Good afternoon. This is the conference operator. Welcome and thank you for joining the Technip Energies half year 2026 financial results and conference call. As a reminder, all participants are listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions by pressing star and one on your telephone keypad. Should anyone need assistance during the conference call, they may signal an operator by pressing star and zero on their telephone. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Phillip Lindsay, VP, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, Eugenia. Hello and welcome to Technip Energies financial results for the first half of 2026. On the call today, our CEO, Arnaud Pieton, will discuss our H1 performance and business highlights. This will be followed with a financial review by CFO Bruno Vibert. Arnaud will return for the outlook and conclusion before opening for questions. Before we start, I would encourage you to take note of the forward-looking statements on slide three. I'll now pass the call over to Arnaud. Thank you, Phil, and welcome everyone to our first half results presentation, where I will begin with the key highlights. Technip Energies first half performance reflects a complex operating environment alongside clear evidence of our strong commercial positioning and longer-term outlook. Revenues were stable year-over-year at EUR 3.7 billion. However, EBITDA margins were impacted by operational challenges and higher costs, mostly linked to the prolonged conflict in the Middle East, which I will cover in more detail shortly. Ultimately, this led to recurring EBITDA being around one-third lower year-over-year. While this is clearly disappointing, we are actively managing the near-term situation by exercising our contractual rights towards cost recovery, maintaining discipline in execution, and working toward an improved financial performance in the second half and further normalization in 2027. Importantly, we continue to reinforce the fundamentals that support our longer-term growth with remarkable first-half order intake of EUR 12.7 billion and a significantly expanded backlog to EUR 25 billion. In addition, we delivered enhanced capital returns to shareholders through the payment of our annual dividend and the completion of our EUR 150 million share buyback program. Turning to our operations in the Middle East. We continue to prioritize safe execution, and I am pleased to report that all Technip Energies personnel are safe and well. I also want to recognize our teams and their families for their commitment and resilience through a difficult period. Our projects remain fully mobilized with activity normalizing through the second quarter. We continue to work closely with customers to address logistical constraints with some improvement in the flow of required bulk materials and equipment by land and sea. However, logistical challenges persist today. In parallel, commercial discussions are ongoing, and we are pursuing our contractual rights in relation to certain disputed items. Therefore, reflecting the continuation of the conflict and its associated secondary impacts, we have taken a prudent assessment of the situation within our first half results. While we expect cost recovery under strong contractual protections, the extent and timing of such recovery will depend on how the situation evolves and on ongoing commercial discussions. This has implications for our full-year outlook and assuming no change to current operating conditions in the second half, we are reducing project delivery margin guidance. Bruno will address the guidance rate change in more detail shortly. I would now like to turn to the strong commercial success that has taken our backlog to a new record high. On the commercial front, we achieved exceptional first half order intake of EUR 12.7 billion. This equates to a book-to-bill for the period of 3.4x with substantial year-over-year growth in project delivery. This drove group backlog up by more than 50% year- to- date to EUR 25 billion, which was equivalent to around 3x full-year revenue, reinforcing our medium-term growth trajectory. Given the scale of awards already secure, full-year order intake is expected to be concentrated in the first half, notably in project delivery. Major second quarter awards include Commonwealth LNG, our first LNG project in the U.S., utilizing our SnapLNG modular solution, as well as Coral Norte Floating LNG in Mozambique, which demonstrates our leadership in floating liquefaction in deep waters and the value of replication. Our diversification strategy is paying off with around 75% of awards over the last 24 months originating outside of the Middle East. Overall, this brings greater balance and resilience to our backlog and provides T.EN with excellent visibility through the end of the decade. Before passing to Bruno, let me touch on how we are balancing value creation with shareholder returns. Since the creation of Technip Energies, we have been committed to rewarding shareholders through increased dividends, which have delivered compound annual growth of 22%, with supplemental returns through share buyback programs. For 2026, this will lead to total capital returns to shareholders of around EUR 300 million, equivalent to more than 50% of the free cash flow generated during 2025 and around 5% of our market cap. With our balance sheet in excellent shape and T.EN's long-term growth story intact, we remain committed to delivering attractive returns to shareholders. Turning to employee shareholding, we are very pleased with the successful conclusion of our ESOP 2026, our second global employee share ownership program since the creation of Technip Energies. The offering, which was 75% over-subscribed by close to 8,000 employees, has led to a further material increase in employee ownership. 