Good morning. I'm pleased to welcome you to today's half-year results presentation. I'm Sami Iskander, Group CEO, and I'm joined today by Afonso Reis e Sousa, our CFO. We will both be happy to take any questions after the presentation. On screen, you can see our standard disclosure notice. Please read at your own leisure. Turning now to today's agenda. Firstly, I'll take you through an overview of our performance and, importantly, our key focus areas for the remainder of 2022. Afonso will take you through the financials in detail. I'll then cover our operational performance and outlook. The results we announced this morning are in line with guidance set in our recent trading update. Group revenue of $1.2 billion reflects the maturity of our E&C portfolio and project delays. While revenue in our Asset Solutions business continues to be robust. Overall EBIT reflects additional COVID-related project costs and some unfavorable commercial settlements in E&C. This was partly offset by strong results in both Asset Solutions and IES. Although backlog in E&C has marginally decreased since the year-end due to a lack of industry awards, a significant increase in bidding activity has put us firmly on the path to grow backlog for the full year. Our recent $200 million provisional award in Algeria, while small, is evidence of our competitiveness and marks the beginning of a multi-year upcycle. Supported by a strong commodity price environment and increased focus on energy security, the outlook for the industry is as attractive as we have seen it in many years. The work we have done over the last 18 months means we enter this important period in a strong position to capitalize on a healthy pipeline of opportunities, both in our traditional business and the new energies, particularly in offshore wind. We reported net debt of $341 million reflecting delays in resolving commercial settlements and the payment of the court penalty in relation to the concluded SFO investigation. Earlier this year, I described the renewed emphasis on our strategic priorities to rebalance, reshape, and rebuild the company as we travel the journey to reach our medium-term ambition to return to a $4 billion-$5 billion revenue and deliver sector-leading margins. Where are we on this journey? The actions we took last year to secure long-term financing for the group were the beginning of a process to put Petrofac on a firm financial footing for the future. Today, our priority for rebalancing is about retaining our capital discipline and reducing working capital through closing out commercial settlements on the legacy portfolio. We are making good progress, but these negotiations are taking longer than expected, meaning positive free cash flow will start to come through from 2023 as we travel towards our objective of having a net cash position. Reshaping entails building on work we have done to simplify our organization to enhance operational and functional excellence as we work towards completion of our legacy E&C portfolio. What does this really mean? In short, it's about delivering every project to a consistently high standard. Going forward, the comprehensive embedding of OneTech throughout the group will ensure consistent delivery and therefore control of project costs, particularly as we grow the backlog with new projects. These efforts will ultimately support our ambition to return to delivering sector-leading margins in the medium term. Finally, on rebuild, positive engagement with customers gives us confidence that many of the opportunities we are bidding on will, like the award in Algeria, start to be awarded in the second half of the year. I have said before that with the supportive market dynamic we see, we believe this will mark the beginning of a multi-year upcycle. Our bidding pipeline is very active, and we are maintaining our bidding discipline. This is not about building backlog at any cost. It's about building profitable backlog by maintaining strict discipline, both in project selection and in our pricing approach. We are also focused on partnerships to deliver differentiated customer propositions, and our recent collaboration with Hitachi is a good example of this. It strengthens our competitive position to capitalize on the high-growth HVDC offshore wind market. We are traveling the journey. The second half of 2022 is all about best-in-class delivery of existing projects for our clients and starting to rebuild the backlog. In 2023, we expect to see strong growth and good free cash flow generation. In 2024, unencumbered by the legacy backlog, and as new projects move into margin recognition territory, we will reap the benefits of our work to reshape the business and drive efficiency. Before I hand over to Afonso, I really would like to take a moment to share a brief update on progress we are making on the environmental aspect of our ESG commitments. I mentioned at full-year results that 85% of our emissions come from the upstream PM304 asset in Malaysia. As production has grown, improving the impact of our operations on this asset has been central to our decarbonization focus. We've made progress in three key areas. Our flare reduction task force successfully reduced flaring intensity by 36% through the targeted execution of a well workover program to isolate a gas-producing zone. Secondly, by utilizing associated gas from the field which would otherwise be flared, we have largely switched from diesel generation to gas power. Finally, continued efforts to optimize logistics are further reducing our footprint. Together, this work has culminated in a 29% reduction in carbon intensity across the asset's operations. Beyond IES, we continue to drive decarbonization objectives at both a project and team level to increase accountability and embed a culture focused on emissions reductions. For customers, all E&C tenders now incorporate a low carbon offering. While in Asset Solutions, as well as optimizing ongoing operations, our approach to late life asset management and decommissioning will support customers' long-term decarbonization efforts. I'll talk more about this later. I'll now hand over to Afonso to take you through the financials in more detail before I give an overview of our operational performance and the outlook. Over to you, Afonso. Thank you Sami, and good morning, everyone. The results we're reporting today for the period ending 30th of June 2022 are in line with