Bw Offshore Adr

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. I am Emma, your chorus call operator. Welcome and thank you for joining the BW Offshore conference call. Throughout today's recorded presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. The presentation will be followed by a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, you may press star followed by one on your touch-tone telephone. Press the star key followed by zero for operator assistance. I would now like to turn the conference over to Marco Bienen, CEO. Please go ahead.

Good morning and welcome to the third quarter 2020 presentation of BW Offshore. In this call, I will give a general update and our CFO Stol Andreasen will cover the financial results. Moving to the next slide, our disclaimer, please take note. And then moving on to highlights on slide three. The third quarter was a challenging quarter from an operational perspective, with both the Juncker NAP and the Sandy Berger FPSO experiencing shutdowns, and that impacted our commercial uptime and financial results somewhat. Our EBITDA of $98 million and our operating cash flow of $82 million were therefore a bit lower than the previous quarter. but it is also further explained by a one-off settlement of $8 million that we had in Q2, and no such one-off revenues occurred in Q3. As expected, we received confirmation of a contract extension of Petroleum ATIPA until September 22. Furthermore, we reached an agreement with the New Zealand government for a fully funded stay and demobilization out of New Zealand, and this will reverse our voluntary liquidation. During the quarter, we were able to progress various standards for new projects. And last but not least, the board of BW Assure has approved a quarterly dividend as part of the annual $25 million cash dividend program. Moving to slide four with an update on COVID. As you are all well aware, the COVID-19 situation globally is not improving. and it requires proactive risk management planning and procedures to manage the operational impact. However, we are pleased that there were no new FBSO outbreaks since our quarter two reporting. However, the situation remains challenging, in particular in relation to crew logistics. It doesn't come without costs. The managing COVID costs has cost us about $4 million per month in this quarter. However, with full implementation of PCR testing protocols, as well as improvement in the flight availability in several countries, this is now reducing to about $2 million per month towards the year end and going forward. Then operational update on slide 6. on the right side you see the hse statistics with average ratios per million man hours over the last 12 months this is in accordance with the io gp definitions we're striving for zero harm and the most important metric to achieve this is the orange line with which represents the high potential incidents and that's trending uh downwards in a satisfactory way the That side of the chart shows the fleet uptime, commercial uptime, and it displays the dip that is caused by the incidents on Sandy Burger and Yunkapnab, as I just explained. Then moving to slide eight with further updates on some of the units. First of all, Catcher, our operation in the U.K., While the production was impacted by the need to remove calcium naphthenate from the produced water systems, our commercial lifetime was not impacted, as this counts as a company under production. It does, however, prevent us to capture benefits from excess production. We're working closely with our client, Premier Hall, to optimize the management of this issue and to avoid or at least reduce downtimes in connection to this. Furthermore, it's worthwhile to refer to earlier announcements made by Premier about their merger with Chrysor. and this merger creates the largest london listed independent oil and gas company and that obviously strengthens the ketchup fields operators financial position i already mentioned petroleum altipa with the contract extension and sandy burger is now backing production again since mid-october Also mentioned Umaroa, so we're very pleased with the recent agreement we made with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in New Zealand, as that will now cover all our costs till departure from New Zealand. And then Vicente, the contract was ended in quarter three, and we consider her now for redeployment or recycling Moving on to slide 8, BW Energy, our associated company doing the field development in Gabon and Brazil. We're looking forward to restart these development activities as soon as the COVID restrictions are lifted. In the meantime, the opportunities in the downturn caused by COVID has been captured through acquisition of JECA platforms rather than using new-built well-hub platforms for the hibiscus and re-development. And this is expected to reduce development costs with about $100 million, and it will also reduce time-to-first oil as well as the environmental impact of construction. The strategy of joint value creation to FBSO redeployments along for a short cycle of phase developments remains unchanged. We just have some delays due to COVID in executing those plans. The operations in Decevaux are still strong. Current production levels are around 14,000 barrels per day with an average operating cost of $19 per barrel. and to our 39 ownership um current value in bw offshore is about 11 kroner per bwo share that brings me to the fleet contract overview on slide nine What is worth noting is Petroleum Nautipa, beyond 2022, we're having discussions with our client, Valco, to enter into a new contract beyond that. Although expected to come off contract mid-2021, and we consider her as a very good candidate for the Maromba field development by BW Energy, And then ABO further down, descriptions are ongoing for further extension. This is a situation we are facing every year, and I find it quite likely that this contact will further extend beyond the end of this year. Moving to the next slide, slide 10. Our solid backlog provides long-term financial visibility. We have a total backlog of about $4.2 billion by the end of Q3. Firm backlog is about $2.6 billion, and 80% of that backlog is delivered to the three main units we have in the fleet, and that is Ketcher, Pioneer, and Adolo. Again, the ketchup partnership operated by Premier Oil is the largest customer. I mentioned the merger with Chrysor, which has significantly strengthened the balance sheet of that counterparty. With that, I give over to Stola Andreasen to run us through the financial results.

