Hello, and welcome to the Ørsted Annual Report Conference Call for the Media. My name is Alex. I'll be coordinating the call today. If you'd like to ask a question at the end of the presentation, you can press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to remove your question, you may press star followed by two. Please note that this call is the media briefing, and there will be a separate call for analysts and investors later today. I'll now hand it over to your host, Mads Nipper, CEO, to begin. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone, and welcome to this press briefing. My name is Mads Nipper, the CEO of Ørsted, and with me today is our interim CFO, Rasmus Errboe. Yesterday, we announced our capital markets update, and our annual results for 2023. Let me introduce the news, and then we'd be happy to take any questions from you. As with the rest of the industry, we have felt the impact of market challenges over the past few years, and 2023 marked a year with substantial challenges for Ørsted, despite strong underlying progress and operating profit above our guidance. Our annual results are adversely affected by the impairment we took of our US offshore projects in Q3 and the provision for cancellation fees related to ceasing the offshore project, Ocean Wind 1, in New Jersey. We've learned from these challenges, and we've already implemented significant changes and have decided additional changes to be implemented. We are implementing the learnings from our U.S. offshore projects into our operating model to reduce risk in the development and execution of projects, with a particular focus on additional contingency planning, monitoring of suppliers, inflation protection, scrutiny of our pre-final investment decision commitments, greater flexibility on project timelines and commissioning dates, and updated project governance and reviews. Also, we have conducted an extensive portfolio review to prioritize, and we will be reducing our capital expenditure and project development costs. Project cancellations and phasing of capital expenditure across our portfolio will result in approximately DKK 35 billion of capital expenditure relief in the period 2024-2026, compared to the numbers presented at Capital Markets Day in June 2023. The portfolio changes will result in approximately DKK 3 billion of development expenditure reductions in 2024 through 2026, compared to the numbers previously presented. Furthermore, we have decided to pause dividends for the financial years 2023 through 2025, and we will accelerate our divestment program. We will also look at measures to become a leaner and more efficient organization, and I set a target to reduce our fixed costs by DKK 1 billion by 2026, compared to 2023 on a like-for-like basis. This will include a reduction of 600-800 positions globally. Not all will result in redundancies, but there will be redundancies throughout 2024. And today, we are announcing that approximately 250 colleagues globally will be made redundant and leave Ørsted within the coming months. We are, of course, committed to carrying this out within a fair and respectful manner. It is important to underline that Ørsted's fundamental strategy is the same, including our choices of technologies and regions. We aim to be the world leader on offshore and a strong regional player on onshore and power trades in Europe and in the US. Our renewable build-out continues to grow, and in 2024, we will have significantly more offshore wind capacity under construction than ever before in Ørsted's history and far more than any other market player. Today, we present a robust business plan with ambition and financial targets that confirm that we will deliver strong returns and growth towards 2030. We maintain our target of an unlevered, fully loaded life cycle IRR at 150-300 basis points spread to WACC when we bid in tenders or take final investment decisions. Our operating profit, EBITDA, excluding new partnerships, is to increase to approximately DKK 39-43 billion in 2030. We maintain our return on capital employed target of 14% on average towards 2030. We are committed to a solid investment-grade rating with an FFO to net interest-bearing debt ratio above 30%. We plan a DKK 270 billion investment program in the period 2024-2030, and we target a 35-38 GW of installed renewable capacity by 2030, which is well over a doubling of our current installed capacity of 15.7 GW. The business plan is fully financed without any need for raising new equity. It is financed through a combination of operating cash flow, partnerships and divestments, tax equity, as well as debt and hybrid issues. If we look at the 2023 results, we delivered strong operational results in the year with adjusted EBITDA above guidance and with several important milestones achieved. The industry-leading strategic milestones we achieved last year give us reason to believe that Ørsted can continue to lead the industry going forward. We have near complete construction of Greater Changhua 1 & 2a of 900 MW, and South Fork of 130 MW. We took final investment decision on Hornsea 3, which is at nearly 2.9 GW, the world's single largest offshore wind farm. In the US, despite the challenges, we took final