This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk02: Greetings and welcome to the Dorian LPG second quarter 2022 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. Additionally, a live audio webcast of today's conference call is available on Dorian LPG's website, which is www.dorianlpg.com. I would now like to turn the conference over to Ted Young, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you, Mr. Young. Please go ahead.
spk01: Thank you, Daryl, and good morning, everyone. Thank you all for joining us for our second quarter 2022 results conference call. With me today are John Hajbateris, Chairman, President, and CEO of Dorian LPG Limited, John LaCouris, Chief Executive Officer of Dorian LPG USA, and Tim Hanson, Chief Commercial Officer. As a reminder, this conference call webcast and a replay of this call will be available through November 10, 2021. Many of our remarks today contain forward-looking statements based on current expectations. These statements may often be identified with words such as expect, anticipate, believe or similar indications of future expectations. Although we believe that such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot assure you that any forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. These forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, as well as general economic conditions. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions or estimates prove to be incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those we expressed today. Additionally, let me refer you to our unaudited results for the period ended September 30, 2021, that were filed this morning on Form 10-Q. In addition, please refer to our previous filings on Form 10K, where you'll find risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those forward-looking statements. Finally, for our discussion this morning of our second quarter results, you may also find it useful to refer to the Investor Highlights slides posted this morning on our website, both under the Recent News section on the homepage and under the News and Media tab, which can also be located on our homepage, www.dorianlpg.com. With that, I'll turn over the call to John Hadjibateris.
spk09: Okay. Good morning or good afternoon, as the case may be. Ted, John, and I are speaking from Stanford, and Tim Hansen is calling in from Copenhagen. Thank you for joining us to discuss our second quarter 2022 financial and operating results. We now have 62% of our seafarers fully vaccinated. 27% or 236 out of 889 were vaccinated at U.S. ports. The pandemic has brought our teams closer in coordinating efficient and safe crew changes and is also enabling us to engage and integrate our seafarers into our processes of fuel and emission savings. Our seafarers will be our most valuable partners in the continuing effort to decarbonize. Our fleet performance and technical teams are assessing emission-saving devices which potentially will reduce consumptions of our ECHO fleet. Since January 2020, our efforts to reduce emissions have resulted in fuel savings of over $2.5 million. We were able to achieve solid market rates this quarter by optimizing our positioning and timing. Top-mile demand increased, but bunker prices have also risen alongside crude oil prices. The Baltic Index averaged about $42 for the period July 1st to September 30th, down roughly $10 from the previous three-month average. At $51.60, the Baltic averaged for the quarter July to September. The TC equivalent was about $8000 higher than it yesterday's $56 fault. North American exports continue to rebuild after reaching low levels last fall due to COVID delays. Middle East exports are also recovering from their four week moving average. As it is past 700,000 last week. Actually 750,000 in mid October. It was 700,000 at the last week of September, and that's the highest export number from the region since last February. The arbitrage between Mount Bellevue and the Far East index price for LPG has widened in recent weeks. The Baltic VLGC index is trading at about 56 currently, up from 45 at the end of September and 37 in mid-September. We have a constructive view of the winter market. On the supply side of the market, US NGL production is resilient, despite the short-term impacts from hurricanes in late August and early September. We expect exports from both the US and the Middle East to increase in the winter months as OPEC Plus continue to implement production cut reversals and as winter demand returns. With new building deliveries limited to seven between November and February and canal congestion increasing, the vessel supply-demand balance looks favorable. Given the 100-plus differential between HSFO and LSFO, our 12 scrubber vessels continue to justify our investment. The HFO to LSFO spread has maintained a quarterly average spread above $100 per ton for all of 2021, which is nearly double the average spread we saw in the second half of 2020 when it was $54 a ton. We took the opportunity to optimize our fleet by selling the Captain Marcos NL for a firm price. Given the demand for vessels of this type and a desire to improve our debt costs, we have exercised a repurchase option on our other two captains, which has the dual benefit of paying off our most expensive debt and giving us full flexibility with respect to these vessels. The decision to free up to these ships is not in any way a deviation from our capital allocation focus on returning capital to shareholders where possible. We'll now pass over the line to Tim to further brief you on our commercial results.