45% of our people are now shareholders in Technip Energies, and together they own 3.5% of the stock, demonstrating their confidence in our strategy and long-term value creation. I will now pass the call to Bruno to discuss our financials. Thanks, Arnaud. Good afternoon, everyone. The first half showed two distinct dynamics. The Middle East situation affected reported profitability and required a prudent financial assessment. The underlying strength of the business remained clear. Strong order momentum, resilient cash conversion, a stronger balance sheet. Let me take you through these key elements. Revenues were EUR 3.7 billion, marginally higher year-over-year, showcasing our ability to make progress despite headwinds related to the continuing conflict in the Middle East and foreign exchange movements. The conflict and its secondary effects have had material impacts on our Project Delivery segment, which I will address on the next slide. As a result, Group EBITDA was materially lower year-over-year at EUR 212 million. Despite the challenges, our free cash conversion, excluding working capital and provisions, remained consistently high at 86%. We completed our EUR 150 million share buyback program by the end of the second quarter, and we successfully priced a EUR 500 million bond to be used for general corporate purposes. This was a challenging first half operationally. Our commercial momentum, cash performance, and balance sheet strength continued to support confidence in the business. Turning to Project Delivery. The financial effect of slower Middle East progress and associated disruption was a meaningful reduction in profitability despite broadly stable revenues. Segment revenue reached EUR 2.8 billion, up 1% year-over-year. Planned activity growth on LNG and decarbonization projects in the U.S. and Europe was largely offset by slower progress on Middle East projects, logistical challenges, and foreign exchange movements, particularly the stronger euro against the US dollar. At constant year-over-year exchange rates, revenues for the first half would have been about EUR 170 million higher. Project Delivery profitability was lower due to the situation in the Middle East, with two specific factors at play. Certain disputed items, which we have provided for, and where we are pursuing our contractual rights. Second, increased project costs for logistics, safety, and business continuity with only partial recovery to date. As a result, adjusted recurring EBITDA for H1 declined by 45% year-over-year to EUR 118 million, and EBITDA margin was 4.3%, down 350 basis points compared to last year. I will address our expectations for full- year and beyond with the guidance slide shortly. While first-half profitability was impacted by situational and largely transitory factors, our commercial performance was exceptional. PD backlog now stands at EUR 23.5 billion, the highest in the segment's history, giving excellent visibility into future activity levels and supporting confidence in our medium-term trajectory. Technology, Products, and Services, TPS, delivered a resilient performance with the margin quality we expect from this business. TPS revenues were 2% lower year-over-year. This reflected adverse foreign exchange and a lower contribution from ethylene furnaces, largely offset by strong activity in carbon capture products, the first revenue contribution from AM&C, and solid volumes in consultancy engineering services and studies. At constant exchange rates, revenues would have been flat year-over-year. Recurring EBITDA margins were strong, rising to 15.4%, an improvement of 30 basis points year-over-year and fully offsetting the revenue decline to leave EBITDA in line with the prior year. Recurring EBITDA margin expansion was achieved despite the modest contraction in revenues, benefiting from delivery milestone on proper products, strong PMC volumes, and the inclusion of AM&C. TPS orders for the half totaled EUR 857 million, with material improvement in the second quarter relative to the first and the prior year. Secured work included an equipment package for net- zero project in the Middle East, complemented by a broad range of studies, services, and PMC call-offs. Looking ahead, we see positive award momentum for TPS. At period- end, the TPS backlog was close to EUR 1.5 billion, in line with recent levels. Let's now review other key financial metrics starting with the income statement. Corporate costs totaled EUR 42 million, including the impact of ESOP 2026, our employee share ownership program. Excluding this non-cash item of EUR 16 million, the underlying run- rate for corporate costs is trending in line with the low end of guidance provided with our full-year results. Following the acquisition of AM&C, we completed the purchase price allocation exercise of PPA. The related fair value adjustment are now presented as separate line items on the face of the income statement. The impact is purely technical and non-cash, therefore is excluded from the recurring performance of the business. Net financial income was EUR 41 million, improving sequentially versus the second half of 2025, reflecting higher gross cash and the evolution of global interest rates. One area where the quality of business remains particularly evident is the balance sheet. Gross cash increased to its highest ever position of EUR 4.8 billion, some EUR 1 billion higher than the year-end position, and significantly in excess of the net contract liability of EUR 4.1 billion. T.EN's economic net cash position is more than EUR 900 million, ensuring flexibility to invest in value accretive opportunities and deliver shareholder returns. This remains a significant point of differentiation for Technip Energies. Let's now focus on our cash flow performance for the half year period. Free cash flow conversion, excluding working capital and provisions, remained robust at 86%. Actual free cash flow was EUR 183 million, reflecting the lower EBITDA trend. Looking forward, we anticipate maintaining the free cash flow conversion within the 70%-85% range. The substantial first half working capital inflow primarily reflects the receipt of customer advances associated with major awards during