Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this presentation of Vestas' Q2 and First Half of 2022. With that, let's go to the key highlights for the quarter first. Our key highlights for Q2 was we sustained the price increases, which also continued to pave the way forward for our profitability target. This is all about maintaining the required discipline to protect value creation and also get Vestas back in a positive EBIT again. Order intake of 2.2 GW. The wind turbine order backlog remains high at EUR 18.9 billion. We got revenue in the quarter of EUR 3.3 billion. That's a revenue decrease by 7% year-on-year, caused mainly by a delay on one specific offshore project. Profitability negative in accordance with the outlook revised on first of May for after Q1. EBIT margin of -5.5%, driven by the supply chain disruptions and also the cost inflation. Finally, I think over the last few days, we can say positive policy development in the U.S. and Europe. I think counter to against that is that the evidence both on the energy crisis is here, however, still with a lack of the permitting progress and that both progress and process we would really encourage to speed up. With that, let's go and see to more of the details from Q2. If we first go to our global business environment, it's known, the chart to the left is known. TIDE is still highly relevant. This is how we run and operate Vestas throughout this and also continue to operate Vestas throughout this challenging macroeconomic business environment. We expect this supply chain disruption, they are expected to remain and last throughout 2022, and therefore, this quarter has not been neither worse or better. If we look at the energy crisis, that underlines the wind power's criticality to meet both the electricity demand, also ensure energy supply and more solutions, and also lower the CO₂ emissions positive. On the cost inflation, the supply chain disruptions and COVID-related lockdowns, they continue to impact both timelines and increase our costs of delivery. That's the negative. Then on the last bullet, we will say the geopolitical uncertainty that continues to impact the global business environment, and especially for private enterprises, these are of course giving us concern both currently and also for the future. It's negative, and it is an unknown. Let me also take this opportunity on behalf of the board and exec to thank our partners, customers, and not least our 29,000 colleagues for a huge commitment throughout this quarter, again, showing the right level of resilience under some tough circumstances in many of the global markets. Thank you again. If we go to Power Solutions, main message here is increased pricing remains the key to both current and future value creation. If we look at the highlight, we decreased order intake, driven mainly by EMEA and Asia Pacific. It's impacted by delayed orders from customers, where customers have to balance cost inflation and also the offtake uncertainty. We can see we are finding a way together, and we can also see that the offtake and the PPA markets are improving. The increased focus on energy independence has to accelerate the ambitions for renewable transition across the world, and we are seeing that. Now it's about getting it into real projects. Pricing continues to increase to mitigate cost inflation, secure future profitability, and just want to say this is the highest onshore ASP in the last decade. Wind turbine order backlog remains high at EUR 18.9 billion, and you will see the breakdown to your right, and you will also see here the continuing development, the ASP, which gives us, over the last four quarters alone, a +20% year-on-year development in pricing. Then to the service. In the service here, we've had again a very important quarter. We have worked diligently with our customers under an energy and electricity market that requires most of our turbines working at its best. Service business well-positioned for future growth. We have seen that there is an increased activity level, and there is higher transactional sales that continued from Q1, and we probably will also see some of that continuing with the electricity demands we are seeing also for the coming quarters. Vestas, we pioneered the first world's first hydrogen-powered offshore service vessel. We look forward to have that, and hopefully also many other good examples in place within the service business when we look ahead. The average duration on our new contracts continue to increase, and you will see to the right, we have an order backlog in service of EUR 31.3 billion, of which EUR 27.3 billion is in onshore. We look after 138 GW of active service contracts and turbines, and we have an average backlog contract duration in excess of 10 years. Below you will see the positive development across the regions which of course we again highlight, and it's also the strength of the coverage we have in our service business, and hence we'll come back to some of the one-offs in the quarter. When we then look at the sustainability, I just want to remind you, we are still the most sustainable company in the world and will remain that for the rest of 2022. In the quarter, also important to see that the CO₂ emission avoided for our solutions that has been manufactured and shipped went from 167 million tons last year to 105 million ton this year. That's a drop of 37%, but illustrate a bit the, of course, quarterly deviations that will be in activity. We will catch up on that when we look some of the quarters ahead. On the carbon emission, which means it's our own Scope One and Two, we went from 28,000 tons of CO₂ down to 24,000 tons of CO₂, which mainly comes from energy changes and how we work with that in our factories. Well, done. It's a reduction of 12% year-on-year. Let me also here remind you of that the total fleet of turbines in Vestas displaces 221 million tons of CO₂ a year. Actually, it's the timing and the length of those solution that really matters, both for Vestas but also for our customers and the world. When we then look at the safety, we work through a quarter where we have also onboarded in a number of countries new colleagues. In one way, pleased to see that we have been able to keep our safety record at 3.1, but we are never happy or never pleased with having a number at 3.1, so therefore, we constantly work with safety to see that we keep each other safe arriving and working and also leaving back home to the families. With that, I will hand over for more details on the financials to Hans, and then I will come back on the guidance in the end. Thank you, Henrik. Let's go straight into the P&L. As you can see here, profitability has changed, but it's as expected, in line with the revised outlook that we put out there in Q1. Revenue decreased 7% year-on-year, EUR 3.305 billion, driven by lower offshore installations