This is the Chorus Call conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the d'Amico International Shipping third quarter and nine-month 2021 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. 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 Mr. Paolo d'Amico, Chairman and CEO. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, and good afternoon to everybody. Thank you for joining us on our call. I suggest going to the presentation. I suggest to jump the executive summary because we are going to repeat afterwards exactly all points that they are in there. If you don't mind, at this point, I leave the floor to Carlos for the overview and key financials. Carlos, please. Yes, good afternoon to everyone, and thank you, Paolo. As usual, we start with a quick look at our fleet, a snapshot as at 30th of September. We control 38 vessels. As usual, the overwhelming majority MRs, 26 and six other ones and six Handys. Since the 30th of September, as you know, we announced the sale of one of our older MR vessels, which will allow us to generate around $8 million in cash. Therefore our fleet will decrease slightly because of that, when the vessel will be delivered to the new buyers. The fleet is still a young fleet, an average age of 7.2 years, and mostly Eco and IMO class. 75% of owned and bareboat vessels are Eco. As you know well, the reason we have such a young and efficient fleet is because we ordered 22 new buildings since 2012, which were delivered to us between 2014 and 2019. Going on to the following page, our CapEx commitments. Not much change since our last quarterly results presentation. We don't have any commitments now left for the last quarter of 2021. The CapEx commitments for 2022, which are once again only maintenance commitments related to maintenance CapEx, fall quite significantly relative to 2021 to around $3 million, and then stay at around that same level in 2023. We are very light in terms of CapEx commitments going forward. The same applies to our bank debt repayments. We are making very good progress with regards to the refinancing of our 2022 balloons, which are of around $65 million. We expect to finalize this process by the end of this year. We will start working soon thereafter on refinancing the 2023 balloon. We are seeing good appetite for the banks to work on these transactions. Our scheduled loan repayments fall over the course of the next few years. This is a trend that started in 2020 and it's expected to continue over the course of the next few years. Once again, this is good for our cash flow generation going forward. On the purchase options, not much changed since last time. In February this year, we exercised the purchase option High Priority, as you know. Of the eight remaining vessels on which we have purchase options, the news is that now they are all in the money, and I would say well in the money at LTVs mostly around 80%. That meaning that the purchase option price today is around for most of these vessels around 80% of their market value. In some cases, for two vessels, we are actually slightly below 80%, and on the remaining vessels, slightly above 80%. But that is good news. Hopefully a window will open up in 2022, allowing us to refinance these vessels with traditional bank debt at a lower cost, further reducing our financial break-even without possibly having to invest too much equity to do so. We are monitoring the situation closely and as market values, if market values continue improving and if freight rates and TC rates also move in the same direction, and we feel confident that the recovery is sustainable, we will definitely look forward to exercising some of these options. Going on to the following page. This graph changed slightly since our last presentation. We now have this blue line which we introduced, which we call the daily average TC equivalent covered rate. It includes also the earnings on the bareboat charter contract. As you know, because we announced it, because of its significance, because it is a very long contract. We signed a very profitable contract with an important industrial player for five years, plus two optional years for the charter. This contract is a bareboat out contract, which is a first such contract for us. We usually charter- in vessels on a bareboat basis, but we don't charter- out vessels on a bareboat basis. In this case, this opportunity was very attractive. Also a plus is that the management of the vessel stays with the d'Amico Group, the technical management. We have better control on the fact that the vessel is being kept to our usual high standards. The blue line was calculated by adding to the bareboat charter hire an assumption as to the daily operating costs for these vessels, which we would have incurred if the vessel had been employed through a time charter contract, so that we can then compare apples with apples and therefore transform the bareboat charter rate into a TC equivalent rate. As you see, the inclusion of this contract in our coverage raised our average rates significantly. As we go forward, of course, this one contract weighs more in the overall average. Therefore, the delta between the yellow and the blue line increases as we move forward. Our coverage, we also now show here in this page the detail of our quarterly coverage in 2022. Before we only had the annual figure. As we now approach 