the period. This continues to demonstrate our cash discipline and the early cash conversion characteristic of project delivery. On the financing side, the EUR 363 million net increase in debt reflects the bond offering, offset by a reduction in short-term commercial paper. Other financing items relate to shareholder returns, including the dividend payment and the completion of the share buyback. We closed the period with EUR 4.8 billion in cash and cash equivalents. Turning to guidance. Our revised outlook reflects the impact of the Middle East situation, while preserving our confidence in the medium-term quality of the portfolio. Our first half results and full-year guidance include a prudent assessment of the continuing conflict, its associated disruption, and secondary cost impact. As mentioned, this includes an assessment of certain disputed items that remain subject to ongoing resolution processes and for which T.EN is pursuing its contractual rights, and incremental cost for logistics, safety, and business continuity. We assume that current operating conditions persist throughout the remainder of the year. While strong contractual protection support recovery, the quantum and timing will depend on the evolving situation and ongoing commercial discussions. Accordingly, we are lowering project delivery margin guidance to 5% plus while maintaining the revenue outlook. This implies some sequential improvement in profitability for the second half, which could benefit further from the evolution of commercial discussions and processes. It is worth noting that some customers have already signed off on cost recovery, but these revenues are booked at cost and are therefore dilutive to project delivery margins. For TPS, we are raising margin guidance by 50 basis points, also on unchanged revenues. Other changes relate to the effective tax rate, now expected at 30%-32%, due to an unfavorable earnings mix, including negative taxable results in lower tax jurisdiction for which deferred tax assets could not be fully recognized, and a corporate cost of EUR 65 million-EUR 70 million, reflecting as of 2026. In summary, the first half reflects a situational profitability impact, not the deterioration in the fundamentals of the business. Our revised guidance is prudent, while the quality of the portfolio supports our expectation of a meaningful recovery in project delivery margins from 2027. I'll now turn the call back to Arnaud. Thank you, Bruno. Turning now to the improving longer-term growth outlook for Technip Energies. The ongoing crisis in the Middle East and repeated disruption around the Strait of Hormuz are reinforcing the importance of energy sovereignty, supply diversification, and alternative export routes in global energy capital investments. Ultimately, building resilience in the global energy system will require more energy from a wider range of sources. We are in an era of energy addition. GCC countries are increasingly focused on reducing reliance on the Strait of Hormuz by developing structural alternative supply routes, including fast-tracking pipelines and expanding export hubs via the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman. Outside of the Middle East, oil and gas economies are planning capacity expansions, while energy importers continue to pursue low carbon and circularity solutions alongside reliable access to all forms of energy. Against this backdrop, T.EN is seeing increased front-end engagement and demand for fast-track projects alongside an improving opportunity pipeline in LNG, offshore, energy derivatives, and sustainable fuels. This should and will support order intake from 2027 through to the end of the decade and reinforce our growth momentum into the 2030s. As we have demonstrated before, and supported by the strength of our contracts, we are concentrated on cost recovery. Our fundamentals remain strong. We have a substantial high-quality backlog supporting our growth outlook. We have significant financial strength and a material net cash position close to EUR 1 billion. This gives us the flexibility to deploy capital effectively and continue driving superior long-term outcomes for shareholders. As we move forward, we will stay focused on execution, mature our growing portfolio of FEED studies, and selectively pursue an expanding opportunity set across energy markets, including LNG. Our priorities are clear: to generate best-in-class project delivery margins, to deliver structural growth in TPS, and to achieve adjacent business model success, including [Rebound] and our new SAF joint venture with Airbus, Safran, and Tereos. To conclude, while our first half results reflect a more complex operating environment, our response is clear. We are focused on disciplined execution, cost recovery, and protecting performance in the second half and beyond. The entire organization around me is aligned behind our strategic priorities, improving the quality of our earnings, growing recurring revenues, and continuing to expand margins over time. At the same time, Technip Energies is a strong company with a high-quality backlog, a replenishing opportunity pipeline, and the financial flexibility to support growth and shareholder returns. We are confident in our ability to convert this strength into sustainable long-term value. With that, let's open the call for questions. Thank you. This is the conference operator. We will now begin the question- and- answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touch-tone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Sebastian Erskine with Rothschild & Co. Please go ahead. Yes. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Just a clarification on the 2Q financial performance and the cut to guidance. Can you just quantify how much of the step down in profitability in PD was driven by the accrual of provisions versus separately, the actual incremental logistics, safety, and continuity costs that you incurred? And then linked to that, how conservative is that provision accrual, and what are the timelines on expected catch out associated with that? Or is there a scenario in which you just reverse it back through the P&L if it proves too conservative? Thank you. Bruno will take that, Sebastian. Yeah. Good afternoon, Sebastian. As we mentioned, the real change really is about Middle East. The rest of the portfolio in project delivering is absolutely delivering. It's really about Middle East impact. The scale of the earnings miss and downgrade for the full- year, I think provides quite a good indication of the size of the incremental costs that are being incurred, as well as the provisions. From an incremental cost perspective, I think you could estimate or approximate something around EUR 30 million-EUR 40 million a quarter. Then, of course, if you take the full- year impact, because here we've assumed that the current situation would go throughout the end of the year Of course, the rest would be associated to the supplemental provisions we've taken. Is it a worst case scenario? No. As you say, and you know us, we've been prudent. Are there scenarios where we can improve from this position? Yes. Is this in this year, potentially? Could it be continued in terms of next year? Yes. I think this is what we wanted. We wanted to acknowledge the disruption that would be up to the end of the year as our scenario today that we present. From now on, of course, we work very actively on the ongoing negotiations and discussion to try to solve that and resolve that and provide upside. Super. That's very helpful, Bruno. Just a quick follow-up on the recoverability. Obviously, very helpful you provided that context, maybe you can venture and give us a best case scenario. What percentage of the impact did you think you'll ultimately be able to recover based on the early discussions and the protections that you have in your contracts? Sebastian. I'm going to paraphrase Bruno. We have been, through this guidance, absolutely non-speculative and prudent. As Bruno indicated, we have clients who have signed on the cost coverage and recovery, and that is already baked, I would say, in the guidance we are providing for the full- year. What we have not done is recognize cost recovery, including where we know we have the contractual protection that will allow for cost recovery. For as long as, I would say, the mechanism is not primed and started, and therefore we have landed on the principle of this recovery with the clients, and that we've proven that the cash is flowing in, we have not yet recognized that recoverability and that cost recovery. That's what I mean by we've been non-speculative and prudent. When the flywheel has not started, we have not banked on that recovery. You know Technip Energies. You guys follow us, and you've been following us for a long time now. We have the contractual protection. It's not our first crisis, if I may say. When we exited Russia, we took a hit, we also told you that the fundamentals of the company would be protected, and they have been. In this case, obviously the situation is different, we have the contractual protection. Considering the progress of the discussions, which sometimes are about some very meaningful amounts, and those discussions are taking place with customers who are maybe today a bit less predictable than they were in the past because of the consequences of the act of war and the conflict. Our customers are, for some countries, struggling as well. Things are progressing a bit less fast than we would have loved, it's progressing and we are confident. We've taken a non-speculative approach and a prudent one. That being said, the majority of the cost is recoverable and should be recovered. Thank you very much for the color there. I'll turn it back now. Thank you. Sebastian, I will insist, but Bruno stated it. We are being extremely careful to make sure that through the cost recovery, we don't appear as wanting to take advantage of a situation that is critical, including for our clients. We ask them to cover our cost and that there's no supplemental margin profit on top of that. That's why it's somewhat dilutive to our performance. Understood. Thanks very much, Arnaud. Thank you. The next question is from Richard Dawson with Berenberg. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my questions. Two, please. Has your experience to date with the Middle East conflict changed the way any of your future bids are being structured? For example, are you tightening your contractual protections even further, or are you reducing your risk appetite for those Middle Eastern projects at all? Then secondly, I want to get your thoughts on what you mean by the current Middle East situation continuing into H2. We've seen some further escalations recently in the area. The Straits are essentially shut. What are your underpinning expectations for H2? Thank you. Hi, Richard. I'll start with answering your second question. What do we mean by the situation persisting throughout the year? You're right to mention that the Strait of Hormuz remains shut, or mostly. As you guys have noticed, we have managed to actually preserve pretty much the top- line, which means that we have found solution to bring equipment and material and bulk to our project sites to allow for the progress to happen. During the Q1 call, I categorized the projects into three categories. Those projects, which are mostly well advanced, like the NFE project in Qatar, which has all equipment on site to progress. The project early stage, in engineering phase, and therefore they are not affected at all because procurement has not started, like an FW. You have the projects that are mid- stage, midlife, if I may say, like NFS and Ruwais LNG, to name two of them, one in Qatar, one in the UAE. Those are in need for a larger volume of paths and materials and equipment because we have tens of thousands of workers mobilized, and basically we need to feed the working teams with enough equipment so that they can progress with a project and with a job. If I