from a project that was delayed, as referred to also by you, Henrik. Gross margins decreased by 7.7 percentage points from 10.6% - 2.9% year-on-year, mainly driven by the external cost inflation that we've seen, and the supply chain disruptions that has also been observed. EBIT margins before special items decreased by 8.2 percentage points year-on-year, and this was mainly driven by the factors that I just mentioned, and then there was also a gearing effect from the lower revenue, and we ended that at -5.5%. Finally, then, we have some special items driven by some ups and some downs, positive reversals that are partly offset by some further impairments in Asia. Turning to the Power Solutions segment. Profitability is of course challenged, as we have been talking about before. Revenue decreased by 11% year-on-year, driven by the delay that we had in offshore. I think as you can also see here on the chart to the right, it's important to look at the difference here between Q2 last year and Q2 this year. EUR 719 million from offshore last year and only EUR 78 million in this quarter. EBIT margin before special items negative 8.6%, which was an 8.6% decline as we were sitting at 0% a year ago, driven by the same factors that were referenced before, external cost inflation as well as supply chain disruptions, and then a bit of gearing effect to add to that as well. In the service business, activity levels were high, but profitability was challenged, as you can also see here. Revenue increased 13% compared to last year, driven by higher activity levels overall. We had more transactional sales, and then of course, in the current inflationary environment, we're also seeing how that has an impact on how the contracts are managed. On the EBIT side, before special items, we sat at EUR 124 million, which corresponds to 17.7%. The relatively low margin was driven by lower profitability, one-off type things on certain projects in the U.S. and in Africa. As said, that is what brings us into the relatively low margin in the quarter. We do expect, of course, to see the second half of the year to pick up, so that we will have, say, a recovery towards the targets that we're having. On the SG&A, they amount to 7.6%, pretty much under control. There is an increase compared to last year, but this is predominantly related to the offshore impairment that we had, as well as higher cost on transportation equipment. Net working capital increased in the quarter. This was driven by an increase in the level of inventory we had, which was then only partly offset by down in milestone payments coming in at lower levels. This in turn also impacts the cash flow, where you can see, there's EUR 100 million effect from the net working capital. There's a negative effect also coming from the lower earnings, that of course also are reflected in the guidance we have for the full year, which all in all leads us to a negative cash flow of EUR 188 million from operating activities. On the previous slide on the cash flow, of course, we also had investments. As you can see here, a bit more specified, investment levels are pretty much the same as they were last year, coming in at EUR 174 million. Stable, so I guess, not much to say there in terms of development. Provisions and LPF remains at elevated levels. The LPF continues to be at high levels, and this is a natural consequence of the extraordinary repairs and upgrades that we're currently carrying out. Warranty provisions in the quarter correspond to 3.7% of revenue. The elevated levels are driven by cost inflation, logistic challenges, and similar things for the repair and upgrades that we are doing on the cases that we have. On the capital structure, the net debt to EBITDA increased due to the challenged profitability that we are having. The net debt to EBITDA now sits at 0.5 in Q2 this year. Our commitment to working with the capital allocation policy remains so, and I think it's important to say that in this transitory phase of the industry, there will be swings in the quarters, and the net debt to EBITDA will fluctuate a bit, and probably be a bit different to what we have usually seen in some quarters. I would also like to stress at the same time that we're comfortable with our capital structure and the liquidity position that we have. With that, I think we turn back to you, Henrik, for the outlook. Thank you so much, Hans. For the outlook 2022, unchanged from Q1, that means revenue remains for the year between EUR 14.5 billion - EUR 16 billion. We expect service to grow with minimum 10%. Our EBIT margin before special items sits between -5% to 0%. Service margin overall for the year is expected to be approximately 23%. Then the total investment approximately EUR 1 billion around. Of course, if we look at that, it is important to say that we keep the ranges for now. It is important to know that the basic assumptions behind those guidance are more uncertain than normal. We still see a quite volatile and also uncertain fundamentals and conditions around the world, which of course is reflected in the outlook for the full year. The outlook 2022 is also based on the current foreign exchange rates, which we have. With that, just want to say thank you for doing that. With that, I will hand over to the operator for our Q&A session. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question for the speakers, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. We ask you kindly to limit your questions to two at a time. Our first question comes from the line of Claus Almer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I have a few questions. I will take them one by one. The first goes to the U.S. market and the likely new PTC. Should we expect U.S. orders to be announced in Q4 already, or it's more a 2023 thing? That would be the first question. Thanks, Claus. I think positive on the U.S. I think before we get to that, we are probably 10 days away from having a full signed and verified IRA, as it is called in the short form. I think the U.S. is predictable here. Some will come release. I think Q4 could be a timing, but I also think we will run into 2023. I think for us, the whole ease of this also the now full transparency of what's going to happen in the next 10 years. There'll be some interpretations, probably opening up for some early discussions with customers. We are engaging with that, of course, as we speak, Claus. You would appreciate. We won't set a particular quarter on it, but I think here we are just welcoming the clearance of what is going on in the U.S. for the next 10 years. We very much welcome that it includes onshore, offshore, solar, and also reaching out to Power-to-X or hydrogen, which actually has a prominent role in that act. We look forward to start working with it, and then we will see if it hits in Q4. You will not be surprised for me saying that, of