investment decision on the 704 MW Revolution Wind, together with our partner, Eversource. In Taiwan, we took final investment decision of the 920 MW Changhua 2B and 4, completing the circle of three large FIDs across three continents. We also saw first power of South Fork Wind, and we completed the successful farm down of London Array and Gode Wind 3, all a testimony to us as offshore wind leadership. Outside of offshore, we took FID on the 471 MW Mockingbird Solar in Texas. We did partner with Breakthrough Energy Catalyst, the European Commission, and the European Investment Bank on our FlagshipONE Power-to-X project, and we are awarded and started construction of our first carbon capture and storage project in Denmark. Thus, our EBITDA, excluding new partnership and cancellation fees, amounted to DKK 24 billion, which is an increase of DKK 3 billion compared to 2022, and above the top end of our guided range of DKK 20 billion-DKK 23 billion. In 2024, our operating profit, excluding new partnership agreements and cancellation fees, is expected to be DKK 23 billion-DKK 26 billion. Finally, we remain optimistic about the future of the renewable industry, and we are confident that we can continue to be a key contributor in accelerating the renewable build-out in the years to come, with strong returns and growth towards 2030. And with this, we are happy to take your questions. Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, you can press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If you'd like to remove your question, you may press star followed by two. Please ensure you're unmuted locally when asking your question. Our first question for today comes from Jacob Pedersen of Reuters. Jacob, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Jacob here from Reuters, and thanks very much for taking my question. I have two questions. So you're rebidding for some U.S. projects where you've already taken big writedowns. But, you know, I'd like to know, then what? I mean, will you again book $ billions of potential future profits or tax credits that can again come in jeopardy? And, my second question is that if you win some of these projects, what will happen? What happens to the suppliers that you've already put all that money into? Is that money gone, or can you potentially rebook some of that later? Thank you. Thank you very much. I assume, Jacob, that you're referencing the projects that we have left, so Ocean Wind 1 and 2, and also what we said handed back the offtake agreement with our Maryland-based Skipjack Wind. Mm-hmm. The write-downs that we did and also the provisions for cancellation fees was for our Ocean Wind 1 project. This was a very mature project where we had a very high level of capital commitments, and due to the surprises that hit the project, we took the economically rational, but obviously very painful decision to cease development on the project. For both Ocean Wind 2 and Skipjack Wind, so the other two projects, we have not had any impairments or provisions for write-downs. And that is because they were much newer projects, and we already were in a process where we were committing significantly less capital. So the answer to your first question is no, there are none of the decisions taken that are expected to have neither cancellation fees nor big impairments. And on the second question, again, correct me if I misunderstand it, but I think that the money that we have made provision for, a total of DKK 15 billion-DKK 18 billion cash impact for leaving Ocean Wind 1, that comes because we had already, with a mature project, made so big supplier commitments that realistically we have to compensate our suppliers for a significant share on those supply contracts. We are, we... For reference, there were 270 contracts where we have now already terminated by far the majority, and we are still working intensely on potential reuse of that. And I can share that one thing we have done is that the export cable is now planned to be reused into another coming offshore project, and we continue to work on if there are others, which obviously is something that we all want to do because we don't have to terminate. Okay. So part of that can potentially be rebooked at a later stage if you win some of these projects? win some of the projects? I'm not sure I understand that, So, for example, the power- Ah! So if we win future projects in the U.S., for example, what you need to consider is that for many of these things... just storing highly advanced equipment is not only very expensive, it also means that there's a limit to how long you can actually store it. So therefore, we cannot just produce everything and leave it, also because there are new generation of the technology and so on. So it is something that would that needs to have sort of a meaningful horizon, and where there are no technical barriers to implement this. So it is quite complex to reuse equipment that were dedicated to a specific project, but we have examples of that already confirmed, and we continue to work on reusing as much as possible. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Gareth Sherlock of Recharge News. Gareth, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, yes. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. My question goes to the project cancellations. I'd just like generally for a bit more information on sort of criteria for that, but particularly I'm interested. You've talked about a leaner approach to floating wind, and there are a few markets mentioned, Norway, Portugal and Spain, where you'll be withdrawing. I'd just like to understand what's leading you to stay in one market for floating wind and leave another. Basically, more about the criteria for pulling out of some of these areas and canceling some of these projects. Yes. Thank you, Gareth. Yeah, our approach to making priorities is that we are convinced that over time, all countries with potential and all technologies will contribute to the green transformation and present significant opportunities for growth. What we are reflecting, both with our downscaled ambitions for power- to- X, and also for a leaner approach to floating, is not because we don't believe in those technologies, but it is simply because the technologies are developing slower, and because the potential in bottom-fixed is so significant that we are reprioritizing in the plan. So the criteria would be to say, how many markets should we be in? How do we evaluate the value creation potential in those markets? How do we evaluate the risk profile of potential, potentially going into new projects? So therefore, it does not mean that it won't be important, but we are slimming it and focusing it to fewer markets, and also a leaner spend on development. So, it's not a strategic choice not to do it, but to be much more focused based on the criteria I just mentioned. Okay. I'd really appreciate applying those criteria. Just tell me, just give me a little bit of color on the Norway, Portugal, Spain decisions in applying- Yes. -those factors. Yes. No, no, no, no, happy to. I mean, for Norway, it was an example where there were a few delays on the solicitations. There were some unclarities, and also some uncertainty about what the value creation potential was. We had a highly appreciated partnership with local partners, but when we compared it to other opportunities in our portfolio, we chose not to go there. And likewise for Spain, which was less mature in terms of the knowledge we had about the market at the time, we had a very appreciated partnership with our partner, Repsol. And in light of the overall prioritization, we said, "This is not—this does not hit the list of priority countries that we want to focus on." So it's an outcome of a portfolio review, rather than saying that this country or this partner or this project makes no sense. Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Alex Blackburne of S&P Global. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi there. Thanks for taking my question. I've got two, please. Just on the market challenges that you mentioned and talked a lot about in the last few calls, you've obviously said that these are felt most acutely by those projects that have been awarded tariffs and not yet taken FID, and obviously, that in some cases you've had to cancel those projects. But for those projects that are kind of beyond... That have not been awarded a tariff yet, so, you know, Hornsea 4, there's, I think, a project in Taiwan, and then any others that you may get awarded this year and next, what do you see is the... What kind of dynamics are you seeing in the development environment when it comes to in, you know, supply chain costs and all those kind of, you know, transportation problems that you've talked about? Is it—have things improved for those projects that have not, that are not kind of economically under strain? That's the first question. And then just secondly, when you look back, I guess over the last few years, is there anything that you could have, you think you could have done differently, to you know, be in a better position today? I know that's kind of, you know, the benefits of hindsight and all that, but do you feel a lot of the issues were external and actually out of your control? Yeah. Thanks a lot, Alex. To the first point, you're right, we talked a lot about the pre-FID projects. But if we look at the pre-award projects, so Hornsea 4, Changhua 3, what may come, the good thing about those is that we can gauge what is the cost and the risk of building those projects, versus what is then the price we should accept. So this is the thing where it really becomes painful, is if we had locked in an offtake agreement and then get hit by adverse impacts, like raising interest rates or significant CapEx inflation. So therefore, we are firmly committed. We have done that always, and we are recommitting that in the plan we launched today, that any project that we bid into, or any project we take FID on, we are within the value creation range of, well, 150-300 basis points, on top of our cost of capital. And that is something where we, when we bid into, for example, potentially, a Hornsea 4 into a future Allocation Round, we will make a project where we will not do that unless it creates value. So therefore, we are not concerned about those. It may mean that some of them will be later. It may mean that we will forego some auctions, but that's why we created