spk07: Thank you, John. The third quarter of 21 continues many of the trends that we saw in the previous quarter. North American L&T has often demonstrated robustness Asian import demand grew, and crude oil prices continued to climb, with the average Brent crude oil price at about $73.50 per barrel. In Q3 of 21, global seabourn LPG was marginally up compared to Q2 in 21, and about 750,000 tons above the same period in 2020. The North American exports were slightly down in the third quarter compared to second quarter, But the increase in Middle East volumes exceeded the lower export figures from North America. North American exports were hampered by the production difficulties emerging after Hurricane Ida when oil production was shut down at the end of August. Aside from the storm-related decline in production, North American NGL production, and thereby the LPG export, reflected the levels seen in the quarter prior to. The increasing export volumes from the Middle East come on the back of the reversal of production cuts agreed by the OPEC-plus countries commencing from August. This is not to say all exporting nations from the Middle East increased exports. Some of the increase seen from Saudi Arabia and Iran was offset by lower exports from the United Arab Emirates and from Kuwait. Import volumes into India increased by about 1 million tons compared to the second quarter. imports into China, South Korea, and Japan declined. Despite the new PDH plan commencing operations in China during the first quarter of 2021, run rates were progressively dropping during the quarter. Falling margins due to rising feedstock has been suggested as a main cause by several analysts. Power cuts and energy control measures in China have also entered has been hinted as a cause in September declines in run rates. Although this cannot currently be estimated how severe the energy control measure will be in Q421, the forecast of PDAH margins remain positive. The program to NAFTA spread reversed in Q321, with NAFTA becoming the preferred feedstock for steam crackers in Asia, providing some explanation for the declining imports to South Korea and Japan. Whereas the global C1 volumes were slightly above the prior quarter, VLTC supplied outpaced VLTC demand for the third quarter, and freight markets were down quarter on quarter. The rising bunker prices also negatively impacted the time chart equivalent earnings. The BLPG1 indication market for the Middle East to Asia averaged about 42 during the $42 per ton during the third quarter compared to about $53 per ton during the second quarter. The BSPG-3 index, which indicates the market freight for U.S. Gulf to Asia, averaged about $80.8 per ton during the third quarter compared to $87.2 per ton during the second quarter. In the east of Suez market, there was considerable vessel overhang during July. after the VFDC's capitalization on strong markets in May completed the discharge in the Far East in June and July. This overall supply of vessels coincided with the low export volume from the Middle East in June and July. Rates improved towards the end of July and thereafter remained largely stable. Although the index was under pressure, there were several cargos from Australia West Africa, and voyages to India that was concluded at premiums. The BLPG-3, which is the US Gulf to Far East Asia index, followed the downward trends to the BLPG-1 AGE Asia route. However, the BLPG-3 remained premium to the BLPG-1. It can also be noted that while the index has dropped and one picture was reported as lower $73 on the Houston cheaper route, very few fixtures was concluded at the low end. Once the bottom of the market was found, the rebound was considerable and the same week of the mentioned fixture at $73 per ton was reported, a fixture of $85 per ton was reported. The developments of the VLTC freight market during Q3 demonstrated quite starkly how important buying prices in the Far East are. Most focus was placed on rising on Bellevue prices and its negative impact on the arbitrage. However, when the Far East index rose on the back of dramatic crude oil price increases in the mid of September, the arbitrage opened quickly to facilitate swing cargoes. Panama Canal congestions dropped during August and September as new Panamax container ships were delayed from sailing to the Panama. After COVID-19 outbreaks in Shanghai and Ningbo in July, they