course, we will do whatever we can to make it hit Q4, but otherwise it's a Q3 or it's a 2023 discussion for us. Okay. Just to be 100% sure, Henrik. In any meaningful volumes, we should not have too high hope for this year. Is that best guess at this point? No, because people will still have to get both the interpretation and also how we can work with it in some of the lineup of assets and others that will have to take some time, Claus. Therefore, I think people want now to be sure that the projects and orders that are going into the pipeline actually hit that 100% PTC. Okay. The second question goes to the ASP, and no doubt that the ASP in Q2 was rather strong. I was actually wondering how we should think about the EUR 0.96 million in Q2 versus the EUR 8.9 million in Q1. This is 8% higher, and this is probably more than justified by the inflation. In other words, does this mean the orders you sign in Q1 will be attached with a low contribution margin? You can't put that necessarily to single out orders, but you have to say that did actually happen something during Q1 and Q2, if I have to remind you, because in April was most likely the most volatile part of March. April was the most volatile period for both components and raw materials. There is a reflection of price development from Q1 - Q2. Low-emission steel changed enormously in end of March, Q1. There is a price development between the quarters. You can read into that. We work with pricing. We are extremely disciplined with pricing, as you can now see quarter and quarter. I think ASP of 0.96 demonstrate that we are doing what we are saying. We would like to have taken more orders for sure, but we are happy with the orders we have taken, and we are, again, particularly happy with the pricing we are getting on it. That's the thing to say about the pricing right now. Q1 and Q2 ASP underlying, so adjusted for inflation is more or less the same. It means the same contribution margin. Is that what you're saying, Henrik? No, because you cannot say that an ASP in Q1 cannot be hit by some of the fluctuations you had in Q1 as well. You cannot. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to do that profitability in Q1 and Q2 is the same, but that's not necessarily right because you had some raw materials and component changes and also some other changes in Q1 that will affect the underlying profitability. That's just how it is. We are trying to think ahead. We are trying to price, but we cannot price ahead for things we don't know. Okay. Thanks, so much, Henrik. I guess that was. The next question comes from the line of Kristian Johansen from SEB. Please go ahead. Yes. Thank you. Two questions from me as well. Firstly, on the onshore order volumes, if I look at the past three quarters, it's down 28% year-on-year. To me at least, it seems quite likely that you'll see sort of material onshore delivery decline next year. Just curious to get your thoughts on what you are doing and what you potentially can do to avoid under absorption of fixed cost next year and potential negative margin impacts. I think there's quite a number of questions in that. By the way, Claus, we didn't cut you off, so I don't think you left that quickly. Kristian, on that part, as said here, I think you can also compare with the full of H1. We have taken approximately 2 GW less, but we are EUR 1 billion less. That's the comparison you should do right now. It's also a strong signal from us. We said some of that in Q1. For us, pricing and profitability has drivers that overrides volume. And if we need to adjust, you have seen some of our adjustments we have done in both the capacity and therefore the manufacturing set up. If that's the part of it, then we will also continue part of that. On the other hand, if you've asked me seven days ago, I would have said something maybe slightly different because seven days ago, we were sitting with something that looked like we didn't have a PTC route in the U.S. Now it seems like we have. That also changes a few of those ways of looking at it. There is no compromise in pricing. Okay. That's clear. Henrik, in the last couple of calls, you have sort of addressed the industry discipline and encouraged the industry to be as price disciplined as you are. You haven't mentioned that this time, so just curious on whether you've actually seen a change in the industry in terms of discipline. I think I will avoid try to do too much outside saying it will correct itself because you get into so deep red numbers problems if you don't remain disciplined on the pricing. We are a testament to that. We have remained disciplined throughout. We still sit in a quarter where we have 5.5% - EBIT. I actually think always to say we got that because we didn't price, and we didn't price ahead, but that we are working through. There is a big gap between what people have done and said in the last four-six quarters, and I don't think we have to keep repeating that. We remain disciplined, and we encourage everyone else to be that, otherwise the industry sets itself up for trouble. Fair enough. Thank you. That was all for me. The next question comes from the line of Gael de Bray from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning, everybody. I have two questions, please. The first one is on the service business. Is this really a one-off this quarter? Given the 2022 target of 23% is unchanged, I mean, would you confirm that service margins will likely be in excess of 25%-26% in the second half? That's question number one. Question number two is on the drop-through for the Power Solutions segment. I mean, in Q2, the operating loss was more or less the same as in Q1. If I adjust for, you know, Q1's write-downs in offshore It looks a little bit disappointing given the EUR 700 million increase in revenue sequentially. Could you talk a bit more about the specific headwinds this quarter compared to Q1 which explain the lack of operating leverage? Could you also give some color on the drop-through that we could expect in the second half for Power Solutions? Thanks very much. I sometimes hear I still will have. Sometimes we get into August, and it seems like we forgot the sequence of how it unfolded in Q2. Let me just remind you. In Q2, the world almost come to a complete stop for several weeks, considering the Ukraine and Russian case. If you go back and look at what people have been able to mitigate, when I extended a big thank you to all our stakeholders and not least our many thousands of colleagues around, I meant it because it has been exceptionally difficult in the Q2 to get just the physical part of things to site or to factories due to some of those challenges. I will. As much as you try to do your quarter-on-quarter on a backlog, we work through the backlog, but it is fair to say Q2 did pose us quite a number of challenges. What we managed to do in the end