a plan that we are comfortable we can deliver, where all projects will deliver within that guided range. And, to your second question about what could we do differently? We are clearly not saying this is only due to the sort of being victims of the circumstance of highly challenging market development, where most notably, of course, increasing interest rates and CapEx inflation have hit those old contracts very hard, and especially the contracts that had no inflation indexing, meaning in principle, no protection against what happened. But we are also taking full accountability that over the last years and also recently, we despite also permitting delays in the U.S., we continued to mature these projects, with the aim to keep the completion dates. With the knowledge we have today, had we known that inflation would explode and interest rates would go up, we should not have taken an inflation index contract. Had we known what would happen, we should not have continued to mature and commit capital. Those are some of the core components of the changes we are making to our operating model of how we do projects is not to have anything near the capital commitments that we have seen in the U.S. market. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Will Mathis of Bloomberg. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking questions. Two questions. I just wonder, you know, you talk about, you know, project cancellations and phasing that are gonna result in DKK 35 billion reduction. Could you just give details on, like, what is being canceled and what's being phased differently? And also, you know, this year is supposed to be has the biggest volume of auctions for new projects across the U.S., including the Northeast, where you've said you're still focusing, but also Germany, the Netherlands. You know, are you planning to bid for new capacity, and where are you going to focus those efforts? Yes, absolutely. Thanks, Will. I'll let Rasmus answer the first question. Hi, Will. Rasmus here. So specifically on the DKK 35 billion that we are reducing relative to what we put out at the capital markets day, Will, you can say there are three pockets in that one. It is project cancellations. An example of that is obviously Ocean Wind 1, and then it is reprioritizations. Mads mentioned some examples of that before in terms of markets. And then there is the phasing part that you asked specifically about. I will not give you you can say specifically which projects have removed COD, expected CODs on, but basically overall say that our fundamental view on our very large offshore wind portfolio is that at the end of the day, it is not critical for us whether certain projects CODs in, let's say, 2028 or 2029. The only thing that really matters for us truly is the value of that project. So therefore, we have quite a bit of flexibility in our portfolio in order to decide when exactly do we assume that we spend CapEx on these very big projects. But of course, if you do look at the, at our portfolio, the projects where we have the biggest flexibility to face would of course be the ones that are not yet in execution. And to your second question, Will, on where do we plan to be? You're absolutely right. There's a significant volume of expected auctions coming out across, not only across Europe and US, but also, for example, in Taiwan, where we have Round Three too, very soon. And, and I'm not going to tell you where exactly we'll bid, because it is, this is the benefit of our plan, is that with what we need to secure, we will diligently bid in where we see the value creation being the highest. We will, of course, still have areas where we will bid and not win, but we will be very focused as to where the conditions of the contracts that will be awarded. Will there be inflation indexing? Which would be a very clear priority for us, especially where we have a long time between award and FID. We are highly unlikely to bid on this as some kind of inflation protection. And also, where is it that it is not purely who will bid with the lowest price and win with the lowest price? Because this is, this is where there is a much greater likelihood of these projects being very vulnerable to any unfavorable developments. So, I'm not going to give you any specific countries, but you know where we are, where we are active, and we will obviously be diligently evaluating that in our portfolio as to where do we develop and where do we bid. ... Do you plan to bid into the CfD, the upcoming CfD auction in the UK with Hornsea 4? That is an active consideration. Thanks, Alex. Next question, please. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nora Buli of Thomson Reuters. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yes, hi, thanks for taking my questions, as well. I was maybe this was more following up from what others have asked, but could you explain a bit more, you plan to divest, quite a few projects or farm them down, you said, to a value of DKK 70 billion-DKK 80 billion in the next two years. Could you provide some details on where or what assets you are looking to bring to the market? Are these projects in planning stages, or are these projects of wind farms that are up and running already? And do you expect a lot of interest from that? And if I could have a second question as well. There's been, you know, speculation that, you know, you might be an object for an M&A or someone else to take a stake in us, that RWE have said they made some inroads on that. Have you been approached by anybody else other than RWE on such a deal? Thank you. Let me take... I'll let Rasmus answer the first question, but let me take the second question, because it's very easy. We don't comment on market rumors in any way, and we are strong believers that Ørsted is launching the right plan for our company and our shareholders today. Yes, and, Laura, on the, specifically on the divestment program, you are right, that we are today announcing that we expect to farm down offshore wind farms with and onshore with proceeds of DKK 70 billion-DKK 80 billion in this first period between 2024 and 2026. I think an important point here to make is that this is a slight acceleration compared to what we assumed at the Capital Markets Day, with 15 billion DKK. But overall, the size of our overall farm down program is, you can say, significantly smaller than what we assumed at, at the Capital Markets Day. Farm downs have been an integrated part of the way we do business in Ørsted over the last decade, and we are very confident in our ability to assess the opportunities we have and also to go to market in the most effective way. We certainly do believe that there is still a very high degree of interest for, for you can say, prime renewable assets in the markets out there. You asked about specific examples. So as an example, we talked about the Hornsea zone before, Hornsea 3, our asset in the UK, where we have taken FID. That is an example of an asset that we expect to farm down using our, you can say, normal model of a 50% farm down, going forward. Hornsea 3 is one of the, you can say, assets, offshore wind in the world with the lowest LTV. It's a prime asset. So therefore, we are quite, quite convinced in our ability to farm that down in a good way. We have done it on Hornsea 2, we have done it on Hornsea 1. That is one example. Then there are of course, other examples as well throughout our portfolio. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Mikkel Nielsen, from Fredericia Dagblad. Mikkel, your line is now open. Please go again ahead. Yes, hi, Mads. Thanks for taking my question. I just want to hope you could say a bit more about these 600-800 layoffs and redundancies. If you could be more specific about, like, is it gonna be a drizzle, a sprinkle of redundancies across the board, or some of these gonna be concentrated in, for example, Denmark? Yes, thanks a lot, Mikkel. It's, yeah, first and foremost, it is always a difficult decision for us, but the right decision for the company and our stakeholders to make reductions like this. And we have, the 600-800 is what the number of positions that we are planning to reduce with during this year. Given that we have around half of our employees in Denmark, it will be a quite significant share that will actually impact Denmark. We are announcing 250 redundancies today, of which around 60% will be in Denmark. And if you take sort of that same range, it will probably not be too far off the expected number of positions. But please, please be mindful that reducing a position does not automatically mean redundancies, because there can be of natural attrition and so on. That can mean that the number will be low in terms of actual redundancies. Of course. I'll have that in mind. Now that we're talking 250 redundancies, 60% in Denmark, I don't know if you can be more specific, because I'm sitting in Fredericia, where you have, yeah, a certain presence. Can you say something that- Sorry to interrupt you, but I unfortunately can't be more specific at this time because there are market consultation needs that we need to respect. Yeah, of course. Thank you. ... Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, that's star followed by one on your telephone keypad. Our next question comes from Victor Kristensen of Finans. Victor, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Perfect. Thank you very much. I would like to ask exiting when you decide to exit developing markets such as Norway, Spain, and Portugal, how Ørsted will aim to maintain the position as a leading global offshore developer? And, I also have a second question, where Moody's and S&P have put Ørsted on a negative outlook. I would like to ask how it would impact Ørsted's strategic goals towards 2030, if they decide to downgrade Ørsted's credit rating? Thank you. Yes. Thanks a lot, Victor. We are the only developer who are currently active in the number of countries that we are. And therefore, also, we don't see any decisions around down prioritizing given markets as something that at all compromises our global offshore leadership. As I mentioned in the beginning, I mean, we are, we have 6.7 gigawatts of offshore capacity under construction as we speak, which is, I don't have the exact numbers, but probably twice as much as anybody else. So, so we are convinced of our ability to uphold a strong position of offshore leadership globally as well. That does not mean we'll be active in