look at those projects that are actually in, I would say, mid-cycle of their life, we need to bring another 30-35 vessels equivalent to the site, ideally through the Strait of Hormuz. We know this is not an easy thing to achieve, hence why we have developed, like others, alternative routes, and they are working full steam. What we mean by our assumption that the conditions remain the same, we're assuming that we will be able to get a few ships through the Strait of Hormuz, the vast majority will have to actually go through the alternative routes, which is land and trucking which is less optimal because more expensive and it takes longer. In Q2, we've had, with the help and assistance of our clients, the opportunity to see two or three vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz to carry critical equipment safely to the job site. We know it's possible, and we are, I would say, banking on the fact that it will remain possible, but for a very small minority of vessels carrying equipment and goods. That's what we mean. That means that inherently, there's always a bit of a risk because there is equipment which have no choice but to go through the Strait of Hormuz because they are too heavy, too large to go by road. Sea freight is the only option. We're hopeful because of the experience that we've built through the past quarter that we will have the solution and we'll be able to, in due course, cross the strait with the assistance of our clients. Again, it's nothing we do alone, but always with the assistance of the country. That's what we mean, basically, a minority through the Strait of Hormuz and the majority through alternative routes, therefore, continuing to be exposed to the additional cost associated to the logistics. Bear in mind as well that the cost of the sea freight also has exploded since the start of the conflict. In terms of the Middle East, the way we contract for future projects in the Middle East. Well, first of all, I would say that, and I insisted on that in my opening remarks, the best, I would say, countermeasure to the situation is the diversification of geographies that we've embarked into over two years ago, pretty much. Which is paying off because as I stated, about 75% of the new orders emanate from outside of the Middle East over the past 24 months. This being said, we still value the business in the Middle East. There is no major change in the way we would contract, except that maybe there will be shorter discussions. Sometimes you have debates around what is the probability of occurrence of a conflict in the region. Well, those debates are long gone, therefore, the protections that we are seeking, which we have in the contract, such as NFE, NFS, NFW, we are well protected. Well, those protections will find their way into our contracts in, I would say, in an even easier manner. That's great. Thank you very much. The next question is from Kate O'Sullivan with Citi. Please go ahead. Hi, Arnaud, Bruno. Phil, thanks for taking my questions. Firstly, could you provide some additional color on the physical damage you are seeing across your Middle Eastern projects? Specifically, you have previously discussed the impact in Bahrain. Has there been any progress in assessing the extent of the damage, and do you now have greater visibility on the scope and timing of remediation? I think you have touched on it, but on commercial activity in the Middle East, have you seen a change in pace of customer engagement and commercial discussions, perhaps? How quickly would you expect that to rebound once we see some normalization? Thank you very much. Hi, Kate. When it comes to the remediation work, we have now a good assessment of what it entails in Bahrain, but also in Qatar. We have not rushed into this remediation scope for several reasons. In Bahrain, because it is still not totally safe to actually work and operate. It is safer for the client and its own operations team to execute the work with our support, of course, on engineering and other things. When it comes to Qatar, where we have been part of the team assessing the situation, we are not part of the team for the coming phase for a very specific reason. We have already a lot going on in Qatar. Technip Energies is not the company that built Train 4 and Train 6, which have been damaged. It was a bit less natural for us to engage beyond, I would say, the early phase where we assisted QatarEnergy with the assessment very naturally because we were on location. You can expect to see us probably compete in 2027 for, I would say, the bulk of the execution of the remediation, but that is a 2027 event and beyond. In the meantime, we felt that we had enough skin in the game in Qatar with NFE, NFS, and FW to not, I would say, enrich the pipeline there. For 2027 and beyond, yes, we will be there, and we will compete. When it comes to the commercial activity in the Middle East, the pipeline is actually quite strong because as I indicated, there is a strong appetite by the countries in the Middle East to diversify their export routes and for emancipating away from that dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. You have heard probably about the UAE and ADNOC's never again initiative, and it is about lowering the dependency on the strait and building export terminals on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, on the Oman side in Fujairah. We are absolutely in the race for this project. It is competitive, it is certainly not sole source. I can't tell whether we will be successful or not. We have a few opportunities like that. Yes, they are fast-tracked when compared to, I would say, a regular opportunity. They are not as fast-track as, okay, well, here's an award in 2026 will be for the FEED and the full award into 2027. The ask for sure is to be able then to fast-track the delivery, and I believe we are well positioned considering some of the modular options and/or the infrastructure we are building in country. I believe we have strength to offer, but it's