of Q1 and into Q2 in Ukraine and Russia, I still thank wholeheartedly our colleagues for managing those difficult circumstances. I will encourage you, Gael de Bray, to a little bit in saying there will be fluctuations, so therefore you cannot say that there is EUR 700 million, is that a missing leverage? We're getting two quarters where the backlog will be better in ASP, and that will also be seen in profitability. I guess I barely have to comment now on the second question. Thanks for that, Henrik. I appreciate it. It's exactly as you say, Q2 was a very special quarter. We're sitting now here in August, but let's remember what happened in the late part of February and what kind of ramifications that had on a lot of the things that we were in the process of doing then in Q2. Clearly, that is something that has an effect in a quarter like Q2. I think that pretty much addresses your second question. On the first one on service, yes, these effects are one-off in nature. We are seeing some costs coming up in the geographies mentioned. Yes, I guess you have made that calculation already yourself, that mathematically, that also means that we're expecting to see that we are gonna be at levels much higher than what we've seen in the first half of the year, that that's what we're gonna be expecting then for the second half of the year in Q3 and Q4. I think that's mathematical logic in some ways. Positivity for the business. Yeah. Thanks very much for this. Can I just try again on the drop-through? I mean, I appreciate that Q2 was obviously pretty unusual in a number of aspects and things, but hopefully things are gradually gonna come back to normal, hopefully into the second half. If that's indeed the case, what sort of operating leverage can we hope for? I think we are working through the backlog, as Henrik is saying. Clearly, again, it's mathematical logic also in some ways. First of all, we have a, let's say, a back-end loaded year, as we always have. We are also expecting to see that we will mathematically have to do better margins in the second half of the year. We are certainly not hoping that Q3 or Q4 is gonna be as special as Q2 was. Again, I mean, that's how it's gonna work, and that's what's reflected in our guidance. As we have said, disruptions are still expected. They still happen, and therefore, they're expected to continue throughout 2022. I don't think we are through that yet. Then as I said, Gael, you can't put an equation between a specific ASP and a specific quarter and then take the next quarter will increase with what the ASP did four-six quarters ago. There is a mix of projects coming in a quarter and being executed from the various part of the backlog. I think you can take the average ASP for the backlog and then continue and compare it against the recent quarter of ASP. That's a much better way of looking at it. Okay. Thanks very much. The next question comes from the line of Ajay Patel from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning, and thank you firstly for the presentation. I have two questions. The first one is more trying to understand the pace of recovery here. You know, clearly huge amounts of uncertainty, and it's very difficult for us looking in on how the components are moving, but maybe a sort of simplistic question. If you look at your order backlog as of today, what proportion of that order backlog doesn't have margins that are consistent to your 8%-10% margins? So that we can maybe gauge how much legacy, maybe projects that you've secured that are a little bit lower margin, have still got to work through the backlog. Secondly, just on this year's guidance, is there any sort of rough idea, a range maybe, that how much of that guidance has been impacted by transport and logistics as a negative? Has it been the 200 basis points, 400 basis points type of impacts to help us to gauge? How do you expect that to develop over the next twelve months, given the level of supply that's maybe expected on container ships and potential for recession? Could that be a headwind or substantially revert? Just to try to understand how things can evolve over time for us. Thank you. Thank you, Ajay. I think on your first question on breaking out the backlog for you on average and also profitability by projects, we have that, and we of course won't share that in public. As you will be able to see, when we have priced, we can only price off of what we know and for what we have also seen. As we have also discussed in major part of the last three to four quarters, it has not been only a price discussion of where you entered. It has also been, have you actually been able to physically get delivery of either the raw materials or components, or even get the transport into your factories and out again. That is where we say it's priced when we enter it, we are very disciplined, but we could not price for the challenges we ended, and we are still executing part of. Quarter here, we price for what you are rightly saying, our long-term target, but we have also repeatedly done that. That's probably why we are in a situation where we can see we have come out with -5.5% EBIT. I would just encourage you also to see the ASP development compared to four quarters ago. It's up more than 20%, and in that there is your answer to the question. When we then look at the guidance also for the coming quarters and what we are expecting, we won't say anything about 2023 until we get to February. It's obvious that we are working with both planning 2023, and we are long into that, but we are also executing. When we look at it, I think most of the transport providers and logistics providers have said so far that they at least foresee, as we have said here, remaining challenges will continue throughout 2022, and then we will see if there is an easing in 2023. If the easing come, no one will welcome it more than us. Of course, that we will share with our customers on any both existing projects and also continuing order intake for 2023 and 2024. It's not time now to sort of give you a quarterly guidance because there are simply still too many uncertainties for being able to do that. As you would appreciate, there is an ongoing improvement just from executing the backlog. I think as a supplement to that, to just say also to your point about movements and what might happen. There's still a long way before we hit the end of the year. We obviously work with harmonogram and projects that are to be delivered. If you see harbor disruptions, these kinds of things, it trickles into an already back-end loaded 2022. That's why we see still for the year a lot of uncertainty in terms of how the execution is gonna go for the remaining two quarters. At this stage, you couldn't give us an idea for this year how much the numbers this year in margin terms have been weighed down by transport and logistics issues, as in, yeah. Is it a 4% type hit to margin, 5%, or is it a bit difficult to disentangle, is it? I think at some point in time when we get to the end of the year, we ourselves will have a better view on that. Right now we're obviously working on mitigating the risks. Obviously we have been doing forecasting and we have the guidance we have to reflect this, but there's still, as said, a lot of uncertainty. It is, as you say, also quite intertwined, the different effects we're seeing from some of these complications. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Casper Blom from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Thanks a lot. I'll take them my two questions one by one, also. I was hoping you could give a little bit more flavor to the discussions you have with customers and what is basically holding customers back from placing more orders, because it is a little bit ironic that the world needs energy and your order intake is down. Is it higher interest costs that are holding them back? Is it the fact that you are raising prices on turbines? Is it because you still have customers stuck with old PPA levels that now need to buy equipment at new prices? If you could sort of talk a little bit about that dynamic and what is the problem sort of here and now compared to what it was a quarter or two ago. Thank you. Thanks, Casper. Talking to a lot of customers, my short answer would be yes, all of them. Because it's individual per customer. I share your frustration. I think we have a lot of discussions on the energy crisis, and we see it as a consumer on the utility bill. More capacity is needed to bring the electricity and utility bills down, therefore speed up that permitting process. When we then look at individual customers, we have seen probably a better one in the last quarter, where PPAs are adjusting faster upwards. I think there's been a little bit on the PPA and offtake markets generally that it has been maybe this will work itself out and go over faster. I don't think anyone are saying that nearly today. That means PPAs are more rapidly increasing towards some of the, not the spikes we have seen, but more probably longer, midterm, longer term, electricity pricing. That will facilitate more positive customer discussions in the future quarters, simply because there has been enormous volatility also in this quarter when it comes to offtake. Pricing of turbines is one of them. I'm sure you would appreciate there is right now a consideration for most customers, do you go PPA or do you go merchant, and what percentage do you split it through? There we see those, and they are very individual, depending on what country you're in, what country you've gotten the permitting. In general, all projects are taking longer time to negotiate and agree with customers, and that's probably where you can see a reflection in volume. I share your point. We would have loved to take more orders in the quarter. Not been possible. I don't know. Sure everyone will say we could have taken more if we had lower prices, but that one we won't do. If I just may follow up, Henrik. Is it simply the fact that the world is so uncertain and everything has moved so fast and so extreme that it's holding it back more than it's the fact to actually make a project economically? I mean, can they still make the math work, but it's just, you know, uncertain on what to decide? I will say if you have sold PPAs on what was PPAs, six or eight quarters ago, then you are struggling because you can see that on the ASP development. There you will struggle to have economics in it. If you're looking at something where, as I said, some governments are right now saying in the latest tender they reached historical low-cost levels for electricity for some of the offshore tenders or something, I actually think that's a little wrong way of looking at right now. I think when you compare the tender levels compared to the current spot market and utility levels, it is heartening to see that there's often 10x differences between that. I think right now it must be an encouragement for governments to say, "How do we actually shorten this to six or 12 months instead?" Customers, the ones that are caught with old PPAs, there, I think it's a combination of how we can work with new projects combined with old to make it happen. Otherwise, if you get a new project today permitted, we will also get it built and the customer likes to have it built, as fast as possible. Okay. That's good. My second question on the debt side. I mean, it's yeah one of the first times for a long time that you actually have a little bit of debt. How does that place you commercially? I mean, I've always seen it as an advantage that you've had a very strong balance sheet in terms of taking on large projects with long delivery times. Is this sort of a discussion that is starting to pop up again with customers? Are they in any way worried about your balance sheet or. At what point would you consider having to strengthen the balance sheet further from a commercial point of view? Thank you. Let me take that one, Casper. It's not a discussion we're having with the customers, and I think it's important to say that while we add debt, positive or negative, whichever way you wanna phrase it here, it's EUR 400 million. It's not a huge number for a business our size. I think you're seeing some mathematical effects also on the net debt to EBITDA, for instance, that you saw before when you are struggling a bit with profitability as we are right now. We are absolutely comfortable with our balance sheet. We have, as I said before, also the liquidity reserve that we need. There's gonna be some fluctuations in quarters like these ones, but as said, we are very comfortable with that situation, and it's not a discussion that we're having with the customers. Thank you. That's very clear. The next question comes from the line of Martin Wilkie from Citi. Please go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Good morning. It's Martin from Citi. A couple of questions just on your footprint and portfolio. You obviously announced a disposal this morning. Just to give a little bit of background on that would be helpful and whether there's other assets or footprint that you're thinking of of rearranging or selling. Related to that, the second question would be how you're thinking about the footprint in the face of some of these requirements for the new PTC in the U.S. I appreciate it's some ways away, but as we move into the second half of the decade, there are certain domestic content requirements to maximize the PTC. It might be too early for you to predict that, but does your footprint already support some of those domestic content requirements? As an industry, does the wind industry need to put more footprint into the U.S. market as opposed to importing from other regions? Thank you. Thanks, Martin. I