Thank you, good morning, and welcome to this Vestas presentation of our Q1 results. With me, as always, Marika is here, and therefore, let's go through the presentation, and also have the following Q&A. If we go to the key highlights first, we finished Q1 2021 with an all-time high order backlog. The combined order backlog now is EUR 45 billion, and that comes despite the lower order intake in Q1 2021. We are working very hard to integrate the offshore business. A little bit more than 3,000 new colleagues have been welcomed into Vestas, also to capture the future value of the offshore market, and not least, also create the structure for how we operate the combined businesses going forward. Revenue of EUR 2 billion in Q1, slightly lower than Q1 2020 due to lower activity levels, especially impact from the supply chain constraints, which we will talk more about. EBIT margin ended at -3.6%. That is slightly down from Q1 2020. It is impacted by the lower turnover also some of the logistical challenges. We have continued our annual displacement of CO2, now reached 192 million tons. Of course, that also illustrates the progress in still establishing further capacity worldwide. If we go into a bit more details, first of all, the global business environment, I think it is fair saying, we talk about the longevity of the pandemic here, also how that continues also gives ripple effects, to some extent, also entails further challenges into the supply chain. I think we have also seen in the quarter that it has created some fragile conditions in and around the supply chain, which probably is best illustrated when we saw the ship being stuck in the Suez Canal, because it immediately comes back to almost the whole supply chain. Throughout this, since Q1 last year where the pandemic started, we have to say again here that our focus on the business continuity has been primary, together with our health and safety for our colleagues working around in our more than 80 countries. That still continues to be the case, and that still continues also to be the prevailing guidance when we operate across the world. We've also seen here the logistical challenges and supply chain bottlenecks. They are only now amplified by the COVID-19 restrictions. I also think it's fair saying here, for most of our colleagues around the world, a lot of those and a lot of us can potentially start seeing a bit of light in the tunnel of coming out of the pandemic situation. We also have a lot of our thoughts with some of our colleagues that are still in some of the hardest hit areas, not least mentioning here India as we speak. We have also seen in this quarter there is a reduced mobility for service technicians. There are construction workers, and there are also goods and components that are being held in and around our borders. Some of the service technicians and construction workers are therefore in quarantine, waiting to enter or even waiting to come back. Here, I will also just take the opportunity to thank you, our external partners, not least our colleagues across the world. It's absolutely impressive to see both the spirit and also the resilience that it has been created and also demonstrated in a queue like this. That is also what we are building further on when we come into the remaining three quarters of the year. If we do a short overview of the time of the year where we have the market shares being released, we have sustained our global leadership position. If we take the global onshore installations in total, it's gone from 57 GW- 94 GW from 2019 -2020. Our market share gone from 21%- 15.3%. If we exclude China, the global market went from 33 GW- 39 GW, and our market share from 35%- 33.7%. In this, we have used Wood Mackenzie, one of the leading agencies for releasing these market share data every year. Into the business. When we look at the business in Power Solutions, we have had a Q1 order intake of a bit more than 2 GW. That is down 39% compared to Q1 2020. You can see from the chart here that it's across the three areas and three regions we normally show. Our ASP in the quarter was 0.8, which is up compared to Q1 2020, and also at a positive level compared to the previous four quarters. I think the highlights within Power Solutions, if we start with, first of all, the high level in terms of the mega trend, I think all fundamentals and the mega trends have, of course, again in this quarter, been very supportive. We have seen strong new ambition levels communicated from EU, U.S., suddenly targeting a CO2 reduction of more than either respectively 55% and 50% already now in 2030. That will drive both mechanisms and also active actions from countries and areas and customers in so. When we look at it also, we have seen and we are participating in a strong tender activity in the offshore market, which of course will lay the foundation as we presented now a number of times in the market beyond 2025. What we have seen in the quarter, we have seen a lower order intake, predominantly driven by U.S. and China, the underlying pricing environment remains stable. We finished this quarter with a strong order backlog of EUR 19.4 billion, both across the onshore and offshore, we remain strong focused on the project profitability. That also gave us some cautious thinking in Q1, as we have seen some of the components, and especially also the commodity of steel, quite an increase throughout the quarter. If we look at the service business, again, a very good quarter for the service business. We ended with an order backlog in the service business of EUR 25.3 billion. We operate 118 GW of turbines, with active service contracts split between 114 in onshore and 4 GW in offshore. In the combined backlog, we have more than 10 years of average duration in the backlog, which of course is again testament to strengths of the business. When we look at the highlights, I will say here it is only mentioned in a one-liner, and I think it doesn't deserve just having a one-liner by integrating an offshore business into the combined Vestas family. We are right now doing that. I know a lot of colleagues are working very hard to get together and create that operating model across the world, and therefore we are right now leveraging our global supply chain and scale within the service organization when we combine on and offshore. When we look at also the previous quarter, we have had long-term service contracts. They continue to be long-term, and we have seen them in the Nordics and Ukraine, and we of course continue prioritizing that also going forward. Below, we have just shown in the service fleet how the split is from the regions. Again, here I will also just take away growth in all regions and a priority to the service business across all regions. We also just want to share what has happened in the sustainability strategy. Nothing really changed but progress overall. A couple of observations to you when you follow us. First of all, the displaced CO2 emission that we do from our turbines has gone up with 14% from Q1 2020- Q1 2021, and it's an amount we of course are proud of and will continue to follow and show and share with you. When we look at the carbon emission, meaning our own emissions that have come out in Scope 1 and 2, it has gone up. It has gone up from a Q1 2020 to a Q1 2021, specifically