Thank you, Marco. Then we move to slide 12. And as usual, we're starting with an overview of the key financial figures for the quarter. As you can see, and as was also earlier mentioned, we achieved an EBITDA contribution from our operations of 98 million in Q3. It is a reduction of about 15% from what was achieved in the second quarter. Firstly, we did expect Q3 to come in somewhat lower than the second quarter as a result of the one million positive one-off settlements we received in the second quarter for the outstanding claims related to the former project for FBSO, P63. We had, as Marco mentioned earlier, we had some downtime on Junkalknag. The unit operating for Pemex was hit by a tanker during offloading. And this led to approximately one month shutdown of the unit. We have not been paid by Pemex for this period. And although we are disputing this, we have not recognized any revenues for the quarter. And this has impacted our EBITDA negatively. On top of this, we continue to battle with COVID. We are investing quite highly to manage COVID costs related to crew and related, which has an impact on our results for the quarter. When you look at the revenues, it's mainly reduced due to the two items I mentioned before, the settlement we have in Q2, and then the downtime we have for YK and Q3. Moving on to slide 13. As you can see, depositions were pretty much similar to previous quarter at 63 million. This overall gave us an EBIT or operating result of 35.1 million for the quarter. Net interest expenses came in at 13.2 million, which is down from 15.2 in Q2. This was as expected as we continued to amortize on our debt. and also then an additional repayment on the corporate facility in Q3, reducing our gross debt and consequently also the interest expense. We had a gain on financial instruments of 8.3 million in quarter. This came as a result of positive market to market adjustment on our FX hedges, as well as our interest rate swaps, as both U.S. dollar as a currency has strengthened against NOC, and also as we see U.S. dollar swap rates have increased quarter on quarter. Other financial items were negative by 3.3 million, and this is predominantly due to revaluation of our Nordic high yield bond law, which is denominated in NOC. And as we see, the Norwegian kroner has strengthened against the U.S. dollar and quarter. We will have to take a market loss on that. And note, any negative effects from valuation or revaluation of the Nordic high-end bond will have a positive effect on financial instruments as the loan is fully hedged. But for presentation purposes, we have to show this on two separate lines. We recorded a loss from equity account investments of 4.7 million during Q3. This is coming from BWO's 38.8% net share of the results from our investment in BW Energy. Income tax expense was 7.6 million for the quarter. More or less in line with our expectations and within ordinary fluctuations, quarter on quarter. And overall, we have a net profit of $14.6 million for quarter three. Moving on to slide 14 and the cash flow overview. As you can see, we started the quarter with a total cash position of $206 million. Operating cash flow was 82 million for the quarter. This was slightly behind our target. And although we had a recently steady quarter, our cash flow was affected by the incident on YKM. And we also see that we had higher cash outflow as we've been building some working capital, buying additional spares, and building on our inventory due to higher maintenance activity on the FBSO fleet. And just worth mentioning, If you compare operating cash flow this quarter to second quarter, which was roughly 120 million, it's important to remember we did receive one of settlement from Petrobras in Q2. And another thing in Q2 was that we received back 17.5 million related to cash collateral, which we had put up in Q1 due to extreme FX movements. We saw where the U.S. dollar strengthened significantly against NOC. and this required us to put up some cash collateral on our hedging instruments. But due to the reversal of the U.S. dollar versus NOC in the second quarter, this was all received back. So it's just important to note that there was some one-off movement in Q2 that gives an artificially high variance quarter on quarter. We did spend 10 million on maintenance capex on fleet and some other investments related to some pre-feed activities we were performing, which overall gave a total free cash flow of 72 million for the quarter. We reduced our debt position quite significantly in Q3. 35 million of a total of 109 was scheduled installments on the catcher and P&A facilities. The remaining 75 million was a one-off repayment we did on the corporate facility. We had a quite large cash position at the beginning of the quarter, and we used this to trim our balance sheet by repaying on the revolver, which will reduce our interest costs going forward, but which retains our liquidity as the down payment just decreases. are available draw on the revolver. We paid $12 million in interest on our facilities. We continued to pay dividends with $6 million paid also in Q3. And we paid $8 million in relation to the preference share agreement we have for catcher. So totally, we ended the quarter with $142 million in cash. Moving on to slide number 15. And as you can see, there's no surprises when it comes to the financial position of the company, and shouldn't be, as key units in the fleet are on long-term contracts, and results are relatively steady. We did continue to reduce our net debt, which stood at 976 million by end of Q3. The leverage ratio continued to trend more or less flat. It stood at 2.1 times the last 12 months reported EBITDA for the quarter. And I want to say, although this has trended flat, we expect it to continue to trend in a downward projection as we continue to deleverage and amortize off our debt as we go. The equity ratio increased by 1.7% in the quarter to 37.5%. And although there is a positive effect from the net result this quarter, the main impact is coming from the reduction in our cash position as we repaid on corporate loan facility and effectively reducing gross debt and the balance sheet size. Moving to slide number 16. It's a well-known slide. We have shown this before. And again, we want to emphasize that with this, as you can see, we have no major debt maturities before late 2023. We have refinanced all our capital market debt late 2019, and that gives us flexibility from a balance sheet point of view. We continue to amortize on our debt, as I mentioned on the previous slide. We are amortizing approximately 120 million per annum for the next couple of years, while this will gradually increase as we get into 2023. Overall, it does give us ample time to plan our financing needs and also flexibility for any opportunities that comes around. Going to slide 17, we have basically two priorities, one being to maintain financial flexibility towards any growth opportunities, while the second one being providing predictability when it comes to returning value to our shareholders. As you've seen on the previous slide, we continue to deliver as long as we have no new projects. We have a strong liquidity. We have almost 390 million in available liquidity when you're adding together available credit lines and cash. As mentioned earlier, we continue to incur costs related to COVID. However, as Marco mentioned earlier, we do expect that we will be able to drive down the cost of this going forward, reduce it by approximately 50% as we can do our own PCR testing and as we see borders opening, which allows us to more effectively move personnel. On fleet, we see limited capex on the existing fleet. That we think will continue both for the remaining part of 2020 and also throughout 2021. Overall, we are predicting capex to be in the range of 25 million. And that includes any investment in BW opportunity. We are now come to the point where we have been able to conclude on termination for the contract for , which was this unit operating for Petrobras. The sentiment for this has been more or less final for quite some time, and we have fully provided for any payment here. As we expect now all formalities to be closed relatively shortly, we want to highlight this settlement and our planned payment of 40 million, which we have estimated to be paid in early 2021. As I said, it will not have an impact on our P&L, but it will have a liquidity impact of 40 million. And when it comes to shareholder returns, again, as mentioned before, we will continue to pay a quarterly dividend, as said. But we want to emphasize, again, when you look at year-to-date, When you add up the B2B energy shares that we dividend in kind in the first quarter this year, the shared buyback program that we executed in Q2, and dividends paid so far this year, plus plan paid now in Q4, we will have returned almost 130 million back to our shareholders in 2020. We believe this stands as a strong commitment. to return value to shareholders. So with that, I'll hand it back to Marco for strategy and outlook.