were prevented from departing from these terminals. While this would have facilitated the Trans-Pacific VLGC trade, it reduced VLGC utilizations. The rising crude oil prices, therefore, supported VATC trade positively during Q3 of 21 by widening the arbitrage. The same price increase did, however, also rise the bunker expenditures by about 70% and thus a relatively lower TCE earnings. During Q2 of 21, the average cost per ton of very low sulfur fuel oil was about $503 per metric ton, and in Q3, it averages about $536 per ton. Despite the negative impact on earnings from the rising fungus, there are also several positives for the remainder of 2021. LPG demand has been robust during the third quarter despite its challenges, and no obvious challenges to the demand are reported. Furthermore, North American productions of LDLs remain strong and Middle East exports are forecasted to grow following the version of the OPEC Plus production cuts. Lastly, whereas Panama Canal congestion for low during the third quarter, following a significant hold-off of container vessels in the Chinese ports, as mentioned, The congestion is now increasing, adding to the utilization of the worldwide BLTC fleet. Increasing congestion in the near Panama locks adds to planning complexities and costs to the supply chain and is forecasted to continue. Facing this reality, three dual-fuel LPG Panamax beam BLTCs has been contracted on long-term time charters at attractive rates. with purchase options for delivering in 2023. This is from reputable tonnage providers, and it was ordered at Prime South Korean Shipyard. At time of writing, current waiting time for the northbound transit for the new Panama Canal is 13 days, whereas for the old canal, it is three days. Quicker transit not only improved planning for customers, but they also bring down costs and increase the feasibility of using LPG as a propulsion fuel for these ships as long ballasts as we are capable, good hope, can be avoided. With this, I will pass on to Ted.
spk01: Thank you, Tim. My comments today will focus on our financial position and liquidity and, of course, our unaudited second quarter results. Since our last report, we've exercised our repurchase options on the Captain John and the Captain Nicholas. We expect the John to close on or about December 1st, and we'll pay about $15.9 million, including accrued interest in cash on or about that date. We expect the Nicholas to be delivered back to us in late January 2022, and we anticipate a cash payment then of approximately $17.8 million. In addition to paying off our highest cost debt, 6%, The repayment of this debt enhances our flexibility to consider asset sales even more opportunistically, as we've seen firm pricing for vessels of this vintage. We will continue to evaluate fleet optimization opportunities as they present themselves. On September 30, 2021, we had 98.1 million of free cash, and as of yesterday, our free cash balance stood roughly unchanged at 92.3 million. I'd point out that even pro forma for the two repurchases and an $8 million payment on our Kawasaki new build that is forthcoming, we retain a healthy cash balance. In addition, we do continue to consider several financing alternatives that would allow us to free up equity in our vessels without significantly changing our cash costs per day. With a debt balance of $576.2 million at quarter end, our debt to total book capitalization stood at about 38.8%. As a reminder, We have no refinancing until 2025, ample free cash as well as an undrawn revolver. On that basis, we expect our operating cash cost per day for the coming year to be approximately $22,000 per day, which excludes the $8 million progress payment that I mentioned for our new building that's due in our fiscal fourth quarter. That is the quarter ending March 31, 2022. Before turning to our results, again, I'd remind you that the investor slides are available on our website, either under Recent News or on the News and Media page, and they may be useful as we walk through some of the results. For the second quarter, we achieved a total utilization of 95.7% for the quarter with a daily TCE, that's Time Charter Equivalent Revenue Over Operating Days, as we define those terms in our filings, of $30,996. yielding a utilization-adjusted TCE per day, i.e., TCE revenue per available day, of about $29,647. Spot TCE per available day, which