through the integration and also the inclusion of our offshore activities. That one, we will now create a baseline in 2021 and work on some of the tools, some of the structures, and also some of the solutions we already were successfully implementing in the onshore Vestas part before. When we look at the service, I think this is again, a quarter we have managed to reduce the total recordable injuries in the quarter with 9%. Quite impressive, especially considering the conditions that are around in a lot of our markets. We're really positive that people and colleagues are taking good care of each other. When we look at the increase of the carbon emission related to the offshore, you've also seen in the quarter we have done an investment into the biocomposite specialist Modvion in Sweden, to investigate further how we can use wood into the towers, either completely or as a combination with steel and concrete. It's also here, it's very well positioned in saying thanks to both treasury and finance for working diligently through the Nykredit facility and combining that with sustainability targets in it. Therefore, we now have a new EUR 2 billion facility, with our Baa1 credit rating that relates to how we also have the journey in sustainability ahead of us. Therefore, with that, I will hand over to Marika. Thank you, Henrik. If we start as usual with the income statement, I think you see very well here that the activity level is low here in Q1 as it was as well last year. You see a declining 12% here year-over-year. Worth highlighting is also the gross profit, where we see an improvement in the underlying. We are up 2.6 percentage point. That is primarily driven by improved project profitability, which obviously has been a very high focus from our side. To be very specific also is what Henrik mentioned earlier, that the COVID-19 challenges continues, and that has a very big impact on the overall logistical situation for us, both from supplier side as well as us getting to customers. I will get back to the SG&A because you see an increase here, and that is primarily related to the integration of offshore. EBIT margin before special items decreased, mainly driven again by the SG&A increase due to the offshore piece. Coming back again to the SG&A cost, you see here from a percentage point of view, we are down to 5.7%. Very good performance, which also shows that we are leveraging the SG&A cost. The depreciation and amortization, excluding impairments here, increased EUR 56 million year-over-year, and that is primarily related to offshore. We see, as I said at the beginning, a decrease down to 5.7 percentage points. Service business. Strong service performance. You see an increase of 11% here on the revenue, and that is compared to Q1 of last year, and that is obviously higher activity level and also integration of the offshore business. Profitability is down compared to Q1 in percentage points, down from 26.2- 22.2. That is primarily the external factors that we have been talking about, as well as the integration of the offshore business. I think everyone understand that is not free of charge. Change in net working capital. Inventory is increasing, again, as planned for, I think it's also a good proof that we are expecting higher activity levels here in the coming quarters of this year. Nothing we are surprised with, really planned for. It's somewhat compensated by down and milestone payment, the usual profile. Cash flow statement. Cash flow from operating activities is slightly better, compared to Q1 of last year. That is eaten up by the change in net working capital, in this case, primarily the inventory. The cash discipline has obviously not changed. It continues to be a high focus from our side. You see free cash flow is improving slightly, but more or less in line with last year. You also see investments in JVs, and it's the EUR 186 million, and it's primarily the CIP transaction. Total investments is very stable year-over-year. A slight decrease, but very slight. The methodology has not changed. We continue to invest in technology as well as capacity and primarily the molds and localization. Warranty provision. Here you can see that we continue to provide. We are 3.2% here in the quarter, but expecting the 3% for the full year. You see that the profile is changing, we are definitely starting to consume more than what we provide for. That is again, expected that we will see that trend here, during 2021. LPF, as a consequence of the extraordinary repair, which I think you are fully aware of, is materializing. Again, not a surprise, but a consequence. Capital structure. Net debt to EBITDA remains low, although worsening a bit compared to Q4 of last year. I also want to highlight they're still well below the thresholds that we have put up, but this is obviously a consequence of the net working capital that we continue to consume. We also have, as Henrik mentioned, a new EUR 2 billion credit facility to support both onshore and offshore wind projects, and primarily for an increasing demand for guarantees in the offshore segment. By that, I hand over to you, Henrik. Thank you, Marika. For the outlook and guidance for the year. Revenue continued to be EUR 16 billion-EUR 17 billion. Service is expected to grow approximately 15%. EBIT margin is expected to be 6%-8%, and the service margin in there is expected to be approximately 24%. Our total investment for the year is expected to be around EUR 1 billion. I think here it's also worth highlighting in 2021, our warranty provision are expected still to be around 3% of revenue, including both on and offshore. We have a note of special items that expected to be around EUR 100 million, when it relates to the integration of the offshore business. Not least that, of course, the guidance comes with a degree of uncertainty, compared to normal still with the COVID ongoing. With that unchanged guidance and then over to the Q&A, happy to pass back to the operator and start the Q&A. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question for the speaker, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. We ask you kindly limit your questions to two at a time. I can't see anyone that's coming in the queue, so I don't know if there are more. Our first question comes from Claus Almer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Thank you. A few questions from my side. The first question goes to the Q1 loss. I fully understand that you don't want to split the profit between on and offshore, but maybe in more round numbers, you could help us to understand the dynamics behind the Q1 loss within the Power Solutions division. That will be the first question. Okay. I thought you would take the two at one time, Claus. Sorry for that. Obviously, I think it's fair to say here in Q1, we have a low activity level. It is slightly lower than what we anticipated when we did the budget. The vast majority of the loss that you see or the impact is really on the onshore side here in the quarter. I think what you see is obviously from an EBIT point of view, it is the impact from the EUR 56 million that I mentioned. In a small quarter as such, it has a big impact when it comes to the SG&A. I think you understand also that the observation is maybe not super high, if I put it that way, without being specifics. We