Yes, thank you, Stole. I will now provide an update on strategy and outlook. I'm moving to slide 19. We continue to capture the value from the existing fleets through the extensions on the fields where we operate and also through redeployments of units which come available, ideally with BW Energy. This segment, the redeployment is, however, a bit slow, given the low oil price environment we're currently in. We expect this will rebound when the oil price recovers. But in addition to that, we are selectively pursuing new projects with leading E&P companies. And we're currently focusing on Australia and Americas, and we're progressing well to be able to take an FIB during 2021. Moving to the next slide, which will explain a bit more about these investments. We're aimed to build new and different type of backlog, which is based on firm contracts of 15 years plus options, which excludes residual value risks. And it means we're targeting infrastructure-like projects with investment-grade counterparties. And that enables us to secure equity partners pre-construction. So for the benefit of doubt, there's no need and no intention to raise equity in the markets to be able to undertake such investments. The type of new project backlog will meet strict investment criteria, which is our 50% return on equity, which needs to be met during the firm period of the contract. That ensures access to competitive financing, We have received positive feedback so far from extensive sounding with banks and equity partners for the prospects that we're currently looking at. And we minimized project execution risk to basically replicating the success factors of the catcher PSR delivery using the same team leveraging our experienced project execution organization. and also working with known suppliers and yards using our existing relationships and experiences we also want to use the rapid framework new build rule concepts which we have developed during feeds in the past years with that i move to summary last slide slide 20 sorry slide 21 We continue to manage the COVID-19 pandemic proactively as the situation lingers, but we also expect that this will improve during 2021. Protecting our people and operations remains the priority. We continue to deliver stable EBITDA performance, and that provides strong operational cash flow as well as the required financial flexibility. We target a new FID in 2021, and we're also looking at energy transition opportunities where we can apply our offshore engineering and operations competence. With that, I would like to conclude this third quarter update, and we would be happy to take any questions.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star followed by one on their touchtone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star followed by two. If you are using speaker equipment today, please lift the handset before making your selection. Anyone who has a question may press star followed by one at this time. One moment for the first question, please. The first question comes from Frederick Lunde from Carnegie. Please go ahead.