2022, this becomes a more relevant information we thought. It shows that, of course, as is to be expected, our coverage falls throughout the year, but it's still at quite a decent level in the first quarter of 2022. Until not long ago, there was not much appetite for taking vessels on time charter, and especially not at rates which we deem attractive. This opportunity we had for this bareboat charter out was quite unique. Of course, we took advantage. What we have been seeing in the last few weeks is that there is much more positive sentiment, which has also translated into more interest for period contract at also more attractive levels. Hopefully, this will allow us to then renew some of our time charters as they approach termination at attractive and hopefully also profitable levels. The percentage of our fleet, of course, as we have seen several times in the past, has risen significantly over the last few years and is expected to continue rising as we dispose of our older non-Eco vessels. Here we go on to the following page. Our fleet evolution. The average number of vessels controlled falls slightly over the course of the next two years, but nonetheless, our spot exposure increases. Our spot exposure increases since the average number of vessels exposed, the proportion of the fleet exposed to the spot market increases. The sensitivity for every $1,000 per day change in the TC equivalent rate rises to $10 million in 2020, and $12 million in 2021. Going on to the following page. We see that the daily operating costs have fallen significantly since 2018. They also have fallen this year relative to last year. Last year, because of COVID, crew rotations were very complicated. Unfortunately, that meant we could perform less crew rotations, and that led to some savings, which we would rather not have benefited from. This year, the situation in this respect is better, but it's still complicated, which means that we are doing more rotations, but we're also doing more expensive rotations. Despite this, we managed to obtain some savings in our direct operating costs. Furthermore, of course, we have benefited over the course of the last few years from managing a more homogeneous fleet with a more modern fleet. That of course also has contributed to the savings achieved as well as the strong U.S. dollar, which after a period of relative weakness at the beginning of this year, now is again very strong. On the G&A front, we achieved some significant savings, at least relative to 2018. The dynamics has been at least a bit less positive in 2021. But we still have a 15% savings in the first nine months of 2021 relative to the same period of 2018. Going on to the following page. The cash and cash equivalent position is still a comfortable one of $42 million. Well above our minimum liquidity covenant of $25 million in our bank loans. The ratio of our net financial position to fleet market value is just below 61% and has improved significantly since the end of December 2020, and also since the 30th of June. That is because asset values have been rising over the last two quarters, driven by the increase in steel price, which led to increase in demolition prices and increase in new building costs, and also driven by the strong, perceived fundamentals of the market, which means that there is an increasing interest and increasing liquidity in the S&P market for the acquisition of secondhand vessels. We have seen this firsthand in the moment we wanted to dispose of some of our older vessels, as the High Venture which we recently announced the sale of. Towards the beginning of this year, it was very, very difficult to find interested buyers. There were a few people fishing around, but they would come with completely unacceptable offers. Instead, we have seen a much more competitive and dynamic market over the course of the last few weeks with a lot of interested buyers wanting to inspect our vessels and offering much more reasonable and firm prices. Going on to the following page, the results for the third quarter as can be expected by following the public rates announced and published by brokers, and has not been spectacular, to the contrary. Of course, there is a loss of $13.8 million. This loss, however, has been quite significantly impacted by non-recurring items, in particular, the disposal of the vessel we just discussed, which led to an asset impairment of $5.8 million. The vessel was classified as held for sale at the end of the quarter and was valued at its disposal price, actual disposal price. Excluding these non-recurring items, which, the result for the third quarter would have been of a loss of $8.2 million, which is still a significant loss, but definitely better than $13.8 million loss. For the first nine months, the loss was of almost $29 million and excluding non-recurring items of $22.6 million. Going on to the following page, we look here at the daily results of our vessels employed on the spot market and through time charters. Not surprisingly, given what was just said, the results of the vessels employed on the spot market was very very weak, and even weaker than the results achieved in the first quarter of this year. The good news, once again, is that it seems that we have turned the corner here. Q3 is always a weak quarter. It's almost always, I mean, not always, but almost always a weak quarter for us. There