continue on the journey of improving the overall business and the execution of the projects and also the overall profitability level. I think from that perspective, even though it's a low activity level here in Q1, you see an improvement year-over-year on the gross profit. It's I think very good proof that what we have put in place is getting traction. Just to be sure, offshore is likely breakeven. The loss comes from onshore. Is there any on the contribution margin? Compared to last year, it must be way better given the miss you had last year, maybe you could put some color on your contribution margin in what you delivered this quarter. Obviously on the contribution side, which is relating to how we execute the projects, that is clearly improving. On the execution side, I think you all heard me say pre- calc and post-calc, and that is getting more and more in line. Obviously what you see here is the logistical challenges that Henrik was also alluding to, and some of the rerouting and even lack of containers, stoppage in the Suez Canal. All of the above is obviously impacting the gross profit. Despite that, we see an improvement in the gross profit. Underlying, clearly the actions that we have taken to minimize the discrepancy between pre- calc and post-calc for the contribution margin is getting traction. Okay, the second question, the lost production factor that continues to increase. Yes, you have these provisions, but do you also have a negative impact from this in the P&L, in addition to the provisions? The answer to that, Claus, is no. Of course we look at the LPF, and I think as Marika said, it's not a surprise, because as we said, the consumption of our warranty will increase in 2021 because that's how we address the warranty and also the repair and upgrades we talked so much about in second half of 2020. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Christian Hansen from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Thank you. My first question is on this slower than expected start to the year, and just sort of understanding whether this is entirely driven by the logistical challenges, i.e. that you haven't been able to get turbines to sites to the degree which you were originally planning for, or whether there is an element of customers also deciding to delay projects. Along that, why you are stating that you're comfortable that you can catch up in following quarters. And to be fair, I think we said at the beginning on the guidance for this year that we expected a slow start, so a very normal distribution between quarters. When I say it's slower than what the budget was indicating, it's not huge numbers, Christian. Obviously that is why we feel comfortable keeping the guidance for the full year. Again, it is low activity level, but it's not a big deviation from what we expected. Understood. My second question is on orders. You say that the decline year-on-year in orders is primarily U.S. and China, yet EMEA is down 22% year-on-year as well. At the same time, obviously you report quite a high order ASPs. I'm just sort of wondering whether you have sort of gone out and raised prices to a degree where some customers are stepping away. Is that part of the explanation as well? No. No. Okay, we're debating here. No, what we see, Christian, is, yes, we see an improved profitability level or an improvement in the ASP, but that is not causing any customers to step away from us offering to them. We are equally, and we have been for the last couple of years, more selective in what our expectations are on profitability. We've had execution challenges. I think that's no secret. That's why we, from an EBIT perspective, have had an impact. Also if you look at the lumpiness of the order intake, and you see only this week we have taken in 600 MW of orders. We don't see customers stepping away at all. What we see, and that I have highlighted before, is more that there are less and less numbers of competitors when we have an offer out. It's not that many. Therefore we also see a different discipline because everyone has a need to make money. Thank you. Our next question comes from Gaël de Bray from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Oh, thank you very much. There is one thing that struck me this quarter is that your order intake was below that of some of your peers, Siemens Gamesa, not to name it. I think that was the first time in many years it happened. At the same time, I can see that your ASP is actually going up while their ASP is going down. If you try to adjust for the mix effect in terms of geographies and power ratings, do you see some of your competitors, generally speaking, becoming a bit more aggressive, and more successful in tenders at the moment? That's question number one. Question number two is about the Chinese market. Obviously, last year was very strong with the Russian installations, in particular towards the end of the year. My question is, how does it look like now for the remaining part of this year? I'm hearing about potentially significant catch-down effects in China in coming quarters. If you could give us a bit more details or what's your view about this, please. Thank you. Thank you, Gaël. I will just start with the order intake again, put that a bit in perspective. I think it is actually a testament to also the process we have spoken quite transparent about. We have a robust process when we do our sign-off of projects globally, and we also have robust targets when it comes, not least to profitability, signing off some of these orders. Therefore, when we have quarters like Q1 here, where we have seen some of the underlying components and not least also steel deviating or increasing substantially. We are not talking about a few percentages, we are talking about steel increases that in some markets in the last six months have been more than 60%-70%. For that reason, there are changes and variability to pricing of the technology we deliver to the solutions. That, of course, can either delay the discussions. It can also be that we have to go back with the customer and look at the whole project and how that can be reshaped as such. We do that. I won't comment on how competition are addressing it, but I think here, at least accordingly to how we make our solutions, it contains many of the same components and also some of the same commodities. I think we will have the same cost structure in that sense, and we deal with it in a transparent customer by customer basis. As Marika alluded to, we are robust, and we know also the process and the target we are having. I will leave that with that. When we look at China, I think it is fair China probably finished the year. I will always ask for a little bit of understanding when you are able to put that much gigawatt up in a year, because there is probably a backlog of things in China. Let China and China customers find their feet a little bit in evaluating that. We know that's ongoing. I can't put a quarter. We don't do a quarterly guidance on order intake. Let's see how the Chinese customers and not least the Vestas China team gets together and find each other in some of the new projects. I don't think the ambition level has in China nor in other countries around the world gone down in terms of renewable energy. Therefore, China will still have a priority to renewable, both from a wind and a solar, and also a combination leading towards the P2X as well. Still good market in China, but we need to find a little bit the coming out of the feed-in tariff end. Okay. Thanks very much for this. Thank you. Our next question comes from Supriya Subramanian from UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yes. Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I just had two. One is on the onshore business and your market. Of course, you've maintained the guidance of EUR 16 billion-EUR 17 billion, which if I back calculate on what you had guided for offshore and service, implies that onshore equipment is expected to decline about 5%-6% year-on-year. Given what you've seen in momentum in orders in the first quarter, how confident are you on catching up on this to, let's say, meet the full year onshore guidance? Rather if I put it, how much of this guidance is dependent on the backlog itself, and how much in for out orders would we need in 2021 to meet the onshore guidance? My second question is related to the inflationary trends, of course, and I guess to some extent, I think reflected in your ASPs, but just wanted to get your thoughts on how willing customers are to take price hikes in the new orders that you're negotiating to offset the inflationary pressure that you're seeing on the cost side. Thank you. Okay. If I should just comment on your questions related to guidance, you are right in assuming there are some deviations and minor changes in onshore versus that, and that has been the whole plan for the whole year, ever since we issued the guidance in February. The guidance that sits with right now is, of course, a guidance we are fully aware of. It's the planning of what we did when we issued the guidance in February. We still see that planning holding well. There will be some movements and, as Marika described it, minor movements out of Q1 towards some of the later quarters. The ramp up and the split has always been skewed towards second half of the year, but then a busy three quarters ahead of us. There will be some in-for -out risk still sitting in that guidance, but that is still a minor part of the EUR 16 billion-EUR 17 billion in there. You, of course, will wait and see when we get to some of these orders later in the year. When it comes to your ASP and putting a equation between ASP and the willingness for customers to pay for it, maybe I should say it differently, I'm pretty sure, Supriya, I'm not talking out of terms here. I don't think any customers call you and ask for a price increase. I don't think in our partnership and our relationship with customers that we underestimate the hassle and the discussion, and also potentially the negative effect when some of the components changes. The art of this technology is that it contains quite heavily commodity and underlying components. When that goes up in price, there isn't a magic thing that can just take that price increase away. That is, I think, generally for all of the conversations we have had, customer to customer, is a mature conversation around how to plan on the site and how to plan the project, and then being transparent in it. If we have had success in that, looks like it, but I also think you should read something in here that there are some delays when some of these things. It's not a few percentages, it is high percentages change, and of course, that gives some variables and some challenges to everyone in the value chain. Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Dan Togo from Carnegie. Please go ahead. Yes, hello. Thank you. I'm curious to know, these logistical challenges, how far do you see them stretching to the coming quarters? To say, in order to get some sort of sense of what you've baked into guidance, that would be the first question. The second question also relates to the guidance. In which scenario is the EUR 17 billion in revenue and 8% EBIT margin still feasible? I start with the logistical challenges and how we view them, Dan, it's obviously we've given a guidance and then both on the revenue as well as on the EBIT, and that is reflecting where we will end up then. Having the crystal ball, I don't think anyone has at this point in time because the market and the challenges are changing, if not on a daily basis, enormously frequently. This is something we work with, and I think we're managing. Are we perfect? Probably not. We are in a situation where there's both a lack of availability, both land transport and the sea transport, and on top of it, the logistical companies are very good at when you need something ad hoc, they certainly charge for it. On top of it, you have the challenge of moving people, training people. It's everything that it's impacting. The market that have severe challenges are changing as well. Right now, I think the biggest hurdle is India, as we speak. We are right now well into Q2. Things haven't improved, basically, we are heading into a peak season, so to say, in the container market. Expanding from where we are now, it might be a bit optimistic to think that things will improve the next one to three months. I'm just curious to know how you see this and what is baked in. If things do not improve, where should we see, so to say, EBIT end up? Is there a risk, so to say, for that to be aiming more at the lower end of the guidance range if things do not improve? Is that so to say how we should interpret it? We're keeping the guidance. Obviously, we feel comfortable with taking heed for the challenges or the more severe challenges, which obviously represent the lower end, and the higher end represent that things are going better than the low end. I think we have taken heed, otherwise we would give you a different guidance at this point in time. Okay, good. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Martin Wilkie from Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is now open Yeah, thank you. Good morning. It's Martin from Citi. The first question was just on the onshore outlook. You've booked fewer orders in the quarter than people might have thought a few months ago. Obviously the backdrop, particularly when we think of the U.S., has got a lot better when we think of decarbonization and so forth. Has that fed into conversations with you yet? Or is it too early to tell as to what that means in terms of the tendering process on onshore? That was the first question. The second question was just on the timing of what we can expect in offshore. I think in the past you've said that this year it's probably more preferred bidder status if there is to be anything happening on the new 15 MW platform, but just perhaps if you can give us some sort of sense as to the timing we should think about for preferred bidder and then ultimately orders for the 15 MW. Thank you. Thank you. On the onshore order intake, I think it is always as we also said, don't judge it necessarily on a 90-day period, especially not in a quarter where you have that many variables hitting not only the pricing of the technology, but also potentially the external factors. As you would appreciate in the U.S., if we just take the last 90 days, the last 90 days in Q1 includes a re-entry into the Paris Agreement, a target of 50% reduction in CO2 in 2030, and still an ongoing discussion