Good morning, guys, and thanks for giving some more details on how to look at investing in new projects. I was curious on, when you mentioned taking in partners, would they come in as the sort of equal partners, fully sharing equity risk, open upside and downside in any project?

Yeah, thank you, Fredrik. I can answer this question. No, typically those partners will not take EPC risk, but will provide equity during the EPC phase.

Any sort of cost augurance or delays that would be at your risk that they would provide liquidity? Is that the way to think about it during the construction?

Yes, so we are responsible for the EPCI delivery of the project. But as I said, we're, you can say, we're kind of de-risking that because there is, of course, a profit element in such EPCI phase.

Okay, great. And then I just did some calculations here looking at the competencies listing in 2006. And on my numbers, return on exports averaged negative 3%, and I think accumulated EBITDA is about negative $500 million. So investors are obviously spooked by the prospects of new conversions that has typically increased risk historically. And then obviously the market is now difficult. There's probably no pressure on the supply chain, both suppliers and shipyards at ample capacity. So you could say risk-reward looks better. But then again, if you look at investing in your own shares, I'd calculate a cost per capital of 19%. which would have obviously much less risk as well than taking on a new conversion. I'm just curious to know to what extent you actually hold up investing or evaluate investing in more biobanks versus a new project. Do you see it as totally different investment positions or do you see them as sort of equal opportunities?

