its methodology.
USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 Business & Industry guarantees are available for qualifying rural energy and processing assets. Eligibility depends on project location, borrower structure, and the specific use of proceeds. Wert-Berater prepares USDA B&I feasibility studies to the 7 CFR Part 5001 standard, with explicit treatment of community economic impact and the environmental and regulatory conditions precedent that the program requires.
A complete data room for a midstream or terminal engagement typically includes executed contracts or term sheets with throughput or storage commitments, acreage-dedication maps or producer drilling schedules, capital cost budgets with contractor or engineer support, right-of-way and environmental permit status documentation, and the borrower's own financial projections. The firm reviews the data room on receipt and identifies any gaps before the engagement clock starts.
The consultant reads the executed transportation, gathering, processing, and storage agreements and rebuilds revenue from committed volume, tariff and escalation, deficiency and make-up provisions, and contract expiry. Operating cost, counterparty credit, and construction capital are then tested against debt-service coverage. The work is economic and financial; pipeline, hydraulic, and facilities engineering are separate disciplines used as inputs.
They are modeled from the executed agreement, not the term sheet. The study schedules each contract by committed volume, primary term, expiry date, rate and escalation, and tests whether a deficiency payment is genuinely earned or subject to a make-up right that defers it. Volume that is forecast but not contractually committed is modeled as a separate upside layer outside the base case.
The study identifies the year contracted revenue begins to fall away and reports coverage on renewal assumptions that are stated and defended rather than assumed at one hundred percent. Where the weighted average remaining contract term is materially shorter than the loan term, that mismatch is reported as a structural finding so the lender can shorten the term, resize the facility, or require a cash sweep.
Committed volume is attributed to the largest one, three, and five counterparties, and coverage is re-tested on the loss of the largest. The financial standing of material counterparties is assessed from available information, because a take-or-pay contract is only as strong as the entity obligated to pay under it. Concentration is reported as a stated credit risk rather than absorbed into an average.
Assumed turn rates are tested against the physical logistics that must support them: truck rack capacity, rail spotting capability, marine berth availability, and pipeline receipt and delivery constraints. Where the projected turn rate exceeds what connected infrastructure can handle, throughput is modeled at the constraint and the difference is reported.
No. Wert-Berater does not perform pipeline, hydraulic, mechanical, or facilities engineering, and does not prepare integrity-management programs, route surveys, or right-of-way opinions. Engineering cost estimates, capacity studies, and permitting analyses prepared by qualified firms are treated as inputs and tested for internal consistency against the capital plan and construction schedule.
Each processing structure carries a different commodity exposure, so each is modeled explicitly rather than reduced to an average fee. A fee-based contract is largely insulated from commodity price; a percent-of-proceeds contract moves with liquids value; a keep-whole arrangement can turn negative when the liquids-to-gas relationship compresses. The study shows coverage under each exposure the contract actually creates.
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.