of how should that potentially influence either the ongoing current PTC structure or potentially elements that will relate to either localization and others in the U.S. I think this is simply too early to basically put again a connection between a heading politically and a statement political towards that transition and then a direct order intake. I think you and I will appreciate that if you are a customer right now, you could actually say goodbye to a potential upside if you do certain things before you know all of the details in that. We see still there's a lot of activity. We also see some of those coming out probably later, or will come out later in the year. The big influence of going 50% CO2 reduction is not going to come in the coming couple of quarters. That's like when you see the European Green Deal being announced, but it will drop into the country auctions, during either latter part of this year or 2022 or 2023. Then we look at the offshore, we will ask for a bit more patience as you already implied in your question, so to say, because patience here comes with, we are participating in the commercial discussions around the world with customers right now. The outcomes comes out positively for us, then of course we will make those announcements that are triggered by that. Then you will also appreciate that the offshore cycle of both projects and products as such are just longer, therefore you have to allow us a little bit more patience on that one. Right now, real focus here is get the business proper settled in so we run both on and offshore in our operating model. Of course then also give the evidence to customers that that will work wherever they have the need for our technology. That's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Akash Gupta from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yes. Hi, good morning. Thanks for your time. My first question is on hedging of your backlog. Marika, in the past you have said you try to hedge as much as possible your backlog, and I wanted to ask if you can help us understand the hedging policy in backlog. How much of backlog you can hedge, and what are the elements which are not possible to hedge? Can you hedge polymer resin exposure given their price have also gone quite significantly? If you can also tell us how far out you can hedge your raw material exposure. That's question number one. The hedging profile has not changed. When it comes to raw material, for example, we have a 36-month view. In that view is obviously the firm order intake that goes into the order backlog. It's also conditional orders, and it is what we are negotiating as we speak. For the firm order intake, we plan for everything, including either hedging or we have pre-bought steel. We also have indexation in the contracts. That is also when we secure currency, if we have an exposure or we have a natural discrepancy. The quality of the firm order intake is high by default, because that is how we're planning. When we talk about external factors is when we need to change from that planning. That's when it's starting to cost us. In this case, it is primarily on the transport. When the tariffs were coming, or in this case, when we have a COVID-19 situation, so we have to change anything from the given planning, that's when we see additional cost. The firm order intake is hedged by default. That is what we do when we consider something firm. Thank you. My follow-up is, are you continuing to hedge at these high levels, or are you waiting for some of the raw materials to come down when it comes to forward-looking hedging? We are not raw material traders. Our job is to secure what is best for Vestas and for the customers. We are securing every time we see that we have a firm order intake, we start securing what could have an impact on the profitability. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Casper Blom from ABG. Please go ahead. Thanks a lot. Actually, just one follow-up on the ASP. For me, a positive surprise that it came in at EUR 0.8 and up some 11% year-on-year. A pretty big price increase. First, is this sort of representative for a normalized level as things are today, i.e., is this also a level that we could expect in the coming quarters? Secondly, with this increase here, do you feel that you have sort of covered as much as is realistic in terms of the higher input cost? Because it really is a big impact on the model when prices go up 10%. Thank you. First of all, Casper, you cannot just put and do that percentage calculation because there will, as always, be a change of order intake, both in terms of geography and scope and mix of it. Please don't do those your percentage calculation in that way. Having said that, I think it is fair, as you've heard us speak to now a number of times, I think it's only reasonable, and it will actually be almost a question mark to what we have also been communicating, the discipline of how we run project by project and also how we sign it off when you have such a quarter where components are moving. As Marika just answered the previous one, our hedging strategy and orders haven't changed. Therefore, we have a good insight in the costing of the technology and the solution we are providing to our customers, and we will adjust accordingly. That's where we are, and I wouldn't necessarily put your exact percentage calculation as you just done between order intake. We will continue doing that quarter -on -quarter. That's absolutely fair, Henrik. If I can maybe sort of rephrase a little bit, it is an increase, all else equal. Is this sort of an unusual high level that you've seen this quarter? Have there been any sort of specific tailwinds, or again, is this a fair level to assume for the coming quarters? Casper, it's another way. It is a positive, it is an increase, and it should be. It should be for everyone, because there is not, in 90 days, one single component or one single part of your logistics or transport that has gone down. Therefore, it's all going one way, and therefore, it is going up. It's, by the way, going up for everyone. Fair enough. Thanks a lot, Henrik. Thank you. Our next question comes from Katie Self from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Just the first one, my line cut out, so apologies if I missed this. I'm just trying to understand, particularly on the service margin, how much of that four percentage point decline year-on-year was related to the integration of offshore, and how much of that was the logistics challenge? If you could give us any indication of the kind of underlying either onshore service margin or offshore, that would be helpful. Just the second question was, there were some articles out a few weeks ago around a COVID outbreak at one of your plants in western Denmark. I was just wondering if you could update us there. Is that back to normal operations now? Thanks. Katie, if I start with the service, and you see good development on the revenue side, and the logistical challenges as well as the integration, I would say it's a fair mix, and that is what causes the discrepancy. Also remember that it's a smaller business, so not enormous numbers have a big impact on the service margin. If you look at the logistical challenges, it is very difficult to move people in between countries. It's costing