Well, I think, as Stol explained, we need to strike a balance here. And we do see a very good window of opportunity for, in the coming years, a couple of projects, but hopefully at least one in 2021, where we can make new investments with better returns than what you explained we have had in the past. And the main reason for that is that we... are now at a time where also strong counterparties, major oil companies, are finding lease FPSOs for long-term contracts, 15 years and beyond, interesting. And that was typically not the case in the past, where the lease and operate model, we were kind of forced to take residual value and residual risk. So... And that window is now, so both on the demand side there is a window of opportunity and also in a way on the supply side there is, one can say, a constraint because most of the active competition is pretty occupied already. So we think we're in the right window to deliver the returns on investments on those new projects in this window. And then we need to be a bit careful with how much money or how much of our capital we allocate to share buyback or cash dividend. We are, however, committed to sustain the dividend levels that we have today in any case. And we also feel that in 2020, we actually have, as Stol also showed, delivered to the promise to return to shareholders. But it is a balance, and I think that your topics are absolutely valid, and we will continuously monitor and strike that balance. But as we think there will be some investments coming, I think we have to be a bit careful with how much we promote and how much capital we allocate to immediate returns.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

For any further questions at this time, please press star followed by one on your telephone. At this time, it appears there are no further telephone questions. I hand over to the speakers for any questions from the webcast.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, we have some questions that come in via the web. First question here is from Magnus Olsvik from Kepler-Civroq. On COVID costs, are you able to pass some of that over to the client, or do we cover all the costs ourselves? Marco, that's probably a question for you to answer.

Yeah, Jens, it's relatively simple. We can only recover when we have reimbursable contracts. On the contracts where we have fixed operating and maintenance costs, we're of course trying to push this back on our clients, considering COVID is quite an exceptional circumstance. But I'm sure you realize that the clients are also putting a lot of pressure on us to kind of reduce our rates in view of the low oil price they're facing and putting their revenues under pressure. So this is a bit of an arm-twisting bold ways. So we cannot, of course, we cannot reduce our rates in view of low oil price, but equally that reduces the willingness of our clients to contribute to COVID costs. It is important that we protect our revenues, as we have been doing, as you can have seen. And at least now we're seeing that, you know, to a large extent, the costs were driven by the quarantine periods and not being able to move people out of country. So basically having two crews in country, that improves now. And that's why we're also guiding towards a lower level of cost, kind of 50 percent of what we have had so far by year end and going forward.

Okay, thank you, Marco. Next question is from Nick Linné from Second Place. The question is, will you recover any of your year-to-date costs on the Jumeirah prior to the November agreement date, or this agreement only cover costs going forward? Do you want me to take it, or? Yeah, you can take this one. Yeah, yeah. I think it's fairly straightforward. The contract is mainly a contract, a forward-looking contract. So there is limited cost that will be covered for prior clearance. There is an element of a small success fee when you meet the criteria for demobilization if everything goes according to plan that we're able to get the unit of of field by mid-2021. But primarily, it's a looking forward agreement. Next question is from Espen Erdahl. In regards to the low price book, pricing in stock market, why invest in new projects versus bigger share buyback programs? I think, Marco, you have already responded to this one. The answer would be the same as you gave to Carnegie on this, unless you want to add anything on this.

No, no, I think it's the same question. It's a valid question, and I think I've answered that.

Yeah. Next question from the same person. This was, why did we not inform the market regarding the incident for Senneberg and Jumforsnab? Well, maybe you can fill in, but in short, we did inform the market about the incident on Zürich. That should be a well-known event. We also informed the market that there will be downtime as a result of it. And also the incident for YKN was highlighted in previous quarter's presentation. I think you can say with regard to the magnitude of this incident, We did not see this as incidents which would require us to send out separate press releases. And in particular, we consider this to be one-offs and not incidents which would have a lasting impact on our results. Okay, next question from Magnus Olsvik again. Offshore energy opportunities was mentioned in the presentation. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Will you enter new business areas outside the SPSO business? I think that question is for you, Marco.