the guidance we provided in our trading update in June. We reported group revenue of $1.2 billion, down 23% on the same period last year, reflecting the lower opening group backlog this year, as well as progress delays in the E&C contract portfolio. On the other hand, this was partly offset by strong performance in both Asset Solutions and in IES. Business performance EBIT decreased to $2 million due to the lower revenue, cost overruns related to the pandemic, and adverse commercial settlements in our E&C portfolio, which, as you know, is fairly mature. Net finance expenses increased to $43 million due to the higher interest costs associated with the refinancing that took place in November, and consequently, the business performance net loss for the first half was $35 million. The reported net loss was in fact $14 million for the group after taking into account $21 million of credit for separately disclosed items, or SDIs. SDIs consisted of a net impairment reversal of $21 million and a fair value remeasurement credit of $9 million, offset by a $9 million charge relating to cloud software implementation costs and other items. The net impairment reversal largely comprised the partial reversal of historical impairments taken on the PM304 asset due to the higher oil price environment. The cash impact of SDIs was marginally positive at $1 million. At a divisional level E&C revenue in the first half fell 40% to $0.7 billion, reflecting the lingering effects of the pandemic that I've just described. The first half EBIT was a negative $44 million as a result of the immediate recognition of the additional COVID-related project costs, as well as the adverse impact of operating leverage from lower revenue. Order intake in the period of approximately $200 million was largely made up of positive net variation orders. Backlog in E&C declined to $1.8 billion, but as Sami will come on to shortly, the outlook for awards in the second half of the year is very favorable. We expect backlog to be materially higher at year-end, with a full year book-to-bill over 1x. Last week, we announced the provisional award of the Tinrhert contract in Algeria. While relatively small this was the first of the several contracts we expect to be awarded in this half of the year. A number of larger opportunities should be awarded over the course of the rest of the year, and we hope to secure our fair share of that. In Asset Solutions, the financial performance was robust, with revenue of $0.5 billion marginally lower than last year due to a slow start in some of the new awards. In new energies, the strong momentum that we saw in 2021 has accelerated this year, and we secured a series of early-stage awards. While still relatively small, new energies revenue in the first half was double the revenue generated in the prior year period, which is indicative of the rate of growth we are observing in this sector. The EBIT margin in Asset Solutions for the first six months decreased to 6.5% in line with the guidance given. The reduction from prior year was due to the contract portfolio mix, with several higher margin contracts maturing over the course of the early part of 2021. We remain on track to deliver the full year EBIT margin guidance of between 5%-6% in Asset Solutions. Order intake was high, with $0.9 billion of contract awards and extensions secured in the first half, representing a book-to-bill in Asset Solutions of 1.7 x. The order intake included a record $0.6 billion of awards in the wells and decommissioning service line. Backlog at the end of June increased to $1.9 billion, supporting revenue growth in the second half. Moving on to our Integrated Energy Services division, which delivered strong financial performance in the first half, with a significant increase in production compared to prior year and benefiting from higher oil prices. Net production in the first half was 553,000 barrels of oil equivalent, reflecting the additional production from the East Cendor development, which commenced production in June 2021, as well as the partial reinstatement of the main Cendor field production. The average realized oil price in the first half, taking account of hedging, was $99 per barrel. EBITDA was $44 million, up significantly from prior year, reflecting higher revenue without a commensurate increase in costs. Turning to the balance sheet and working capital, DSO increased to 247 days in the period, principally due to an increase in trade receivables as a result of slower payments from clients and delayed commercial settlement processes in the E&C division. DPO reduced marginally due to a reduction in trade payables and accrued contract expenses in the E&C operating segment. This working capital position will unwind as we resolve commercial settlements, normalize collections from customers, and secure advanced payments from new E&C project awards. However, due to the time taken to resolve commercial settlements, we now expect this unwinding to take place from early 2023, supporting positive free cash flow next year, but not contributing materially to free cash flow in 2022. Turning therefore to cash flow and liquidity, free cash outflow in the period was $193 million, which resulted in net debt increasing to $341 million at the half year. This was largely driven by lower EBITDA, the working capital outflow, and of course, the payment of the $104 million SFO court fine, partly offset by $98 million of divestment proceeds relating to the Greater Stella field and the Mexico operations. Interest paid of $38 million reflected the higher cost following the refinancing last year, and CapEx of $22 million was in line with expectations. Gross liquidity stood at $511 million at the 30th of June, comprising $430 million of cash and $81 million of undrawn revolving credit facility. Given the comments I've just made around the timing of resolution for commercial settlements, we now expect free cash flow and liquidity to be broadly flat at the end of the year compared with the half year position and to improve gradually from 2023 as working capital unwinds. As of June 30, 2022, the group was in compliance with its banking covenants, having reached agreement with its banks to exclude certain one-off costs related to COVID-19 from the covenant calculation. Looking towards the full-year outlook at a group level, revenue in the second half is expected to be broadly in line with the first half, but