reflects our portion of the net profits of the Helios pool for the quarter, was about $29,810. In addition, looking at the Helios pool as an entity, It reported a spot TC, including COAs, of approximately 29,349 per available day. And Helios overall, including its time-chartered vessels, reported a result of 30,408. So the better pool results overall were a function of the attractively executed time chargers in the Helios pool. Our daily objects for the quarter came to 9,184, excluding amounts expensed for dry dockings. It was $9,210, including those costs. Those levels represent a significant improvement over last quarter. We're pleased to see a reduction in our running costs, which sequentially has been most notable in the areas of crewing and spares and stores. Within the quarter, we saw our daily OPEX, again, excluding those dry docking-related amounts, generally decreasing sequentially, which is consistent with our expectation of improved OPEX as conditions slowly normalize. Our time charter in cost for the quarter was $2.4 million after we re-delivered the Astimos Earth during the first quarter. However, we did take delivery of the Astimos Venus during October. On a full quarter basis, which will be for the quarter beginning January 1, 2022, our TCN expense will increase to approximately $5.4 million. Our total general administrative cost for the quarter was $9.4 million. And cash G&A, excluding G&A, or cash G&A, which we define as G&A excluding non-cash compensation expense, was about $8.1 million. Of that $8.1 million, roughly $2.4 million reflected bonuses to named executive officers and several other members of management. Excluding this amount, cash G&A was $5.6 million, which was down about $200,000 from the previous quarter. Again, a positive development. Our reported adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $37.9 million, which included the $3.5 million gain on sale of the Captain Marcos. Excluding that gain, the adjusted EBITDA was $34.4 million. As you know, we look at cash interest expense on our debt as the sum of two line items on our P&L, interest expense excluding deferred financing fees and other loan expenses, and realized gain loss on interest rate swap derivatives. On that basis, total cash interest expense for the quarter was $5.5 million, down about $150,000 from the prior quarter. We amortized roughly $1.4 million per year on each of the Captain John and Captain Nicholas. So that's $2.8 million per year together. In addition, if you look at the sum of the cash principal and interest for those two vessels for the period, the 12 months into September 30, 2021, That amounts to about $4.9 million, which is roughly $600 per fleet day. So the repurchase of these two vessels will have a meaningful impact on our future cost structure. We continue to benefit from our hedging policy and the favorable pricing of our Japanese financings, leaving us with a current interest cost fixed hedge and a small floating piece of 3.67%. We currently have one vessel in dry dock and we anticipate a total cost of about a million dollars for the completion of her services. Although we currently hold roughly an 80% economic interest in Helios, we do not consolidate its P&L or balance sheet accounts, which has the effect of understating our cash and working capital somewhat. Thus, we believe it's useful to give you some additional insight in order to provide a more complete picture. As of Monday, November 1st, the pool had roughly $21 million of cash on hand. Following the return of over $150 million in shareholder capital through the self-tender and dividend, we elected to deploy some cash to debt reduction, but really with a view to fleet optimization, not due to any concern with our leverage position. We still have $27.5 million remaining under our current repurchase authorization. In addition, The three Panamax TCNs with purchase options are similarly a reflection of our capital allocation philosophy. By taking advantage of our counterparty's cheaper cost of capital, we were able to conclude three transactions that were both strategic and met our risk return requirements. We will always be prudent in deploying cash, but our financial position does allow us to act quickly on meaningful opportunities as they may arise, including further opportunities to return cash to shareholders. With that, I'll turn over the call to John LaCouris.
