Financing will play a central role in determining how quickly tank storage infrastructure can adapt to the energy transition, according to Francis Fookes, Client Manager, Logistics at DNB, who was speaking onstage at StocExpo 2026.
Recent deal activity suggests there is still strong appetite from lenders. The ports and terminals sector saw 21 financings completed in 2025, including major deals such as a $750 million refinancing for Port Liberty in New York and a €1.2 billion transaction for PD Ports. While several deals were ultimately scaled back, the market response was encouraging. “There was big appetite from banks,” Fookes notes.
The sector continues to attract institutional capital because of its stable, infrastructure-style returns. “There is strong institutional appetite for assets which provide predictable, long-term returns,” Fookes says.
Valuations vary significantly depending on the quality and positioning of the assets. “EV multiples typically range from eight or nine times EBITDA for smaller terminals to the high teens for larger groups,” he says. Several factors drive these valuations, including location, asset quality, product mix and portfolio size. Older tanks, for example, can reduce valuations, while exposure to fossil fuels may also affect investor perception.
The pace of the energy transition will be another major influence on financing needs. “It is progressing, but slower than anticipated four or five years ago, when we saw many MOUs in this space,” Fookes says. “But tank storage is well placed to match the pace of the transition, with many groups having the possibility to convert tanks over time.”
Several new opportunities are beginning to emerge, including hydrogen, ammonia, CO₂ storage, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), biofuels and LNG. Financing these projects will typically follow two main approaches.
The first is corporate financing. “Corporate financing is usually used for companies with multiple terminals looking to convert tanks or develop pilot projects,” Fookes says. “It is easier and highly flexible.”
The second is project financing, which is better suited to large investments or greenfield developments. “Project financing is less flexible but provides higher debt capacity and ringfences risks,” he adds.
Despite the opportunities, lenders remain highly focused on risk. Market and recontracting risks, construction challenges and evolving technologies all need to be considered. However, one factor stands above the rest. “Safety should be at the top of the list – any issues will cause huge problems with banks,” Fookes says.
Looking back at previous transitions provides some perspective. LNG projects once faced similar challenges. “LNG used to be an unfamiliar technology with little to no spot market and very high capital risk,” Fookes explains. Early projects relied heavily on equity from large groups or corporate financings from diversified companies.
As the LNG market matured, financing structures evolved to include non-recourse project financing, multi-tranche bank debt and partial guarantees. Today, LNG is a well-established technology supported by flexible financing models.
For Fookes, the comparison is instructive. The energy transition may take longer than originally expected, but the financial structures needed to support it are already taking shape.