competitive. Let's see. We are absolutely mobilized. Pace will be a differentiator. Thank you. The next question is from Henri Patricot with UBS. Please go ahead. Yes, hello, everyone. Thank you for the update. A couple of questions first on 2026 outlook. First on the revenues, you mentioned that you've been able to preserve that revenue guidance for the year. I mean, is there a scenario in which revenues would come in below that guidance now, if, for instance, you don't get some of the shipments via Hormuz? Conversely, on the EBITDA margin, you're talking about 5% +. Can you give us a sense of what the upside could be, if you may, to get some of the discussions on this year? Could we get back to the previous range for the EBITDA margin for the year? Secondly, I just wanted to check on 2027. You mentioned that we can expect a meaningful recovery in 2027. Would that be a recovery towards the more normal level of margins that we see, a bit above 8%, or would that be too early, most likely? Thank you. Henri. The 2026 outlook could be, I would say, affected on the top- line if things were worsening, if I may say. If things are kept the way they are, then I believe we've proven and we have now enough experience to demonstrate that we have ways to adjust to the situation and bring the necessary equipment on-site and the rest. Again, all that when it is to going through the Strait with the assistance of our clients. We decided to assume that it will remain the same for the rest of the year, the remainder of the year. No improvement, but no worsening. Therefore, we have our ways and with the majority will have to go by truck and through the road. We will find a way to bring the critical shipments that have to go through the Strait of Hormuz. A solution will be found, and this will happen. I would say we are very confident in our ability to maintain the 2026 outlook for top- line. When it comes to the bottom- line, yeah, north of 5%. I think I will refrain from giving a scale for the potential improvement because I want to remain prudent and non-speculative. If we had, for example, signed the recovery mechanism with the clients with whom we are under discussion at the moment, I probably would be able to give you that upside. Those discussions are ongoing. I believe signatures will happen in the weeks to come or within the quarter. Only will we move out of, I would say, what could be speculative today in something that would be more certain. Again, we have the protection, and we have all the building blocks in the contracts. That's why the discussions are actually taking place. Otherwise, they would not be taking place. Just I prefer that they land before I give you a number on the cost recovery for those. When it comes to 2027, well, there again, it's a little bit too early to give a 2027 guidance. Now, if things were to normalize, our portfolio is and does remain absolutely compatible with the EUR 800 million EBITDA trajectory that we've provided as a framework for 2028. Pre-war and pre-conflict, we stated that we were slightly ahead of schedule on achieving that. The building blocks are there, but it's probably a little bit wise for the time being to exercise caution on our margin assumptions for 2027. There will be a recovery for sure, way above 5% for sure. Where is it going to be? Let's see. Let's apply a little bit of caution. We need to see how we are exiting from this war. If we're exiting out of the conflict on the 31st of December, then 2027 will have a particular morphotype. If we exit from the conflict in September of 2026, then 2027 will look like something also different with certainly an exit rate from the 2026 year that would be more favorable towards 2027. What is important to retain, nonetheless, is that our portfolio continues to be absolutely compatible with the margin trajectory. The backlog integrity is absolutely not compromised and therefore is of high quality, and it is capable of delivering our trajectory. That's it. Thank you. The next question is from Alejandra Magana with JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Ms. Magana, is your line on mute? Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. You earlier indicated that the incremental logistics costs were, I think you said EUR 30 million-EUR 40 million per quarter. Under what circumstances could those costs move materially higher from here? Is there a risk of any inflation to those numbers? Hi, Alejandra. No, I think we have baked into our 2026 guidance, what I would consider a realistic and therefore conservative view on the logistics cost, both in terms of the cost of shipping, sea freight, also the incremental cost of having to go through longer transits and combining sea and land transportation. We don't expect any increments there. Very clear. Thank you. Could you expand on the nature of the disputed items? In other words, to what extent do they reflect a broader change in customer behavior across the region versus just project specific contractual circumstances? Thank you. We're not going to break down all the details of the disputes or the discussions that we are having with our customers. This is not our policy and not how we behave. We preserve the discussions for conversations directly with our clients. What I would say is that our clients are helping, but they're also facing difficult times. Most of them have extended force majeure because they are unable to export. Therefore, sometimes things are a bit less easy for them as well, therefore they are a bit less predictable, a bit less consistent in a sense. Sometimes we can see some more defensive behaviors. That's because of the overall situation. It's somewhat isolated, but we have to report the fact that it does exist, and we are absolutely fighting it. When I say fighting it, I mean it in a positive way. We are defending our rights and I think we've proven in the past that we were able to defend our positions and our contractual rights. I will leave it at that. Thank you. The next question is from