every, in any market, but please bear in mind that on top of strengthening ourselves in core markets like the UK, we're taking final investment decision on Hornsea 3. We also got the electricity business license for 1.6 GW Greater Incheon project in Korea. So we continue to manage our portfolio of markets where we believe there's a strong risk return profile and where we believe that the value creating opportunities are the best for the company. And, Rasmus, should you comment on the credit rating? Absolutely, I made just one very quick supplementary remark on Spain, just of course, be mindful that it is only the offshore part- Correct. So we, of course, continue to be active, very active in Spain and onshore, just to be clear. On the Moody's, S&P question, first of all, it is, of course, not for me to speculate today on whether or not we will be downgraded. But of course, looking at a credit watch and negative outlook, respectively, is of course something that we have taken into consideration. The plan that we are putting forward today, we have done two things. We have increased our FFO to net debt metric to above 30% relative to our CMD. So therefore, a more robust capital structure going forward. And then secondly, we are committing to a solid investment grade rating. That would, of course, also mean that in the scenario that we should be downgraded with one notch, we would still very much be in line with that updated ambition. The reason we have that ambition target for our credit rating is because we do believe that it does not in any way you can say impact our ability to do business and compete effectively, should we get a one-notch downgrade, which is why we have decided to come forward with this updated target. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Stanley Reed of The New York Times. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Two questions. How much does all the turmoil that's happened in the U.S. in recent months kind of diminish the U.S. as a, as an attractive investment center for offshore wind? Yeah, I will... Thanks, Stanley. I'll actually, I'll happily answer that. So no doubt that the portfolio of awarded projects have been a challenge for us with the developments we have seen in the market. But as you can also see, we have rebid into New York 4 with our Sunrise projects, and also that we continue development of our seabed. So Northeast Lease Area 500, with up to 4 GW potential. We are encouraged by what we have seen in New York 3, with an average awarded price of $145 per MWh, which is an indication that there's a preparedness to pay realistic prices for what it takes to roll out offshore wind. Therefore, given what has been learned, that also future solicitations, both in New York, but also expectedly in future solicitations, will offer inflation protection. That means that we are encouraged by how the especially the Northeast states have adapted to the new conditions and offered conditions that seem to still offer potential opportunities for developers. So we still see the US as an attractive offshore market, but we will do that in a focused approach where we do not run the risk of coming in a similar situation everywhere. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Cecilie Bahr of Børsen. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. The biggest fear or one of the biggest fears among your investors seems to be if you're actually able to secure an attractive return on your project in the future, also when we look at the competition in the market and also the higher cost in the market right now. Is there a risk that you will not be able to deliver the returns you have promised? Thank you, Cecily. No, we are very confident with our competitiveness, and as you can also see, we are taking measures to even further strengthen that. I think a very good example of this, as Rasmus referenced before, Hornsea Three, we have very little doubt that the levelized cost of electricity for any offshore projects that is under development or construction today, this is the lowest per megawatt hour. We've done benchmark studies that show that our competitiveness is clearly there. Yes, we have industry-leading return requirements because we believe that is the right thing to do, and I can also say that with the exception of the awarded U.S. projects that we know are challenged but attractive on a forward-looking value creation basis, all the portfolio across Europe and Taiwan that we are constructing is within the guided range. So, and also the plan of 38, 35 to 38 should give our investors confidence that our preparedness to make priorities to ensure that where we go, we do create value, is something that we should have high confidence. We are simply not gonna take decisions where we don't have a high confidence in the value creation that we're promising our investors. Okay. And also, a question, problems in the US and also the impairments last year. How will you avoid ending up in a similar situation in the future? Yes. The single most important learning from that is never again to be in a situation where we commit so much capital with a project that has that we find out has outstanding risks like we have seen. And this is especially a