us, it causes delays because people could be in quarantine for a couple of weeks before they can actually enter into sites. We see a lot of extra cost simply because of COVID. As it looks, it's going to continue for a while, but we're continuing to manage that situation. Then the integration, as I said earlier, obviously, that is not free of charge either. Katie, in relation to your question on one of the factories, it's right, we had an outbreak of COVID in our night shift related to our Ringkøbing factory in Denmark. I will just say here, yes, it's back to partly operating normal. It is what we have also seen in some other factories where we have had some of these. I think the one thing we have learned of this one is also when you have protocols and you maybe either relax the protocols or you take them easier in a period of time, that is where you have an outbreak like that. I think actually in this quarter, it has served us a little bit well to have one of these things, to also been able to discuss how we avoid and how we learn from that first and foremost. I think we all feel the fatigue about it, but as I said, now it's just another good way of highlighting the need for sticking to the discipline and the protocols. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Thank you. If I can just build on a couple of previous questions. Firstly, on ASP, could you quantify how much of that ASP increase is from better scope? Secondly, in service, can you quantify how much is the integration charge related to offshore? Sean, thanks for that. On the ASP, we don't split the ASP down to your question in terms of either scope or geography, so we don't do that. As I said here, you can, as our previous answers, you can assume that the main part of it also relates to what has happened with the underlying components of our technology solutions. In terms of the integration cost, we don't have that as a separate line, and therefore we run and we integrate the business, and there has been quite an attention for us throughout basically end of Q4 and also coming into Q1. There are some of that, but that will be ongoing throughout this year as also part of the P&L. Only when we get to a larger part, we'll come back with potentially special items, as we have said in the guidance. Understood. Just a brief follow-up, if I may, regarding that service. You said earlier that these extra costs related to the difficulty and challenges of moving people will continue for a while, so we could expect also a depressed margin in Q2. That obviously assumes very strong profitability in service in the second half to make that guidance. Is that how you're thinking about the service piece? We haven't changed anything on the guidance. Obviously we think we have a good overview where we land, and if we see it differently, you will know. I always also say, when you focus on the percentages here, it is a business that contains more than 12,000 service technicians globally. When you have that effect of that scope and magnitude of people, also be aware a 4% deviation or comparison is actually somewhere around EUR 20 million in a business of that scope and magnitude. It's just focus on the percentages, we do the same. I'm also saying here in the deviation of integrating that number of people and get it up running globally, EUR 20 million is not big deviations to focus on. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you. I had a couple of questions. The first one for Marika on the working capital. Could you perhaps explain how you expect the trend to change and evolve during the rest of the year? How much of the inventory built up is because of the logistical challenges? That's question number one. My second question is coming back to the raw materials inflation point, and this is obviously more of a long-term equilibrium question, is that, obviously when there are steep changes, perhaps you're not able to fully pass through. Two years down the line, is there any reason why the supply chain absorbs more of this and your customers don't fully, and you don't pass this on fully, and they themselves don't fully reflect it in the tenders that they're participating in? Those are my two questions. If I can ask a third one, it's just that you highlighted on the offshore side, you are participating in tendering activities with your customers. How has the reception to your new model been with customers, and is the technology of gearbox presenting any challenges as you're proceeding in these discussions? Thank you. Okay. If I start with your inventory question or the working capital, we're following a pretty normal profile. We have been very clear that we utilize the strength of the balance sheet instead of investing in capacity. We are keeping inventory, and the profile that you see now, you see an increase here in Q1 of this year, and that is to accommodate for the activity level we have ahead of us. How it pans out, obviously depends on how active Q1 of next year will be. We will not disclose how the end of the year will look like, but it's following the normal profiling that we have for the buildup and support the overall activity level. When it comes to raw material, I think I answered pretty much in detail. We have a 36 months overview or anticipation how the raw material will pan out. How we secure depends on the backlogs or the firm order intake that we have. If we have conditional orders, how we anticipate that that will pan out in time. Obviously, when we negotiate a new contract, we have to take height for the cost that we have or that we see at this point in time. When we have a firm order intake, we have secured steel, which is the biggest exposure that we have, but any raw material, either by hedging, either by in the contract. Obviously the indexation, the longer profile you have of the contracts, the more indexation you have to be sure that you can accommodate for increases, our profile is not to make money on hedging. Our profile is to secure that we have the profitability that we anticipated when we accepted the order. For our customer, it is about having the transparency to be able to bid. Yeah. With that two or three years forward in onshore and of course in offshore even longer. Longer. When you come to Deepa, on your question to offshore, we have had a good dialogue with most of the players in offshore, I think it's fair saying here, when you come out with a technology and a new product roadmap ahead, there will always be those discussions. I think that's probably what we should say right now, in and around the commercial journey ahead for offshore. As we said, we will say more when we have more concrete to say in as such. You would appreciate we are a few players from an OEM side, and we are also a few more players from a customer side, but it is still a market that is building and developing from a relatively small five, 6 GW market towards a 25, 30 GW market in the second half of this decade. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking my questions and good morning. I have a couple of questions. One's around pricing again. Just on the onshore order intake, the ASP, is there anything that you can give us in terms of the step-up quarter-on-quarter, what proportion of this is actually just cost and therefore shouldn't reflect in margin, and what proportion could actually be better pricing and therefore better margin? I'm just trying to get a sense for how much of this is ultimately just pass-through and there's no impact to the margin or not. Same thing, but just from the offshore perspective, one of the sort of themes, at least from the utility side, has been the perception that maybe competitive pressures are rising in offshore on the developer side, especially with some of the recent auctions in the U.K. where we saw quite heavily bidded prices for seabed licenses. I'm just wondering from your perspective, are you seeing any of that potential pressure in the auctions that we're seeing this year, maybe highlighting that competitive pressure maybe being exported up, and potentially have any implications for margins? Just to carry on from that last point, this year and next year, obviously some sizable amounts of auctions on the offshore side and are definitely beginning to paint the picture for you guys from 2025 onwards. I'm just wondering, what proportion of the auctions are you actually participating in? Are you potentially able to bid into everything, well, alongside obviously the developer? Just some color there would be great. Thank you very much. Ajay, thank you so much. I think here, as we have not only a few people on an audience like this, I think on your split and in the ASP, we don't give you the breakdown of what we believe is related to an underlying cost change, because it absolutely comes down to individual customer discussion, project by project. We have our super robust process here for sign-off. We are disciplined in that, and that basically has to come through here and has a yes or a no if we are working on some of those threshold areas. That we are confident of providing to you, Ajay, but we won't give neither to the market or to the public in how we are dealing and how we are mitigating some of that. You can see some of it actually works. As Marika said, some of the internal Vestas things we have been working on, the handles works well for us. We have seen the progression in our gross margin. There are also still things we can do better at. When it comes, I will just sort of say to the offshore, fully share your excitement and fully share your passion with it. You also appreciate that right now, I think the biggest upside for us is that we now have one team. That is a team, Vestas, that sits with some of the same customers. Of course, that gives us an upside in, first of all, expanding and strengthening the relationship with the individual customers. We know what we are participating in, and we also know that is definitely leaning from end of 2024, 2025, and onwards into second half of the 20s at this decade. We have to be patient, and I'm sure you will allow me to say be patient, because we have to work through diligently those auctions, and we are able to participate with the customers and the auctions we, together with the customer, make a priority to participate in. The easiest thing, we'll try to give you a percentage here, and that will most likely be wrong anyway. If one or two of the auctions comes either our way or away from us, then we will either be successful with that percentage. We said all along a leading position in offshore, and that we still believe in. Okay. The next question comes from Ben Heelan from Bank of America. Please go ahead. The line is now open. Yeah, morning, guys. Can I ask, sorry, another one on hedging. It sounds as though you're pretty well hedged through the forward hedging you get when you book a firm order and the indexation that you said you had in some of the contracts. We really shouldn't be thinking about raw materials as a headwind for profitability over the next couple of years, or is there any other way that we can see raw mats starting to weigh on margins as we move into 2022 or 2023? That would be the first question. Secondly, obviously a decent improvement in gross margin in Q1. Is there a way to understand what the impact of the logistical challenges and the supply chain constraints were on that margin in Q1? Thank you. If we start with the hedging, as I said, we have a 36 months view, and obviously with offshore now being part of it, you have an even longer term view on any raw material, I would say. When we have a firm order intake, then we start the hedging, then we start planning basically everything, whether it's currency, whether it's sourcing, whether it's transport, everything is booked. Where we could have, in a given year, an exposure on the steel is on the conditional orders. If we have a conditional order that we have negotiated, the scope of contract, the pricing, what have you, then it's a negotiation with the customers. Obviously we, as everyone else, could be successful or less successful. That would be the exposure I see. If we have an in for out orders, I think Henrik was also pretty clear on that, is when we are in the negotiation of an in for out, we take height for the actual prices we see in the market. From that point of view, we are sort of securing. The conditional orders are, if anything, the question mark. That can be mitigated with having an indexation clause in the contract or that we have pre-bought steel because we see that we can allocate it into other contracts. It is a difference. In the whole scheme of things, and we were also pretty clear of that at the beginning of the year, is that we see a bigger risk with the transport and the logistical challenges, that just continues. We've had tariffs, and now we've had COVID for a year, so it's sort of an ongoing. That is because we, in a given year, have to change location, or we see that we have supply constraints somewhere, then we relocate, and then you're sitting with a payment for a transport that you planned for, plus you're having an additional one. What I think is important when you look at the low activity level in the quarter and you look at the gross profit improvements, obviously that supports what we have said, that we have the threshold for the contracts. The biggest and most important thing for us is the execution of the contract, that they live up to the overall expectation on the contribution margin for a given contract. Again, what I said on the logistical challenges, that will be a headwind. Underlying, I see that it's clearly an improvement in how we execute on contracts. That is a consequence on also how we have been negotiating. long answer to your question. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Klaus from Nykredit. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yes, good morning. First of all, a follow-up question to these integration costs and special items related to the offshore business. Was it correctly understood that here in Q1, there is integration cost, which you have not quantified, and then for the rest of the year, we should expect special items in the range of EUR 100 million? Was that correct? That's correctly understood. Okay. Secondly, all these logistical issues that you have here in Q1, did you say that they added up to EUR 56 million? If not, would you try to quantify them a little bit? I think, to be honest, there's a lot of one-off costs in this quarter. I think what I was referring to, and I hope you understood this, that it was integration cost that impacted the SG&A. Yeah. That was EUR 56 million. If you look at the line of SG&A cost, you see an increase in the quarter, that's obviously with a low activity level and a low revenue. It has an impact on the EBIT number. It's EUR 56 million, that's integration altogether. It's no special items or integration cost. It's simply that we have increased the SG&A. Got it. Could you, on top of this, try to quantify for us what the Suez issue potentially, what impact that has? Sorry, I didn't hear your question now. I guess there's been a lot of extra costs due to the Suez issue. Could you just try to quantify what these costs could be? I think in here when we go in, and I know everyone right now trying to slice up every part of the logistic challenge. You can't, because what is it that comes and you will say, "I booked that towards the Suez Canal issue." That is also a little bit why we this quarter have said this about having a box of COVID cost. What is then COVID cost and what is Suez? Therefore, we just said we mitigate, and every time we have a single asset component, whether it's in a container or it's in a single asset of the turbine, we try to mitigate any sort of either delay or blockage. It can have a cost, but we also have super good partners to work with, so sometimes we're able to mitigate it. We won't go into just putting, and Suez has that cost to it, because you can't divide it that way right now in the supply chain. Okay, fair enough. Thank you very much. Cost of delay can come not in Suez, but it probably comes at arrival in the port, and that might give you a delay on the road or the rail transport in the other end. What is then Suez and what is the rail and road? We don't do that. We know it's booked towards the project cost, and that's where we have to get better. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Lars Heindorff from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes, morning. Thank you for taking my questions. The first one is also on the transportation cost, and you've already been indicating that the supply chain/transport cost in total is around about 15%-20% of your input costs. In order to avoid all those nitty-gritty parts that you don't want to answer anyway, I don't know if you can give us some indication, but, what kind of level we're looking at here, given the problems that you've been talking about? We. That's the first one. Yeah, that's the first one. I understand your question. Yeah. Obviously, the best answer I can give you, Lars, is if you look at the guidance, we have taken height for that in the 6% scenario, and obviously a more beneficial situation in the 8% scenario. As we speak, with the COVID situation and rerouting and supplier constraints, the container constraints that we have, it's very hard to sort of say exactly where we will land. It is definitely in the 6%-8% on the EBIT, and that is unfortunately the best answer I can give you. Lars, you say sort of we don't want to comment on nitty-gritty. Allow us just to say here, we don't give away how we run transport when it's that magnitude of our projects. If we have a locked transport or locked cost, which is also possible that we have, allow us to not comment on exactly that part of it. I'll do that, Henrik. Sorry. The second one is on the outlook, because you stated a little bit about your ambitions for the three business areas. For the onshore, you talk about stable or slight growth in the next couple or maybe one, two, three years ahead. I noticed that you also used WoodMac for these market share calculations. If you look into both WoodMac and Bloomberg Energy Finance, both of them forecast actually considerably decline in onshore installations into 2022, 2023, 2024, mainly driven by U.S. and China. I'm just wondering, are you seeing anything different? Have they just not updated their numbers? I'm just curious to find out what are you basing the growth on here? I think here, there will always be individual quarters. There can also be individual years of that that will have variations to the theme. You will appreciate right now our earlier comments about the U.S., and the U.S. market could be changing depending on what happens from a political side in that. On the other hand, when we look at it right now, it is fair saying over the last six months, Lars, that we haven't seen any policy maker anywhere in the world going the opposite way. The megatrend and the underlying trend, whether it's in an onshore or an offshore, it's pointing the same direction. If you now then on top of that also include now some of the planning that's being done when it comes to P2X or hydrogen, which actually is scalable, will require even bigger onshore or offshore installations. I think it is fair saying that we see it in Europe right now, individual countries. You saw the German auction coming out most recently here. Bigger amount, still with a gap on the permitting side. We still believe and we still see that countries are still catching momentum also on the onshore side. Okay. Very clear. Thank you. Now, ask just for the last question. Sure. The last question comes from Rajiv Singla from Societe Generale. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Good morning. A couple of questions on the business. One is, yesterday you had received a very big order of 400 MW, and you had EPC contract as well in that particular project. Given your recent investment in CIP, can we assume that you would be doing more and more of EPC work going forward? Second question would be on basically offshore business, what kind of traction you are getting from the customers with respect to your new turbine, and if you can share any timeline when we can expect any order in the offshore business? I think if I start on the offshore side first, as we said here, it's a big audience, we don't give away our progression and our status on the discussion with neither the customers or the auctions we are participating with customers. First of all, it's two big lots in the offshore, that also makes the success or not. When we have something to share, we will share it. As I said, I hope it comes clearly through from both Marika and me, in terms of the passion and the excitement about having both the offshore and onshore together Vestas. I think that I will leave it with that. I think on the EPC and the investment into Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, it is actually total two unrelated topics. EPC about how we run the projects around the world and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners is about investing into projects around the world from the fundraising they do. I will just say that's not related at all, and it's down to us how we consider EPC, and that has nothing influence from an investment in Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Rajiv, if I can add to the scope of contracts. I think our strength is that we can do any type of contract anywhere in the world. That is what this is representing. An EPC contract when it comes to execution is one of the bigger risks that we have. The supply and install will continue to be the biggest part of our portfolio. Okay. Thank you. With that, I thank you very much for your active participation, and we look forward to see and speak with many of you in the coming days. Thank you for this.