think there's two different parts here. You saw this morning we announced a divestment and an increased partnership with KK Wind Solutions, especially on the controller and converter part. We believe very much. You also know the ownership of KK Wind Solutions are A.P. Moller Holding. In that sense, it's an extended discussion on strategic partnership. We believe there will be a need and also a requirement for the industry to be able to scale and live with the volumes we foresee in the next not only years, but decade and decades. It's important that the supply chain also to some extent consolidating. In this area, we have found a partner which also has a long-term ownership structure that sits well for us to work closer with. That, of course, is an area where we will then align as we have done this morning. The financial implication we'll come back with when we close the transaction, and Hans can talk more about potentially those. But it's a natural consequence. It's something we will pursue more when there is the right structure in place, and that can be, as you saw here, a divestment, but it could also be where we are expanding in other areas where we will do it ourselves. When it comes to footprint, Martin, you, I'm sure you will appreciate my comment in the US. We have now had most of 24 months where we have adjusted footprint or shift and employment and employees and colleagues down in the U.S. for obvious reasons and uncertainty over the structure. When we have the Inflation Reduction Act signed, then we will be in planning process. There is both a planning that is currently ongoing for the offshore and then on the onshore, we are not in too bad a position. You know, we have the factories, so this is how we will use part of the factories and if we need to adjust some of that upwards. This time I will say I would rather start having some of the plans also when we see the customer engagement leading into proper tangible things we can plan for to get out of the factories in the US. It has been a tough time being in this vacuum in the U.S. I won't shy away from that, seeing some of our colleagues going from factories and also positions over there. I look forward to see that ramping up again, and then we will come back probably in next quarter or in February to talk more about what it has actually been happening to our order intake and also the planning in the U.S., Martin. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Supriya Subramanian from UBS. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my question. As to, again, I'll go one at a time. The first one was sort of based on your guidance and expectations for the second half of this year. One is just on the offshore equipment since we had low revenues this quarter. Do you expect to make up for the lost revenues in the second half given that you haven't changed your top-line guidance? And second, also sort of within the guidance, if I take the midpoint now of the margin guidance, it just actually implies a small positive adjusted EBIT for the second half. Just wanted to get your thoughts on what are the assumptions going into the second half and what would be the drivers, headwinds, tailwinds of this margin into the second half. Yeah. First of all, on the offshore project, we'll have to see how that goes. I mean, it looks challenging, but we have many moving parts, as the guidance would also indicate clearly that there's, say, quite some range, in particular on the EBIT side, and that is reflective of the fact that there's still a lot of things that could go in either direction when you have as back-end loaded a year as we have again this year. And for that reason also, I think we'll obviously do what we can to work with the different elements we have for completing the year. As said, it's very volatile and there are a lot of things that can shift around. On the profitability side that you seem to be pointing to on the midpoint, there, I mean, that's one way of looking at it. As we try to reflect in our guidance all the uncertainties and moving parts that we see may come up. As said, we'll have to see, I guess, basically how the year plays out. Okay. Maybe if I put it this way, you know, what are the expectations or assumptions underlying the lower end and the upper end of the guidance ranges in terms of, you know, the environment externally or internally in the second half? I guess you say it yourself and there are many assumptions in either directions. And if we end up in the good end, then a lot of things has to come our way. And if we end in the other end, then I guess a lot of the headwinds that you could imagine would have to materialize. I think it's a challenging year. We are very back-end loaded, as I've said before, and that also means that there's a lot of uncertainty as to what is gonna be happening in the next four or five months. It is a very tricky operating environment right now. I mean, let's not forget that. The world has not suddenly come to a better place. No. I think sometimes or often we talk about what happens until we get to site and we get to the commissioning stage. Just also here, Supriya, just don't forget that right now it is more tense in that operating part from commissioning to actually on the grid, because the price of electricity in the grid is so many times higher than you've ever seen before. Therefore, of course, the timings and everything else is highly depending on how well we get executed in the second half of the year. Okay. Fair enough. My second question was related to pricing and, you know, looking at it may be slightly longer term. We've seen some recent trends of, you know, from a raw material price perspective, at least, things easing off to some extent. What is your thoughts on ability to hold on to these higher prices, you know, maybe for a little longer, even if costs ease, given that there was a lag in raising the prices itself? I have to separate that we don't have an extraordinary different pricing discipline than we have had. We have seen the underlying cost develop, and we are very disciplined. If the cost development underlying is there, then we adjust the prices at that second we see that. That's where life has been difficult for continuing six quarters. If costs remain at this level, which what we have seen, then you should expect to see pricing continuing at this level. Actually, the current pricing compared to an offtake of electricity price is not necessarily a difficult thing for customers to work through. For us, pricing here becomes very much subject to how we continue to see the underlying trends and also where it is in the world and how we get the transport and logistics to play with that. You should read into 0.96. We're happy with it. It plays to the long-term EBIT targets we have, and therefore, that's what we remain consistent providing. All right. Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Mark Freshney from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking my questions. Firstly, just on the patent dispute between two of your competitors, and I know you guys have been involved in these kinds of disputes as well in the past. How do you see the judge ruling in North America and other areas globally impacting the V236-15.0 MW project or the V236-15.0 MW product, should I say? And does it work in favor of that product? And just secondly, Henrik, very interested. You know, I know we've been through many permutations already of margin questions, costs, et cetera, but. Based upon what you see today, how do you see global supply chain, which is vessel pricing, availability, and COVID outbreaks, how do you see that evolving over recent days and weeks? Thank you. Thanks, Mark. I think on the patent side, we don't give any comments to it. We run Vestas long way away from issues like that. We don't give. We talk with customers, and if there are any opportunities that we have an opportunity to present our solutions or being asked for our solutions, then we will of course stand by our technology and our solutions, and we are continuing doing that in offshore, and it won't be until we are from 2025 and onwards. That's the short answer to that one. On the global supply chain, I think it's. We haven't seen a worsening in Q2, it's fair to say, but we have seen many variables. Everyone asks us about, is there an easing around the corner? I don't know. At least the people we work with and you know the names of Maersk and DSV and others, difficult to foresee right now. I think all comes down to, will the world have more stop-and-go or more recession, like terms when we get later in the year? Mark, I simply from heartfelt pain over the last six quarters, we stopped trying to predict any of it. We work with it, and then we work with it also in execution rather than second-guessing. I think it's difficult to see inflation on, for instance, utility and electricity go down. There is an energy crisis, and that doesn't ease up over the next many quarters. Therefore, there is something here to be done in the short run that will still drive some supply chain logistics challenges for quarters to come. That's probably the best way of expressing it. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Deepa Venkateswaran from Bernstein. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my questions. I had two questions, one on the US and the other one on offshore. Starting with the U.S., I just wanted to confirm whether you will be able to get these manufacturing subsidies which are also substantial within the IRA, and whether you think onshore wind in general would be able to qualify for the 10% bonus. The second question on offshore, so obviously you've had the U.K. CFD auction round, the 70 GW clearing, and one of your competitors seems to have got quite a lot of orders. Should we still be expecting something to come your way from the U.K.? One small follow-up just on the delay on offshore. I believe this is because of a vessel failure that's not your fault. Is it fair to assume that this is more of a delay of revenue recognition rather than any impact for you from that delay? Thank you. Thanks, Deepa. On the U.S. part, we're welcoming this. We have so far worked with all our presence in the U.S. for decades, so therefore we are well-positioned for doing that. On the possibility of getting hold of extra percentages on the legislation, we will clearly await to give you any indications, and any discussion will be with customers only. I think the industry has to now balance how they work that around in the U.S. for themselves. We feel U.S. is a home market for us, and we will keep investing into the U.S. to also now have a framework for it for a 10-year decade ahead of us. We are positive of that. As I said now a couple of times, won't give it more thought until we have a final signature from the President in the U.S. On the offshore CFD round, we will always participate where it makes sense and also where timing makes sense, and then also where pricing and localization plays in our favor. That's a discussion. We have we take the same attitude as we would have done across all other things. I think CFD round four or five coming in the U.K. is one of many markets, and I think the capacity for us to plan for that, we are more looking at how we get the right level of our value creation on it. On the vessel side, you're absolutely right. That also means we have a very close collaboration with that customer individually, and we will see how we will solve that. That is triggering both a revenue, EBIT and also a cash flow conversation. I'm sure you will appreciate me saying that is now down to a very private and bilateral discussion between the two of us. We will manage that because everyone deserves to come well out of that challenging situation. Okay, thank you. The next question comes from the line of Benjamin Heelan from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning, guys. Thanks for the question. I wanted to come back on some of the questions on orders earlier. The book-to-bill is well below 1x now over the last 12 months. I know you highlighted, Henrik, that the pricing has obviously improved, but I'm just struggling to see how you're going to grow revenues in Power Solutions in 2023. I just wanted to understand if there was anything I was missing, cause it doesn't sound like you're expecting H2 book-to-bills to materially inflect. On book-to-bills and orders going forward, I mean, you mentioned for U.S. it's probably more 2023 that you see the orders come through. How are you thinking about the orders in Europe? Also, why has Asia been weak? Thank you. I think the bullet in the slide says it quite a lot. There are a number of places in Asia where you had quite high uncertainties on offtake and pricing on the offtake, which of course has slowed some of that down. I don't think, Ben, you can just read from a Q2 and then parallel track that into a 2023 as a whole. We have had quarters where it fluctuates, and we will have quarters also going forward where it fluctuates, and we will talk more about it when we get later in the year. For us, as we also hinted, we can do more in capacity, and we will keep some of the capacity, but we would rather use the capacity with the right pricing than we will do something else. We will adjust to that when we look into also the second half of the year and into 2022 and 2023. It is too early to say in terms of your growth negative expectations, I can hear in your voice. We come back and we give that guidance in February, and then we will see how we also finish this year in terms of orders. Rest assured, we know what we are working towards. Okay. Europe? I think we see. I mean, Europe is EU target-setting framework dropping down to country level. We see various degree of positive improvements in country by country. I will just still encourage the larger countries to not only have the declaration and the policy statements, but actually making it happen in actual parts of the departments for energy and departments for permitting. That's a way of saying I think it works too slow, Ben, but on the other hand, we have to work through it. I think Europe is picking up, but I think Europe as an area needs a hell of a lot more coping with the energy crisis in the quarters to come. Therefore, I think we could do more, but I think it's coming and there is definitely a positive development happening as we speak. Okay, great. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Sean McLoughlin from HSBC. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. Firstly, on the order intake, you've helpfully broken down FX and scope in previous quarters on that ASP figure, and I was hoping that you might give us a little bit of color on the same for this quarter to maybe better understand the underlying trend. Secondly, on the Lost Production Factor and the progress on returning below 3%, on the provisions, I mean, how has the disruption that you've highlighted extended the timeline to come back to normalized warranty levels? Thank you. Thanks, Sean. On the pricing. I will do on the pricing. There is no material changes between scope and FX. In reality, on our ASP in the quarters we have had in the last ones, they are mostly comparable. There is no material effect on scope or FX in this quarter, either. On the last production factor, I will leave LPF to Hans to comment on. Yeah. On that one, clearly you are seeing, say, elevated levels right now, as also highlighted on the slides due to some of the fairly big cases we have been working on. For sure the expectation is that that's gonna be improving. The timelines for that, I mean, they are known at our end. It's not something we're planning on disclosing publicly. We are expecting at some point clearly to see improvements from this as we are right now in the midst of some of the hardest work we're doing in terms of rectifying these items. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Akash Gupta from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, good morning, everybody, and thanks for your time. My first one is on the onshore order mix. Looking at your large, announced orders, I note that there are very few orders for EnVentus, despite more than three years of product launch. I wanted to understand whether this EnVentus, what is going on, is that. Is there any competitiveness issue given you are now expanding the rotor? Or is there any serial production issues that we also see at some of your competitors? And could this be a reason why some of your order weakness could be explained that EnVentus is not, as active as it would have been? Then the second question I have is on offshore. Last year you said, offshore revenue equipment would be more than EUR 3 billion, by 2025. Based on your commercial success so far, including your discussions that you're having with U.K. auction winners, can you update us on how do you feel about this more than EUR 3 billion revenue target for 2025? Thank you. First of all, Akash, one shouldn't overread too much into a quarter's order intake and pair that with a technology of a platform. That comes down to geography and individual projects and EnVentus work, as we have seen so far, very well and very competitive in the markets where it's designed and suited for, and that's a normal planning one. So that's on the ground what you're thinking of. The other one, Hans, I don't know if you. A few comments there. Obviously, I mean, it's not usual that you want to sit and say that you expect hockey stick-like effects. Clearly in offshore, there is expected to be, say, a clear uptick in installations in 2025 and then at least 2026. Exactly how that's gonna be playing out, I guess we'll have to see. I'd say fundamentally, we can see how there's strong demand in the segment. I think we can also say that we think we enjoy a good position with the new turbine that we're putting out there. Then there can be a bit of slippage or fluctuation between 2025 and 2026, but we're still far away from even concluding on those discussions with our customers, at this stage. Again, just to reiterate, we can certainly see that there's a lot of interest, and a lot of good discussions ongoing commercially with the offshore sales team. Thank you. We have time for one more question. That is from Henry Tarr from Berenberg. Please go ahead. Hi there, and thanks for fitting me in. Two quick questions. One, just on the service business again, and the impairments and the issues there. Could you just give us a little bit more color on what those issues actually are? Then secondly, on sort of shipping and logistics costs, I think historically, you've sort of, you know, given us some color around where shipping is and the problems you've had there. Have you seen an improvement in reliability, and. Or are we sort of still where we were back in in kinda Q1 at this point? Thank you. If we start with the service topic first, what's going on there is that, as I said, it's select geographies, and it is kind of one-off in nature, what we're looking at. We have been then assessing, and we always do that, by the way, but we have been looking at, how does the cost levels look like, for these projects. We have come to the conclusion, unfortunately, that we are looking at elevated costs compared to what we had expected, for these projects. We have had to simply go in and say those assumptions were wrong, and have corrected that. I don't think it's necessarily more than that. Again, it's one-off in nature, what has happened here. I said, it's a U.S., and it's in Africa. I actually forgot the second question. It's the shipping, part, Henry. I think here, you can follow it, you can see it. The main part of it, all the inbound is coming, and it's coming through. We work with Maersk. We work with DSV on other parts of it. We are pleased with the progress we are making, but it still means that there is still a number of timing issues. You have seen up until very recently, you still have had closure and other disruptions in harbor parts. That is also why we still see that continuing. There's simply too many ships that are held in queue to have a workable way around it. I think those are the signs you should look for and we are looking for is when some of those queues or wait times start easing up, then life will be hopefully easier. Great. Thank you. With that, thank you so much for your interest. Thank you for your attention and or intention and interest to us. We look forward to see many of you over the coming couple of days. With that, hereby close the Q2 presentation. Thank you so much.