Guilherme Levy with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. A clarification first on your cost recovery mechanisms. How is the conversation going in the sense that, are you defining a cost recovery mechanism that is going to be applicable for 2026 only, or once that's in place, that will be applicable for as long as we have issues on flows through the strait? Meaning, if the situation for some reason extends into 2027- 2028, will you need to have conversations all over again? Or once that's done, then it's valid over the life of the contract? Secondly, you mentioned that some of the clients have already signed off on cost recovery. Can you share some color on how representative of the total that is? If it's 10%, 20%, 30% of your total contracts in which customers have already signed off, that would be great. Thank you. Hi, Guilherme. Thank you for the question. On the cost recovery mechanism, I would say that without the shadow of a doubt, once we've established a mechanism and the principles are established, they will be applicable for 2026 and beyond, for as long as the situation persists. There will be a lot of consistency in the cost recovery mechanism and the action once the agreements are signed. Regarding the percentage, right now, interestingly, I don't want to talk in a percentage of projects that I've already signed. It's several of them. Interestingly, it's almost more about countries. Projects in a country for a customer are pretty much already all done and the mechanism are in place. There are two, three countries where the conversation is still ongoing. Again, conversations ongoing means that we are having conversations and that it will eventually be resolved in the weeks or months to come. Then there will be a catch-up, if I may say. I want to insist again on the fact that we have been, and I need you to mark my words, non-speculative and prudent. Which means that even when the contract is in our favor in a sense, and protects us, if the things are not signed, we've not baked the future recovery in our guidance. We're not betting on something that is not formalized yet. That is maybe something that I would say differentiates us as Technip Energies today in this guidance. Understood. Thank you very much. The next question is from Bertrand Hodée with Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Yes. Hello, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Sorry to come back again on the Middle East, wanted just to really understand what you've assumed on a go-forward basis. If I summarize EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million of additional logistical cost on multiple countries, multiple contracts, you explained that with one country, the recovery mechanism has been signed on a go-forward basis. Can you give us, out of those EUR 30 million to EUR 40 million additional logistical costs that you have assumed will continue to incur Q3 and Q4, how much of that, as you've been very prudent, has been assumed as recoverable? Hi, Bertrand. A very small minority. Okay. Just linked to the countries that have agreed on the- Absolutely recovery mechanism. Absolutely. Okay. Maybe to share with everyone the reality of what is happening for Technip Energies and in the life of a project. When comes the time for a discussion on cost recovery, it can be tempting as well for us or the client to say, hey, since we're talking, let's try to settle other things as well that are actually not related to the war. Therefore, discussions that have been pending and triggering this conversation around the impact of the conflict is actually a catalyst to solving for something that is larger than just the war cost recovery or the cost recovery around the conflict between Iran and the U.S.. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz. That's why also some of the conversations are taking longer because they go beyond, I would say, the strict, immediate scope of the cost recovery related to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the conflict. Also, I must add that one particularity of Technip Energies is that in the Middle East, in Qatar and elsewhere, we have our own cost, but also we have under our responsibility across the region about north of 80,000 people, right? Workers who are under our responsibility. They are not our employees, but they are the employees of the construction companies we deploy in those countries. Nonetheless, we are responsible for them. We're also responsible for the cost claims related to those 80,000 workers and the companies which for most of them are partners. We also represent them in those cost recovery discussions. It's not a mono-dimensional conversation that we're having, and that's why it can take a little bit longer. It's not only about solving the cost of a barge or a tugboat or God knows what. No, we are working onshore with tens of thousands of people that we are representing, and that's why it takes a little bit longer. Again, it will be resolved in the weeks to come. Thank you. Very reassuring, in the weeks to come. My second question is on There are four weeks in a month and eight weeks in two months. Got it. On the commercial momentum after, I would say, an extraordinary H1 order intake, EUR 12.7 billion. We understand that you probably don't expect major project delivery awards in H2. Looking into 2027, can you give us an update on the status of potentially two major project, Rovuma LNG and Abadi LNG? Where do we stand on those project in terms of bidding, selection and so on? Sure, absolutely. Abadi, I would say the momentum is really strong on that opportunity, which has been out there for quite some time now. Very pleased to say that the momentum is real, both for the floating facility and the onshore facility. We are part of the race. Always difficult to guess what the timing of the FID will be. All I can say is that, as a result of the conflict, we have seen more than renewed momentum. It's actually confirmed momentum in anything that is about building