Yeah, I can elaborate a bit. I think the offshore energy transition is a fact. And we see particular opportunities arising on the back of the growth in electrification. So I think it's logical to consider what our opportunities are in that space. And that could, of course, be, you know, from gas FPSOs contributing to power generation. It could also be renewable power generation, for instance. On the long run, I see also opportunities with clean fuels for offshore hydrogen productions, but that's further out. But so we're considering where we can capture those opportunities. And logically, you will do that with partners. And then that means with the right partners, you can also enter other business segments. A bit similar as we've done with BW Energy, where we basically use our global platform that we have as BW Offshore with operations in 10 different countries. 30 to 40 years project execution experience, offshore construction experience, operation and maintenance experience. If you put all that competence together, you can reapply that into new business models and new business segments, like we did with BW Energy, where we partnered with a small oil company entity and integrated that with BW Offshore and then you create a new business opportunity, new business model. I think we I see opportunities to do similar things in the future in the energy transition space.

Thank you, Marco. Next question. That comes from Herman Lea in SEB. Can you please provide some insights into potential financial impact of the incident on Catcher in Q4? And should we think about the operation performance on Catcher in light of the issues in recent quarters? Do you want to Do you want to elaborate on that? I think there's a couple of questions which are similar, but we'll get to that.

Yeah, so I think there's a couple of questions right around Ketscher I can see, referring to the fire incident.

Apologies for the interruption. The speaker line has been dropped. We'll be dialing back in as soon as possible, and we'll come back to your question. You'll hear whole music until this begins. Thanks. Ladies and gentlemen, we apologize for the pause in the Q&A session. Please remain online. You'll be hearing music until the Q&A session resumes. Ladies and gentlemen, the speaker line has been reconnected and we will now continue with the Q&A session. Please go ahead. Mr. Bienen, your line is open. Please continue with your answer for the question.

Yes. Okay. Yes, Stola, what was the last question? Somehow I dropped out of the call, but I'm back in now.

Yeah, no, I read it. The question was related to catcher and the incident that we had in Q4. So the question was whether we could provide some more insight into the financial impact of this incident and how the market should think about operation performance on catcher in light of these issues in recent quarters. And just take it as you also mentioned, a similar question came from someone else as well on updates on catcher following this incident and whether the unit has restarted their production again.

Yeah. No, Ketsir is fully recovered. There was a small fire in the switchboard. The investigation, the root cause of the fire is still ongoing, but we have so far identified the single component failure in the switchboard as a cause. And we expect to start up very shortly. I don't think it will have a large financial impact on the financial results.

Just a follow-up. The second part of that first question was, what should we think about the cooperation and performance of Catcher in Light of having these issues? I think the question is, do we see this as... as an indication that there are ongoing issues on the unit and that this will impact the financial results from the unit also going forward?

No, I don't believe so. This was a standalone incident. Again, we're having the investigation ongoing, but there's no signs of any systematic issue or concerns about the operations going forward.

Okay, good. I'll move to, as I said, there was two or three questions which was about the same thing, so those are now covered. The next question is from Håkon Ahlmarsson from ABG. You mentioned that EBITDA was impacted by increased maintenance activity. Will this impact the cash flow in the coming quarters as well? And if so, can you quantify this? In short, we don't see that this is kind of a consistent higher cost level. We don't think we will see this as a consistent impact on the cash flow going forward. naturally you will always have some fluctuation to that to the cash flow as maintenance activities are campaign driven and goes a little bit up and down throughout the quarters and things also move a little bit which might impact one quarter more than the other because you have higher kind of isolated activity in that quarter but the answer is no we don't see this as It's kind of a shift in maintenance activity, driving up our costs and consequently driving down our EBITDA going forward. And next question from Andreas Lee. BW Energy has bought two rigs. Has it been discussed whether BW also will operate this? Marco, do you want to add a point on this?

Yeah, I can answer that. The answer to has this been discussed? No, not really. These two rigs will be used as production platforms as part of the field development. BWF could operate these as an extension of the FPSO. It's also quite common that oil companies operate the production platforms themselves, and that could also be the choice that BWF makes. So, yeah, I think that discussion may take place in due time when we get closer to the operation of these platforms.

Okay, thank you. The next question is from Nick Lene from Sesame Place. What was the cause of downtime on Junko Knapp? And did you say you're disputing Pemex's decision not to pay during this period? Can you give some color on the basis for the dispute? Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Oh. So the cause of downtime for YPM was that there was an offloading tanker that drifted and touched the YPM. There was some damages to the hull, which meant we had to shut down for a period of time to inspect and make the repair. This led to a shutdown of approximately one month for the unit. When I said that we were disputing this, it's because Pimex says so far not paid off for the month, for that one month we were down. And we disputed on the basis that it's not BW Offshore's responsibility to care for the offloading tanker, or to make sure that stays adequately, with an adequate distance from the FBSO during offloading. So, yeah, that's the basis for the dispute here. I'm not sure, Marco, if there's anything we should add to this, but I'm not sure there's so much more to say at this point in time.

No, I just want to emphasize that this took place in, I believe it was August, so we included it when we reported quarter two, even though it was a quarter three incident. It was mentioned that it was a small collision. As you said, there is a clear responsibility on the client side for this operation as well, so that's why we have a dispute.

That is so far the last question I see that has come in on the web. I'm not sure if there is anything more, maybe if the operator has Any other questions from those who are on the line?

Yep, we have a follow-up question from the line of Frederik Lunde with Carnegie. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jen. I'm moving focus a bit towards the year with the employment candidate. You have a handful of idle units now. Could you give an update on the expected proceeds if you turn in, for example, your work to recycling, as you call it now? And how many of these units do you see in an appointing keeping? I guess it's both an OPEX element and also some cash proceeds from recycling. You could take it so... So the question was on how much we... How many did you sort of see, did they get sensible to keep as three employment candidates versus just recycling? somebody's unit, and also the cash proceeds from recycling?

Well, it's a bit of a strategic question in terms of what we see in the pipeline. I think to start with it, obviously we want to keep units that are complementary, which means that they have capabilities, for instance, where we have a unit that's a good fit for West Africa, project, and for instance, a unit that's a good fit for redeployment in, say, Brazil. So we don't necessarily want to keep units with similar characteristics in layups. I think going forward, even though we work closely with BW Energy and they uh they they they will be they're working to find new prospects we believe in in the future there's a limit to to how many uh episodes they can read for us in that in in the immediate medium term um as of now we have uh we have a atina bergen and we will have uh and we have a csv in brazil as well Yomoroa, but Yomoroa will not be, as you said, not be available before early summer, summer next year. Coming back, I think, I'm not sure I want to guess, but you could say that a minimum should keep two candidates available for redeployment in this, which means that maybe two of these could be a potential candidate for recycling. When it comes to the pricing, of course, it's very different depending on the size of these units. Although they are all FBSOs, they're very different. Altena is a very, very small unit, and resulting value would be very, very small. For a unit like Eurora, maybe Bergelene, you're talking... Bergelene, for example, is closer to 15 million in today's markets. I think it's still priced on Jumeirah below 10. I think, Marco, you're probably better at guessing this, but I think in that ballpark of what you can get from a recycling on this. CSV, a challenge, of course, which is very far away from any market for recycling in Brazil. So there we are probably down to five-ish net proceeds if you were to recycle the unit.

Great, thank you.

At this time, there are no further questions. I hand back to the speakers for any closing comments.

Yes, okay. Well, thanks for your attention and the interest in BWSure, and apologies for the technical hiccup along the way. But, yeah, thanks again, and all have a good day.