challenge in a market like the U.S., where there's a very long time between award and actually getting the final approvals for the site. So this is several years, whereas an example in the U.K., when we go in with a Hornsea 3, that site is fully consented, so there are no outstanding permits. So the time from awards to final investment decision is so short that the risk of something dramatic happening is very low. We will present quite extensively in the investor and analyst brief this afternoon what more specifically we are doing. But the most important thing is to ensure that our pre-FID financial commitments are significantly lower than what we have done in the first U.S. projects. And by the way, as I referenced to a previous question, you could see Skipjack and Hornsea and Ocean Wind 2 were already at a level where we had made much, much, much lower commitments than we did in, for example, Ocean Wind 1. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Søren Lindvig of Jyllands-Posten Finance. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thanks, and good morning to you all. I have two questions. The first question is regarding your auction or bidding strategy moving forward on the offshore wind projects. Looking at your targets for 2030 and compare that with the installed capacity and decided and awarded, it doesn't seem that it's, there's that much room for getting any more projects on board, at least not this side of 2030 ambition. What would happen if you, as you mentioned, have strengthened your competitive edge, you are only moving for value-creating projects. What happens if you are awarded and you win more projects and more gigawatts than you had anticipated? That's the first question. Yes, thanks a lot. Bear in mind, Søren, that the total... We don't consider something where we haven't taken a final investment decision as something that we will definitely do. And for example, Baltica 3 is one that is where we've been also open to saying that is under reconfiguration. So like we say, expectedly, we would want to secure sort of 1-3, potentially, a bit more, of additional capacity for pre-2030 construction. So in total, you could say that there's 5-7 GW that is not already FIDs, that we actually have, still have to secure, and we will go for those opportunities that are most attractive. I think the situation that you described is unlikely to happen because we wouldn't bid in five times and suddenly find out that we have five awards at the same time. And the plan that we have is exactly the plan that we are confident will be the one where we can ensure that we will generate value, and we have a clear principle of value over growth. And bear in mind, 2030 does not stop at, or is not the when the world stops. So this is very clear. We will continue to develop and mature opportunities also on the other side. And then, and our plan is what we feel comfortable with. And then, my second question is regarding you, Mads Nipper, and your leadership role. For the moment, actually, you are without, I know with due respect to the role, the interim role of Rasmus and Andrew, you are without a CFO and a COO. And right now, the chair is stepping down at the upcoming AGM, so you are going to have a new chair as well. Could you put some flavors to what kind of support that you need in this critical phase of the development of Ørsted? Yeah, I get lots of support. The plan that we have made is fully backed by the entire leadership team and by the board of directors. And I'll say, you say that I'm only backed up by interim CFO and COO. These are highly experienced, highly capable people. And by the way, the recruitment process is going fully to plan. So I don't feel in any way uncomfortable with the backup that I or the rest of the existing leadership team have. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Bär of Recharge News. Michael, your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I was just wondering if you could provide a bit more information about the timeline on your exits from the countries you mentioned, whether, you know, there's any assets that need to be divested or anything else like that? No, no, it's. There are no assets. As Rasmus correctly said before, in Spain, it is offshore, and we do not have any offshore assets in either Norway, Portugal or Spain. So there is no particular timeline for that. We obviously have informed our partners in those markets about our decision. So it's a relatively simple process of not bidding in rather than having to leave something. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Will Mathis of Bloomberg. Your line is now open, please go ahead. Yeah, this actually follows up on the question before. This is for Rasmus. I wonder, would you like to stay on in the CFO role? Is that something that you have offered to do, and they're considering? Thank you, Will. No, it is not something I have offered to do. My role is interim. And that is an agreement that Mads and I have made from the very beginning. Okay. Thanks, Alex. Mads, do you want to conclude? Yes, thank you very much, and thanks a lot for joining the call, and have a good and safe day. Thank you for joining today's call. You may now disconnect your lines.