lower than prior year. The full-year tax expense is expected to be lower than previously guided at $15 million-$25 million due to lower profits. CapEx guidance is maintained at between $50 million-$55 million. As I mentioned free cash flow is expected to be broadly neutral in the second half and then become positive from 2023. E&C has $0.6 billion of revenue secured for the second half and is expected to deliver marginally positive EBIT following the recognition of cost overruns in the first half. Of course, the final EBIT result will be subject to the outcomes on commercial settlements resolved in the second half. We don't typically provide guidance on order intake. However, given the high levels of bidding activity and number of bids already submitted, we feel confident guiding to E&C backlog growth year-on-year. Asset Solutions has $0.5 billion of secured revenue for the second half and has continued to win work after the period end, supporting an increase in revenue in the second half. While the order intake is expected to be first half weighted, this division is also expected to deliver a book-to-bill above 1x for the full year in 2022. In IES, production in the second half is expected to increase further, taking the full year average to between 3,000 and 3,500 barrels of oil per day compared to the average of 2,900 barrels per day in the first half. Assuming an average price of $100 per barrel of oil for the unhedged portion of production for the remainder of the year, IES is expected to deliver full-year EBITDA of between $90 million and $100 million, an upgrade from previous guidance. Overall, we are positive about the outlook for the second half with improved group performance and the commencement of a sustained period of backlog growth. With that I'll hand you back to Sami. Thank you Afonso. Now let's look at operational performance, starting with health and safety. We've had a solid performance in the first half of the year with continued improvement in lost time injury frequency rates. As the data on the screen suggests, this continues to be significantly lower than the industry average, albeit with a mature project portfolio. However, there is still work to be done to meet our own aspiration to be the safest contractor. In support of this goal, we have refreshed our HSE strategy centered on five pillars. Transparency is central to each, and technology is supporting us to drive a step change. For example, every business unit safety performance is now visible to all employees in real time via their mobile phones. A new observation app means every observation can be viewed by any employee. This is increasing both situational awareness and employee engagement. Increasingly, anyone who drives on Petrofac business, including me, is using our new driving app, replacing in-vehicle monitoring systems. This app means each driver can see their own performance versus their colleagues. As a result, I'm pleased to say we are already seeing a steady reduction in auto incidents. In E&C, as you can see on the right, our E&C portfolio is diverse in geography, sector, and client. The maturity of this portfolio means that procurement is substantially complete on the majority of projects, meaning we are less exposed to inflationary headwinds. However, many of these projects have been impacted by the pandemic, both in terms of schedule and cost and commercial settlements with clients. We have been managing these headwinds for some time now, and as communicated previously, we expect the impact to be short-term. Looking beyond our legacy portfolio, I'm pleased with progress we have made in our delivery capability. The reshaping pillar of our strategy continues to include greater emphasis on service quality for clients. We talk about OneTech, which is our technical backbone, housing all our technical functions. OneTech will drive long-term consistency and execution, reinforcing Petrofac's reputation for reliable project delivery. In our Asset Solutions business, we delivered robust performance and continued to position for growth with a 1.7 x book-to-bill in the period. Maintaining our core 40% market share in the U.K. And a renewal rate of 80% for operations and maintenance contracts. We continue to evidence high standards of delivery and service quality. Internationally, clients have increased emphasis on late life and end of life asset strategies. The market leading operations, projects, wells and decommissioning expertise we have gained in the mature and highly regulated U.K. Market has supported our geographical expansion. In the first half, we saw contract awards in three continents, providing a solid base from which we will deepen the footprint of our reimbursable services. Finally, our ability to integrate services across the asset life cycle is increasing our differentiation and providing opportunity for pull-through services. This customer theme is particularly prevalent in the late life operational space, where decommissioning is a key enabler for the energy transition. Major awards in the first half in Australia and the Gulf of Mexico are demonstrative of the increased desire for integrated delivery. We have the unique ability to provide a one-stop shop for full decommissioning projects, having not only the engineering and project management capabilities for the facilities, but also the extensive experience with plugging and abandoning of the wells. Our duty holder capability, which we pioneered in the U.K., also means that we can take full responsibility from a regulatory perspective as the operator of the infrastructure. Our integrated services offering minimizes safety and environmental risk, reduces emissions, and lowers costs for our clients. This led to over half a billion dollars in order intake in the first half. A key enabler for the energy transition, the number of assets moving towards decommissioning will significantly rise in the coming years. Turning now to the outlook. I'll begin with our group bidding pipeline, which stands at a substantial $57 billion over the next 18 months. I'll make a few points about the pipeline. While until now it has moved slower than we would have liked, the outlook for capital projects continues to improve, and bidding activity is now higher than it has been for many years. As I've mentioned already today, we are confident that many of the opportunities we are bidding on will start to be awarded evenly over the second half of the year, and we expect strong growth in 2023 and beyond. E&C has a total 18-month pipeline of $45 billion, with $7 billion of bids already submitted and another $7 billion under tender. I'll break this pipeline down in a moment. The Asset Solutions pipeline is $12 billion over the next 18 months, with $4 billion scheduled for award by the end of 2022. While Asset Solutions order intake is expected to be first half weighted, the business is expected to deliver a book-to-bill greater than 1x for the full year. Let's look at the composition of the pipeline. In E&C, we have a good mix across our traditional markets in upstream, refining, and petrochemicals, and $7 billion in new energies. Around 70% of that relates to offshore wind. I'll go into more detail on this in the next slide. Outside of wind, we continue to see activity for feed and early stage concept studies. Across project opportunities, we have applied a risk factor to the pipeline to reflect those plans are less mature and timing is uncertain. Geographically, the E&C pipeline has a good spread across our core regions. This includes the UAE, where our reinstatement to ADNOC's commercial directory provides significant growth opportunities from 2023. We are also bidding on several refinery upgrade projects in Europe, building on our success last year with Orlen refinery upgrade in Lithuania. In Asset Solutions, there are attractive near-term opportunities for all service lines. Over 70% of today's pipeline is from international market, which demonstrates our ongoing effort to diversify geographically. In new energy services, I mentioned we expect growth in the near term to be primarily driven by offshore wind, where we have a strong track record on HVDC and HVAC substations. In July, we announced a collaboration with Hitachi, a market leader in transmission, distribution, and grid automation technology, to provide joint grid integration and infrastructure to support this rapidly growing market. This strategic partnership significantly enhances our competitive position, particularly in the HVDC market, where there are few credible suppliers of this technology. The largest and most immediate opportunities are with our existing customer, TenneT. We have a track record of successful delivery for TenneT. Many of you will remember the substantial BorWin3 offshore wind grid connection project, where we handed over to our client in 2019. More recently, we successfully delivered the alpha and beta HVAC platforms for the HKZ offshore grid connection. TenneT plans to connect 40 GW of offshore wind infrastructure in Germany and the Netherlands by 2030. This will require 15-22 GW substations, substantially larger than any HVDC project built to date, with a total estimated order volume of some EUR 30 billion. The first of these projects will be awarded next year. While TenneT planned project portfolio is particularly sizable, we see opportunities with other key transmission operators expanding with HVDC. Before we go to Q&A, I'd like to leave you with a few summary thoughts. We are on a journey. Our business today is transformed from the business of 12 or 18 months ago. We have some ways to go. However, in 2022, we have turned a corner. At this point, when we look to the future, it is with excitement for the opportunities we see. Momentum is returning to Petrofac, and our bidding activity today gives us confidence for tomorrow. This continues to be a recovery year for E&C, but the challenges we face are short term. The market is turning, and we have a strong position in sectors that are expected to see substantial investment. Our Asset Solutions business continues to perform well, both in its core market and internationally, as we leverage our market leading U.K. integrated services capability to support clients around the globe. Integrated Energy Services has delivered strong financial performance and in line with our sustainability framework, we remain committed to reducing the carbon intensity of our operations. Overall, the outlook is positive. By adding high quality, profitable work to our backlog in the second half of the year, we will lay the right foundations to accelerate our growth from 2023, restoring in the medium term our position as a $4 billion-$5 billion business with a growing contribution from new energies, a return to sector leading margins and of course, a net cash position. With that, Afonso and I will be very happy to take your questions. Thank you. The first question comes from the line of Will Turner from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Good morning. I've got a couple of questions. My first question is on your guidance for marginally positive EBIT in E&C in the second half of the year. Could you walk us through a little bit on what the assumptions behind that are and what are the potential kind of risks or upside risks, downside or upside risks to that guidance? Also kind of related to this, is this a guidance based on any assumption of orders that you've won recently? Thank you Will I'll ask Afonso to answer the question, but maybe let me give a little bit of color, very high-level color on both points. First, we have, as you know, a very mature portfolio, and a mature portfolio just by virtue of what it is, you know, does not have on the positive, does not have, or is not impacted very much by inflation. On the negative, there isn't a lot of commercial leverage with our customers. Because we haven't really won work, if you think of the portfolio effect, for a number of years, that leverage is less. Our customers have taken, I don't want to say extreme, but yeah, I guess extreme position with regards to COVID, recognized COVID cost increases. We have in some cases not been able to pass those on, which meant that we needed to recognize them, which really led to the sort of adverse commercial settlements that unfortunately we have seen. We've settled those in H1 to the best of our abilities, so those are behind us, essentially. I don't want to stand here. I think Afonso will back me up here. I mean, I'm not gonna say there is no uncertainty. Clearly that's not the case. The uncertainty obviously exists as long as these projects are still with us. Many of them will finish, I guess, in the second half of the year. However to the best of our abilities we've accounted for the issues that have. That have impacted us in H1, and therefore we see a different H2. Afonso will take you through a little bit more detail. On your second point, yes, indeed, we are looking into a step change. Well, we believe, or we're hoping and expecting a step change in order intake, but we have not accounted for, and I guess you're talking about the cash advances coming in this side of Christmas. I mean, it takes time for all these things to materialize. We're not really building this into our forecast for H2. Maybe that's a bit conservative, but, I mean, from just seeing how the cycle goes, we're not building those cash advances in. Maybe Afonso you can add a bit more color to the point. Sure. I think you've touched on the key highlights, but the way we looked at it, clearly, where we are, the rest of 2022 and really 2023 is going to be based on the existing portfolio of projects. Because as Sami just pointed out, well, the order of business for the new order intake is that at first, you know, obviously you get the backlog, then you get the cash, then you start recognizing the revenue, and eventually you'll recognize the profits with a lag. So there is nothing in the new orders this year that's going to contribute to profits this year and really for most of 2023. To your question about how that guidance is made up, it's really based on the performance of the existing portfolio and very little being contributed from new orders. The existing portfolio being quite mature, we have a number of projects coming to completion between now and the end of this year and in one case into Q1 of 2023. As a result, you know, we think the risk is largely behind us. In addition, we took incremental costs in the second quarter as you know. Those costs represent the best view that we have of the costs to complete. What we had to do, given the maturity of the portfolio, is that we recognize those costs immediately because the portfolio is 90% something. Applying our value of work done weighting, we've taken 90% some of the costs immediately. Never say never, but we think with taking into account the risks, what we're guiding to is our best view of how things will work out in the second half. Now, there are settlements of course, and as we've said, we now expect as we did before, to reach the commercial settlements during the second half, even though we don't think the cash flow will come in until 2023. In reaching those commercial settlements, there could always be some risk. Nevertheless, our history is that what we recognize typically has been conservative as we're required to do under the accounting standards. We have not typically reversed many of our commercial settlements, and that applies to the current portfolio as well. With a caveat or albeit a relatively mild caveat, that's how we've approached the second half guidance. Great. When you are bidding on projects at the moment, I assume there's already $7 billion bids submitted and a further seven that are tendering currently. Has there been any changes in the kind of contractual terms on these orders? Obviously, we're now in a much more kind of high inflationary world, and it feels like the operational environment has become more challenging. Have customers accepted greater contingencies in the most recent bids? Has there been any scope to have any kind of pass-through mechanisms possibly included? I know how most of them are usually done at a fixed price. Yeah well I mean, there's a lot of questions in that question. It's very hard to give you an answer that characterizes all customers. I think, you know, you are right. At least let's start from some customers, particularly we have talked about the customers in offshore wind and maybe some of our more long-term customers, well, ADNOC in particular, who are thinking sort of how to capitalize on or how to move the industry quicker through in the case of TenneT, it's framework agreements, in the case of ADNOC, some sort of negotiation, as opposed to a bidding process. There is an element obviously of a reimbursable element that has to be accepted by them and us so that, you know, there is. I can't give you a number because it's different for each. There is an element, you know. If we're going to move beyond bidding, and it is being discussed not by all customers, but by some, in sort of multi-year programs to move to, you know, to get projects on faster, there will be an element of a reimbursable element and of course a lump sum element as well. This is not for all customers. I mean, I think the traditional bidding is exactly the traditional bidding we've been seeing for many, many, many years. I think our approach to lump sum turnkey is not dissimilar in many cases. I think on inflation in particular, and you've heard me speak about why I think our approach is different around how much detailed engineering we do upfront and therefore be able to place orders quickly. The type of procurement engine we have, the increase we do in the quoted portion of tenders. As well, I mean, I'd like to maybe add a few more things. I mean, you know, if I look at some of the numbers, and we look at this, I can tell you, I look at this all, you know, more than weekly or several times a week. If we look at some of the indices we've been seeing, I'll pick up one, sort of, you know, scrap steel, for example, that was trading at $350, roughly $350 per metric ton prior to the war. Went up to $700. It's down very similar to where it was pre-war, so there is a bit of cooling off. Nickel was $22,000, now it's about $23,000. Went up to $48,000, by the way, in the middle. We are seeing delays in manufacturing, and we call that, I don't know, two months on or two, something like two months over a 12-month calendar, delays in transport and cost increase in transport. I mean just to give you I mean, we have very good visibility or understanding of it, and we build that into our lump sum turnkey contracts. As you rightly point out, some customers are moving to different contracting mechanisms, particularly those that are trying to build sort of a multi-year program with us and other contractors, I'm sure. I hope that answers or gives you a bit of color and answers your question. No that's very interesting. Thanks. On the working capital, obviously the guidance here has changed to not expecting unwind until the first or till 2023. Could you just walk us through a little bit on why that's changed and what's been the variables which have resulted in this kind of lower recovery in working capital? Yeah. Indeed perhaps the way to think about it is you think of the commercial positions migrating first from being open to being closed, which is to say from an assessed variation order to being an agreed variation order, and then from that to being cashed out or being received. What has changed in our assessment is as we reassess the timing of resolution, we remain confident that we are in the process as these projects come to maturity to close out those open positions and to migrate those AVOs or a significant portion of them, it's AVOs from assessed to agreed. Given the timing as we're now beginning of August, we just don't have the same degree of confidence that they will actually be settled within the year. It means the progress will be made, but that the actual receipt of the funds will not take place until 2023. That's really the assessment that's changed. Yeah. Okay. That's clear. Then I guess a final question, if I'm allowed. You've discussed a lot more about the offshore. I feel like you've discussed a lot more than in recent calls on the offshore wind opportunity. How much of the current $14 billion of orders that you bid on and are tendering is relating to the offshore wind? Then when you look across the kind of markets that you play in, have you seen a particular step up in activity there or has there been another one of the core markets where you're seeing activity improve most? Yeah maybe let me take this Will. I mean, first let me talk about the wind opportunity with Hitachi, because this indeed is extremely exciting. Really, I mean, we can't see each other on video, but this is really exciting. This is focused on one customer, which is TenneT. TenneT has come to the market and formed. I mean, I'm not speaking out of school here. I mean, they formed or they've asked to form three consortiums, actually consortia, or whatever the word is, to address a 40 GW program over the coming eight years. This is one of the ones that I spoke about, a framework agreement, sort of a negotiation, into this. This is about between the three groups, if you wish, us and Hitachi and two others. This is about, I don't know, close to 22 GW projects. These are very large projects. I'm going to say not two billion dollar level, but you're really talking about, you know, $1.5-$2 billion each. Let's say they're very, very large. I think there is a, you know, with one customer, and this is really targeting Germany and Holland in particular. But we're seeing this, the start of talk around this in the U.K. as well and in one or two other European countries. No, I'm very excited about the offshore wind HVDC opportunity. It's not you know not hundreds of projects but you know certainly with TenneT we're seeing 20. It's easy to say that probably over the coming year or two as other customers and other regulators become as mature as the, you know, what we're seeing in Germany and Holland, that this market will increase. The HVAC while I'm on it. The HVAC is a massive market, you know, probably, you know, four or 5x. Well, actually more, 5x plus the size of the HVDC market, but it's highly competitive and that's why I'm really very excited. I mean, it's not just offshore. I'm excited about offshore about the DC because this is where there is a significant amount of engineering and there, you know, there's a big prize per project. In our current backlog, you know, of the. You probably have noticed that we have moved the new energies contribution from $11 billion - $7 billion. This is not because it has shrunk, but outside wind, we have put a higher risk factor on, you know, some of the hydrogen projects, some of the CCS projects, waste to value projects because of the maturity of, you know, Not just the customers, the raising of capital, et c. It's a higher risk factor that has brought it from 11 to seven, but in that 7, 70% of it is in wind. But as I said, you know, particularly with TenneT, this is gonna be a framework agreement to be negotiated as we move forward with a high percentage, but, you know, overall percentage of reimbursable as part of it. Well just I'm not sure whether your question included on how much of the $7 billion of tenders we've got currently outstanding. Yeah. Bids are in the wind sector. I think it is not in that because as we guided earlier in the year, the wind is a 2023 play, not a 2022 play. There are no bids that are expecting to be awarded this year in the wind sector. Okay. That's clear. Thanks. The next question comes from the line of James Thompson from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Thanks. Morning Sami. Morning, Afonso. Thank you very much for the presentation. First question would be, you know, in recent times, I think the bid pipeline has been sort of steadily increasing as the kind of market backdrop recovers and, you know, clearly you've been stepping up in tenders. But, you know, through that process, generally speaking, I would say that kind of expectations on the award flow has been sort of creeping to the right. You know, clearly in this update that changes. You know, you're sort of pulling forward or accelerating the potential scope awards. So Sami, I was just wondering if you could give some more color on why that is. Is it as you described, sort of a bit of a stabilization in kind of raw materials? You know, what is it that's driving that? Is it the kind of confidence you've got on discussions around your, you know, your technical proposals? Could you just maybe to give some color on why the acceleration now? Yeah. James morning and thank you for the question. I'm gonna try very hard not to put a noose around my neck in this answer. Yes, I am quite excited about our H2 prospects, if I may call it this way. I don't think this is necessarily the stabilization of commodity of raw materials and whatnot. I think what we are seeing and have seen is a desire by many customers responding to you know, energy security concerns, production concerns, etc. You know, by the way, new energies and traditional energies. We're really seeing this response coming through. I think you know, early in the year or yeah, very early in the year, it was more around plans, and there were big plans and pipelines and whatnot. You know, these plans have, over the year, got translated into invitations for tender, and then there were real bids. You know, bids have been submitted, and there are commercial discussions, clarification discussions ongoing. I don't want to give more specific color other than to say that. I'm not gonna say that all $7 billion, by the way, will be awarded. I mean, that's unlikely, but a significant amount of it will be awarded in 2022. Of course in my view we've put you know in they're in countries where I feel Petrofac is differentiated because of our knowledge of the supply chain, because of our ability to manage across interfaces of the you know God knows the 30, 40 different subcontractors. I'm quite hopeful that some of these awards and in some of these awards, we're down to the last two, as you can imagine. You know, the bids have been submitted. You know, there has been the usual culling, if I can call it that. I think we're in a good position. Maybe more on a lighter side, you know, things can't move to the right all the time. You know, at some point the right has to arrive. I guess, confident is not the right word. Word that I'm looking for, confident. I mean is that we will grow our backlog in H2, that we'll grow our backlog, significantly. I'm not gonna define significantly by the way, but significantly in H2. I expect 2023 to be another, very good year. Why? Yes, I see it's not just, you know, people are going out for quotations and, you know, ITBs. These ITBs have become real bids. Some of them have become, framework agreements or discussions on framework agreements. There's work you know real work at the end of it. It's a very long answer to, without trying to be very specific, but I hope. Mm-hmm. I hope I've addressed what you said. Yeah. I appreciate that. It's just interesting to see an acceleration because hasn't been the form I would say over the last years. You know, just in terms of the $7 billion that you're tendering rather than that you've already bid, do you expect all of that to go in this year? I mean, I actually thought we might see a bit more of that go in over July, August. You know, could you maybe give us some color there? I mean I think it would be unrealistic to say that all seven would be awarded in 2023. I mean, that won't happen. I would say, and again, I don't want to give you a number, but a significant proportion of it. If you say what is significant? I mean, I'm again, this is not mathematical. Mm-hmm. James I mean I would say 2/3 of it I have a very high level of confidence will be awarded in 2022. We may be surprised by the way, with a higher number, but I mean, I think this is not a bad rule of thumb. In many of those, again, as I mentioned, you know, we're down to the last, you know, two standing. Okay. Thanks so much. Last one for me. Just in terms of going back to the net debt piece. You're kind of indicating that it's really a deferral of cash receipts or a delay to cash receipts rather than anything. I know you don't want to give necessarily 2023 guidance on sort of, but maybe you could kind of talk to or articulate around that kind of underlying net debt position at this point in time. You know, that hasn't changed. There hasn't been any kind of further deterioration in in contracts, that's driven the net debt guidance. It's it really is, you know, solely around the timing of receipts now, right? More than anything. That's correct. We gave the figure of net debt as it stood when we gave the trading update in June. As you saw, it was very much in line with where we ended up a few days later on the 30th of June. That net debt figure was reflective of the first half performance of course. What has changed, as you say, is that the receipt of those settlements. Where we are is that a lot of the receipts, because of the maturities portfolio, are linked to these commercial settlements, and they are sort of inherently more difficult to predict than perhaps the normal progress payments and stage payments and milestones that come with normal project delivery. We had predicted we had expected that a number of those would resolve this year and be paid this year. What we are now saying, as you correctly characterize, is that they, while they'll be resolved this year in our expectation, they will not be settled until next year. It is a deferral rather than a loss. I mean you might not want to give a number but is kind of year-end 2021 the kind of right level to be thinking about as a kind of underlying net debt position post all these settlements? That's getting to a little bit too much detail. I think to try to be as helpful as I can, if we said broadly flat cash flows in the second half, and that takes you to a year-end position, and then we're saying that the working capital will unwind in 2023 and beyond. You should plot a trajectory that's upwards from the year-end position after that. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks, Sami. Over. Thanks James. The next question comes from the line of Thomas Sheridan from Investec. Please go ahead. Good morning Sami, Afonso. Thank you for taking my question. I've got three questions, actually. On the back of Sami's comments around Hitachi and to Will's question. You've mentioned the three kind of consortiums. Can you just talk us through how you got to the collaboration with Hitachi versus some of the other players in that industry? What technology do they have that really attracts you? And is it their current kind of pipeline that you want to attach to, which is maybe larger than some of their peers? Just give us some color on that would be great, please. Absolutely. Yeah. Do you want to ask all the questions or shall I go? Yeah, I'll go then. Hitachi. Listen, Hitachi is, and that's the collaboration is limited, and I'll use those words, limited to TenneT. I mean, you know, TenneT has come out to the market with the 40 GW program, and they really wanted to not go down the bidding route, but more around a framework agreement. They wanted to accelerate or put on steroids, I guess, the process so that they can get started sort of second half of 2023 and therefore, you know, they, there was a limit. You know, they didn't want, you know, sort of, 20 different offers from 30 different people, et c., et c. In terms of you know when you look at people with the technology that can, you know, that can address the large HVDC, they're really quite honestly there are only three, you know, Siemens, Hitachi and GE, I guess. I mean, that's my personal opinion, but anyway, that's, I think, that's probably pretty accurate. Those are the three consortiums, or at least those are the three, you know, consortium partners that are providing the transmission. I think when it came to us and Hitachi, it was more, you know, as when you build partnership, it's more around alignment between companies, alignment and vision, alignment and ways of working, et c., et c. I'm not trying to badmouth any of the others, by the way. I mean we've worked with possibly with Siemens on a number of projects and they've been, you know, quite successful. I think in the discussions, between the parties, I think the best sort of team, in our view certainly was with Hitachi. I'm extremely excited about, you know, taking the TenneT at least a program. You know, and what we're doing together is looking at where we can expand together. You know, where can we create this partnership that we leverage it in the U.K. And other parts of the world. Could we together come up with a, you know, a more cost competitive HVAC offering, et c., etc. It is early days certainly, but I don't think it's about saying, you know, the there's this widget that they have that somebody else doesn't. I think there are, you know, very good companies, not many, I mean, three really. I think the partnership, the vision of what we'd like to achieve together, how we'd like to work together, how we'd like to put the teams. I think when we started addressing TenneT, I think we both landed that, you know, Petrofac for them, Hitachi for us was the right approach. Great. Thank you. That's a good level of detail. My second question is just around ADNOC and being added back to their approved list, and I think the commentary you made in the RNS about 2023. Is that just the timing of the ADNOC pipeline, or is that you kind of getting back up to speed with ADNOC on the projects, as in you've not been kind of working on their tendering kind of pipeline until you got reapproved. Just wondered about the timing of that, please. Given the size of it. Well yeah I mean as a general comment, I will make that. I mean, I'll take the opportunity of your question. I think we've rebuilt Petrofac's reputation with just all the customers, including the ones who are still excluded from, by the way. I mean, I don't enter in any office anywhere in the world now and start to discuss, you know, our E&C program, our ethics and compliance program, and so on and so forth. I think people are past that, have done, you know, over the last, probably 12 months, maybe more, even prior to the settlement of the SFO. I think our reputation is back. On your specific question with ADNOC, we are actually bidding on ADNOC today. I mean you know, not if you believe, but you know, the timeline is this side of Christmas, at least officially. Our view, my personal view is that some of these awards will slip into 2023, sort of the earlier question about that was asked about the $7 billion. It's not a question of, you know, we're coming up to speed and so on and so forth. No, it's more of a timing of award, you know how these. I think I mentioned it maybe last time. I think I mentioned that, you know, many of our customers have lost the muscle of how to move things quickly. This is not a reflection of, by the way, ADNOC at all. I mean this is a reflection of the industry. This is an industry that spent the last 15 years thinking of value optimization, which, you know, had one meaning, which is not very good for contractors, by the way. I think it's just a timing point as opposed to anything else. Great. Thank you. My last question was just around what you're seeing in supply chain restrictions on certain kind of raw materials or components, and also on the cost inflation or even maybe a kind of a stabilizing of the cost inflation in some of your key inputs, please. I mean I think I sort of mentioned it earlier. I mean, we are seeing in general, as a very broad term, in general, costs sort of stabilizing to pre-war levels, more or less. Not in all commodities, but in the vast majority. That's one. I mean, there is a little bit of delay that we are building in. There is a little bit of cost inflation that we are building in, as well. But I wouldn't say that sort of the, you know, what we were witnessing probably in April, May of sort of what is gonna happen to steel, what's gonna happen to copper, what's gonna happen to nickel, aluminum and so on. I think we are really beyond the you know that I wouldn't say panic, but that the feeling that you know we'll be running out of it and you know timing will be extended by years. No, in general, there is a cost stabilization. In general, there is a delay, but it's months and weeks sometimes, in terms of transportation, by the way, sort of two to four weeks as well. Overall, I think we are building these cost increases. We're building delays within all the new tenders that we are submitting. You know it's not I'm not trying to predict the future, but, you know, to the best of our abilities and how we project following engineering and then supply chain, timing of orders and so on, we feel, you know, that we're doing a reasonable job accounting for these things. That's great. It's very encouraging. Thank you. I'll hand it over. Thank you. Thanks Thomas. We currently have no questions in the queue, so as a reminder, please press star one if you'd like to ask a question. There are no further questions in the queue, so I'll hand the call back to your host for some closing remarks. Well first thank you all for giving us your time and for the questions this morning. I mean, I know there's, you know, some disappointment on our net debt, but I want to leave you with a few thoughts. We are on a journey, and we are definitely traveling this journey, and we're traveling the journey with really four short-term key priorities. The first is delivering our legacy portfolio, sort of the best-in-class delivery of this legacy. That's one. The second is cash management, sort of is front and center for me and Afonso. Bidding discipline is the third. We are bidding in line with our ambition of a 6%-8% EBIT margin, sort of in the midterm. We're not. This is not building backlog for backlog's sake. This is building profitable backlog. Lastly, probably, you know, it's kind of judging from the question, it's top of your mind, growing the backlog in 2022, but indeed also in 2023. With that, once again, thank you for your time and looking forward to meeting you all. Goodbye. Thank you.