spk08: Thank you, Ted. This past quarter is the first one during which all 12 scrubber vessels of Dorian LPG fleet were in operation, and they have produced significant savings in fuel costs while producing emissions measurably below those vessels burning compliant fuels. While visiting one of the scrubber-equipped vessels at Freeport, Texas, during loading operations a couple of weeks ago, the gas analyzer of the hybrid scrubber system, which was in operation in port at the time, was recording SOX emission of 0.04 sulfur, more than 50% lower than the compliant fuel supplied in the market, which is 0.1 sulfur content. The emission advantages of the scrubbers are not limited to SOX emissions. They also reduce by about 90% carbon and particulate matter emissions that are normally produced by diesel engines and which are harmful to life and the environment. We continue to average above $105 a ton of fuel for the 2021 calendar year, being the differential between high sulfur fuel oil and low sulfur fuel oil. For the last quarter, this differential price spread has produced savings advantage of about $3,000 per calendar day for scrubber-fitted vessels. These results validate our original expectations on the payback period, having returned about 40% of the capex as of September 30, 2021, notwithstanding events of the oil market's collapse during the calendar 2020 and that of COVID-19. We are continuing to invest in our vessels' performance and energy efficiency to reduce emissions and lower operating costs. The main measures currently being considered for our vessels are route optimization and data monitoring software, including data collection and devices on board, energy saving devices installed on our ships that can improve hull performance and reduction of power requirements. by capturing and redirecting energy dissipation towards vessel performance and emission improvements, with the focus being on doing a better job with the energy we consume. We are currently implementing marine technologies that already exist, which can provide immediate results while buying time until technological innovation and advances mature and become commercially available in the coming years. An improved environmental footprint is very important to Dorian LPG, and following on our scrubber experience, we would be interested to explore marine applications for carbon capture and storage on board our vessels. This technology has been available to the industry, and we now expect it will become viable for marine application within the next few years and provide an effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The International Monetary The International Marine Organization, MEPC 76, and MEPC 77 committees will most likely dictate that the available options for the marine sector will be engine power limitations, energy efficiency technologies, and alternative fuels, potentially also carbon capture for the longer term. Our view is that these considerations will accelerate the focus on energy efficiency and will likely force owners to make hard decisions about the cost of investing and the upgrades of older tonnage to compete in the main trades. We think it is likely that several owners may conclude that it is more economical to scrap older tonnage, particularly those several generations older with a burden of high fuel consumption and smaller cubic capacity and less modern engines. For vessels that are newer, we believe that investments will be imperative, and therefore the best capitalized players with access to reasonably priced capital will be best positioned to make the necessary investments and achieve their requisite returns. Our decision to invest in scrubbers was possible because of our financial strength and has helped us generate very solid results. which gives us confidence as we look forward and evaluate the next wave in marine technology advancements. At Dorian, we consider that it is our clear goal to continue improving our greenhouse gas footprint, eventually reaching a zero emissions target. And we are optimistic that our fleet will be among the best positioned to meet the demands of charters, regulators, and shareholders. And now I will pass it over to John, how'd you get there?
spk09: Thank you very much, and we're happy to take questions from anyone who cares to give us any questions.
spk02: With the prepared remarks completed, we will now open the line for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment, please, while we poll for your questions. Our first questions come from the line of Omar Naqta with Clarkson Security. Please proceed with your questions.
spk06: Hi. Thank you. Hey, guys. Hey, Omar. Hey. Hey, John. Thanks for the discussion. Lots of good stuff. to talk about. I did want to ask, you know, about the new buildings. Obviously, you've been a bit more maybe expansive of late. And it's interesting, the time charter in approach, which is nice. You don't have to put up capital, basically. You know, these three latest additions, you know, they come after the new building that you have on order from earlier this year. That's financed via the lease or the capital lease Can you maybe just go over the difference in how both of these deals came together or came about? And can perhaps we think about growth from here, not necessarily that there has to be growth, but in general, as you think about expanding the fleet, is it really the lease charter in type of approach that you want to continue to do going forward?
spk09: Yeah, Omar, it's not, I wouldn't say that we've made a conscious decision to go one way or the other. The new building that we concluded in Japan actually came together after a very long discussion we'd had with the shipyard and with potential counterparties there. And she's on a favorable finance arrangement. So that was one thing. But our reluctance to do anything more than that should be viewed as a conservative approach to the new building market. And the charter-in, I think the feature there was opportunistic. I mean, we saw well-priced time charters with the option to buy, and it really felt that we were in the We could take advantage of that opportunity. The timing is good. And the feature of the ships that distinguishes all three of those is that they are Panamax. In other words, that they can transit the old Panama Canal, and we feel quite strongly that that is a big differentiator going forward.