more infrastructure outside of the Middle East for energy importers to be less dependent on the traditional supply routes. In Southeast Asia, they have gas, and they are accelerating on the way to monetize that in a sense and have that as a source of supply for their respective countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, and others. The momentum there is real, and I was reading, maybe you read, just like I have, that Australia was looking and is looking into actually building a new refinery for the first time in a long, long time. That's a reality. For us, it's translating into an accelerated number of FEED. FEEDs will naturally convert, so not all of them, but into, as you know full well, into contract awards into late 2027 or into more likely 2028. This acceleration that we're observing at the moment, I think there will be some for 2027, but the majority for 2028. That would be my bet. The volume is significant, and it's in the Middle East, but also outside of the Middle East, where really there's a strong appetite for countries to lower their dependency on imports. When it comes to Rovuma, well, I believe this project is going to a different party than Technip Energies. Thank you. The next question is from Mick Pickup with Barclays. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, everybody. A lot of focus on the near term here, but the number that surprised me is that EUR 14 billion backlog schedule for 2028+. We used to call EUR 14 billion the backlog, not far out backlog. Is there anything different in the phasing of that? Because looking at that, it would suggest to me that greater than EUR 6 billion target you have for 2028 is already in hand. Hey, Mick. I'll hand over to Bruno because I've done a lot of talking already. I think yes. Certainly, the momentum, as Arnaud was saying, is strong. 2026 is somewhat of a specific year given what's happening in the Middle East now. Given that 75% of the recent backlog has been ex-Middle East, I think the reliance on Middle East is less the case. The ability to go towards medium- term and achieving EUR 800 million EBITDA company and so on is certainly there. It's, as Arnaud said, a bit early to do a 2027 guidance or to refresh the medium-term framework. I think we'll get to that relatively soon. The fundamentals of finishing a quarter, H1, where we've had by far the highest level of backlog. With that, of course, very good working capital. That translates in the highest amount of cash that we had on the balance sheet so that we're able to deliver. Of course, that's partly reflected in the net contract liability or contract liability. That gives us, yes, very good confidence on the ability to move forward. We're absolutely a very strong company with the strongest level of backlog that we've had. Have the ability to continue to grow the company beyond the management of this, let's say, short-term or near- term, the situation in the Middle East. Just a follow-up is on the, obviously, the phasing of that backlog. You've won EUR 13 billion year- to- date. Your execution for 2027 has gone up EUR 1.6 billion. EUR 600 million of that was slippage, you talked about Q1. How come there's only EUR 1 billion out of EUR 13 billion in next year for contracts that have been signed in Q1 and early Q2 that you've known about for a long, long time? I think one of the projects we've signed is in NFW. You see the evolution in the Middle East. I think in terms of phasing, also, we've been prudent. As we go out in the exit of the war, we will have, I think, better visibility and, beyond disruptions, that logistics because the consequences of logistics, of course, go far, a bit beyond just the region. I think we have the ability to continue to accelerate and step up. The backlog is absolutely in hand. How this can be phased and accelerated, I think we will have a better view as we exit the war. As Arnaud said, the way we exit within H2, the war, when, I think the phasing then will be a bit more firmed up. We must remember, Mick, that the, for example, the NFW project is actually in continuity to, is an extension of the NFS project. If NFS takes a bit longer because there's a big if. If there's a bit of uncertainty with NFS, then we will run or rush a bit less faster into starting NFW. Again, there's no risk of cancellation or anything like that. It's not the point, but in the phasing, I think there could be, the teams will transition from NFS into NFW, including the construction team. There's an effect of that as well. If there's a bit of delay on NFS as a result of the conflict, for which again, we would be covered, then the sequencing in NFW is somewhat impacted. The last question is from Jean-Luc Romain with CIC CIB. Please go ahead. Thank you for taking my question. Not in the Middle East, as I think the subject has been depleted almost. Rely got contracts, which is not a frequent thing recently. Do you see the momentum accelerating on hydrogen in Europe and elsewhere? Hi, Jean-Luc. Yes, Rely got a contract of somewhat modest size, but we're happy that Rely got it. Well, listen, there's no real momentum accelerating in green H2. It's rather stable. One good indicator to track is the number of gigawatts of electrolyzers being ordered on a yearly basis. It's fairly flat at or around three gigawatts, I believe. It is flat. It is a market that does exist. There are pockets of geographies where it will accelerate, and my personal opinion is that we will see, not in 2026, but towards the end of the decade, a significant acceleration in a country like India, and then also in the Middle East. It's really a long-term play, not something that will influence the shape of our earnings profile for Technip Energies in the two years to come. It's there, just it's slow to take off. Thank you. Gentlemen, do you perhaps have any closing comments? Thank you. That concludes today's call. Please contact the IR team with any follow-up questions. Thank you. Goodbye. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephone.