Technip Energies meets Q3 result expectations despite Russian-exit

(Reuters) - France's Technip Energies on Thursday reported a lower but still slightly better-than-expected third-quarter revenue, supported by project deliveries and growth in order backlog despite Russian-exit headwinds.

The energy infrastructure company posted adjusted revenue of 1.57 billion euros ($1.66 billion), down 1.67% from last year, against a company-provided poll of 1.547 billion euros and an LSEG consensus of 1.56 billion euros.

Adjusted revenue for the first nine months of the year fell by nearly a quarter compared with 2022, hurt by a "significantly lower revenue contribution from LNG projects in Russia" as the company "ceased all activities" in the country, including the Arctic LNG2 project, from which the exit was completed this year, the company said.

Technip Energies reiterated its statement saying it had always respected international sanctions, after the French newspaper Le Monde said mid-October the company had failed to do so by continuing to supply equipment to the Arctic LNG 2 project between August and October 2022.

The report sent shares down as much as 22% that day.

The engineering and technology company, which provides services to the energy industry, posted a nine-month backlog of 18.03 billion euros, up 33% from last year, and a jump of around 250% in adjusted order intake at 9.51 billion euros.

Nevertheless, its adjusted order intake missed consensus estimates. Technip reported a 548 million euros result in this division, while analysts polled by the company expected 908 million euros.

This quarter, orders included a contract with a hydrogen production unit for BP's Kwinana biorefinery in Australia and two engineering and construction management contracts in Portugal for Galp.

The oil and gas provider retained its 2023 guidance, which was upgraded in July, forecasting an EBIT margin between 7.0% and 7.5% and revenue between 5.7 and 6.2 billion euros.

($1 = 0.9437 euros)

(This story has been corrected to say energy infrastructure company, not oil and gas company, in paragraph 2)

(Reporting by Gaëlle Sheehan; Editing by Kim Coghill and Varun H K)