spk06: Okay. Yeah, thanks, John. And just wanted to double check, you know, just so we understand the trend, or I can understand the transaction a bit. The initial new building, the Japanese one, that's a, you know, lease. These three are charter ends, and it's a purchase option, right, along the way. There's no purchase obligation, as I understand it? Correct. Correct. Okay. And then just one follow-up. I did want to ask just, you know, clearly the performance during the quarter. at least from my perspective, was quite firm and stronger than anticipated. Quarter over quarter, you realized rate was very little different from the prior quarter. However, the spot market, at least from what we were seeing quoted, had come off quite a bit. I want to say averages were maybe a TCE of call it 33,000 last quarter. Then this last one, it was 25. And so you had a pretty big difference in prevailing averages, but your average stayed the same. Any color you can give as to how your performance, I guess you could say outperformed relative to what we think the market did?
spk09: I should punt that because it's a difficult question. But maybe I shouldn't punt it because it's a difficult question. No, I think it's, you know, we have never actually been very focused on quarter to quarter. I think it's very difficult. You know, you have the quarters are short and voyages are long. and they carry from one end to the other. So I don't take great pride in overperforming in one quarter, or I don't get terribly nervous about underperforming in another quarter. So time charter outs are a stable element in the equation, but the sport market performance changes it's better to look at it on a rolling average of more than one quarter. That would include several quarters to get a real indication of a trend, I think.
spk06: Thanks for that. Yeah, I understand. But, you know, notable at least that the performance was a bit better than anticipated. I'll leave it at that. Thanks, guys.
spk01: Thanks, Lamar.
spk06: Thank you.
spk02: Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Brian Reynolds with UBS. Please proceed with your questions.
spk04: Hi. Good morning, everyone.
spk03: Maybe just to follow up on the time for our announcement with the purchase option. I'm kind of just curious if you can talk about maybe the thought process around the duration of the announcement. It seems like there's still some hesitancy to fully invest in LPG dual propulsion, just given that emerging technologies might occur, as talked about in the prepared remarks. Just kind of curious if you can talk a little bit more about those emerging technologies and how we should think about the tenure of the purchase options and whether we should see more CapEx spend on emerging technologies, whether it's five to seven years down the road. Thanks.
spk09: I've got just a man to answer that for you. But in respect of... choosing to do these ships with the dual fuel, it wasn't our choice. The owners made that choice. We chartered them in. The incremental cost to us was nothing, and the cost to the owner for having that feature is very small. I don't know if you can order a ship now, an LPG ship with a without a dual fuel feature. So it's a whole different discussion to the retrofit discussion, where the numbers are still very considerable. But in terms of new technology and all this, John has been spending a lot of time on it, and I'm sure I think it will be useful to everybody to hear a kind of review.
spk08: Yeah, Brian, we have to consider a number of new technologies. Dual fuel is a good way to go forward, but also the ships that exist need to improve their performance, and we have to look at a number of opportunities and new developments that are coming to the marine sector. First of all, we need to know exactly where the regulation will land and how it will land and what demands are going to be made out of the marine sector. As you may know, the EU has different requirements than the IMO. And now we have COP26, which is they're talking about other things. So things have not landed yet precisely. And once we know what we need to do, we will make the decisions along the way The CAPEX needs to be within reasonable levels so we could at least be able to improve all our fleet vessels. It goes without saying. So I don't know if you have anything in particular you want to ask, but happy to follow up later.
spk03: I guess maybe as a quick follow-up on IMO and COP26, just kind of curious how we should think about what you guys are specifically looking at in terms of carbon emission targets that would trigger an investment one way or the other.
spk08: Brian, the main point is that we need to reduce our emissions, our CO2 emissions, but also our NOx emissions and our SOx emissions. So we've done that with scrubbers. Scrubbers can be changed and retrofitted in such a way to reduce additional amounts of NOx and CO2. So that's a clear way forward for us. We cannot go to zero from now. We have to start in steps to improve our emissions and You have to do it in an effective way. So that's the way we're thinking about it.
spk04: Great. I appreciate all the cover, and that's all I have for me today. Thanks. Sure. You're welcome. Thanks, Brian.
spk02: Thank you. As a reminder, if you have a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. Our next questions come from the line of Sean Morgan with Evercore ISI. Please proceed with your question.
spk05: Hey, guys. So, you know, you kind of closed out the remarks and the fair remarks Sean was talking a lot about, you know, upcoming regulations regarding carbon emissions. And to me, it sort of rhymed a little bit with a lot of what we were hearing just a few years ago on IMO 2020. And kind of looking back at that now, there's a lot of excitement going to IMO 2020 about, you know, things such as were discussed on the call with capital restrictions for smaller operators and more levered operators, and then some differentiation, and it wasn't just for the LPG sector, but across shipping where stronger operators would benefit. With the benefit of hindsight now in IMO 2020, I don't think that it really panned out to the level that it was kind of trumpeted prior to the implementation. As we kind of look forward to COP26 and carbon emissions and some of these similar themes that we heard just a few years ago, what makes this different than sort of the last regulatory capital expenditure cycle that we saw at the beginning of 2020?
spk08: Well, the writing is on the wall, Sean. I mean, one has to think about ways to reduce efficiency. Whether it's going to be this way or the other way, we have to be prepared. We have to look at the technologies and new ways of improving our performance and our emissions. We have a focus on anything that is available. We have looked at fuel cells. We have looked at batteries. We are looking at carbon capture. We're looking at modifying our scrubbers. There's a number of things on the table that, you know, I don't think there is a golden, you know, a silver bullet here. It is a combination of a number of things that ships will have to do and implement to be able to improve their performance in respect to their missions, and that's that.
spk05: Mm-hmm. Yeah, so I mean, I guess from the perspective of the operators like yourself, I mean, there's definitely something you have to really focus on and it's something that could go wrong. But from the perspective of shareholders, is there like an upside, I guess, golden scenario that they can kind of look for, kind of similar to what was promised with IMO 2020? Or is it just you guys are talking about it because it's an important operational decision that you kind of have to get right?
spk08: I think it's the latter. It's an important decision that we have to make. It's an environmental decision. We are all committed to do the best we can for it.
spk09: Yeah, but also I want to add that I consider all this to be an investment opportunity. I mean, we're looking at that as an opportunity, not only as an obligation. So Some of our competitors have invested in battery units and other things. We are invested internally, mostly in optimization so far. But I look at this whole environmental pressure less as a pressure on us and more as an opportunity to make a contribution and hopefully to give a better return to our shareholders as a result. And so far, the efforts to reduce emissions are resulting in fuel economies, as I said in my message. So, you know, it's the same thing, actually. Less emissions comes with less fuel consumption.
spk05: Right, and I think you said there was $2 million of savings on the fuel consumption. Is that mostly slow steaming, or is that specific technologies you're employing?
spk09: This is not from slow steaming, no, no, no. This is from optimization and better planning of hull cleanliness. It's a direct result of having better feedback of the operational conditions of the ships so that we can – decide when to clean a hull or a propeller or better weather routing services. It's really all technology-delivered savings.
spk05: Okay. Wow. So it sounds like a confluence of a lot of different factors optimizing together. All right. Thanks. That's all I have.
spk09: Thanks, Sean. Thanks, Sean.
spk02: Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to John Haja-Pateras for any closing remarks.
spk09: Thank you all very much, and I hope you have a good fall and winter, and stay safe, and see you next time.
spk02: Thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Have a great day.
Disclaimer