is usually quite a lot of refinery maintenance going on. In this year, there was also the Hurricane Ida, which led to important shutdowns of refinery activity in the U.S. Gulf. Of course, there was the effects relating to the pandemic, which although diminishing, was still weighing on the market for part of the quarter. In particular, the U.S. Gulf market, the Atlantic market, and European market was extremely weak during the third quarter. As I mentioned, it seems that we have turned the corner, and we are seeing a much more dynamic market, much more activity, increasing refining margins, increasing refining exports out of the U.S. Gulf. Paolo will be telling more about that in the next few slides. I mean, just quickly on the, you know, the overall result. The average TC earnings was $12,100 per day in the third quarter. That includes the coverage of almost 48% at $15,160. If we look at the nine-month results, the average earnings was $12,900, benefiting from a coverage of 48% of our available days at $15,400, and an average on the spot market of $10,600. As previously mentioned, I pass it over to Paolo, which will now give you much more color about what happened in the markets and our future view for the market. Thank you, Carlos. As Carlos just said, it looks like we are turning the corner. You certainly you know where we are coming from because the consequences of COVID-19 has been unique. Now it looks like that global oil demand is now forecast to rise by 5.5 MMbpd in 2021, and to reach 96.3 MMbpd, and by 3.3 MMbpd in 2022, reaching close to the 100 MMbpd, which was where we were before the COVID. The global refining throughput stood at 77.9 MMbpd for Q3 and is expected to reach 79.6 MMbpd in Q4. We are seeing a recovery. We are seeing a recovery which is totally correlated to the trend of COVID because people are getting more and more vaccinated, and they are start moving more and more around. Even the inventories on clean refined products have been declining. We are now below the five-year average, so we are rebalancing the inventories. We have a series of, let's say, positive elements to look at. The vehicle miles driven in U.S., Europe and Latin America are returning to pre-COVID levels. This is due not only to the fact that people are going around again, but also because they are avoiding public transportation and they are using their own cars. The consumption between cars and trucking is improving. The trucking is improving, increasing due to e-commerce deliveries. You know very well the situation on the container side, where the logistics are a problem, but are a problem because there is a lack of drivers of trucks. We know this, the numbers of trucks on the road is bigger. On jet fuel, jet fuel is starting coming back. It was the big missing element. Since last Monday, U.S. and Europe really started again the flights for fully- vaccinated people. As far as I know, these flights are totally full, even overbooked. We are seeing a movement of jet fuel not seen before, even if we are still a good 20% under the levels of 2019. On jet fuel, there is still a long way to go, but it is there. We have the oil for electricity, which is a potential element there, due to the lack of gas, of LNG and the cost of LNG. LNG is touching the equivalent of $170 /bbl of oil equivalent. There are many power plants that they can switch from LNG back to fuel oil, and in certain case can be used also diesel oil on smaller utilities. This is something which is partially happening and probably will happen even more. The numbers that Goldman Sachs put on this type of consumption is as much as 20 MMbpd of potential generation capacity from liquids. It is a big number if all this is going to happen. We see... We should see this happening mostly in the Middle East and the Far East, as well as Pakistan, Bangladesh and this country more than in Europe, because Europe doesn't have any more too many utilities run on fuel. The demand growth is healthy, the long-term one. The participation of clean products on the seaborne trade is always high. We are always talking about 1/3 since from 25% as it was in 2000. We have a long-term potential upside to asset value because of where we are coming from with the markets, where we were. Certainly, the potential upside is very strong. We are seeing this already because, as Carlos said, we had a revaluation of a fleet substantially over the last nine months. Going back to refining, the landscape is more and more on the east side. The growth of new refinery is mostly concentrated in Middle East and Far East, I would say China. Instead we have a closure of not economical run anymore refineries in Europe and Australia and New Zealand. Which is 1.9 MMbpd of capacity has been already closed, and 0.6 MMbpd of capacity is under assessment. Let's say very strong example, the fact that New Zealand lost all its refining capacity. On the supply side of the fleet, we have strong incentives to demolition, to push old ships to be dismantled. But the scrap value is on its 10-year high, and very rarely we saw this type of numbers. Demolition will be, of course, stimulated by the new requirements that are coming in 2023, like the CII and the EEXI, and the recently approved European Emissions Trading Scheme. These are all elements that will push more consuming and older tonnage to be dismantled, and it will be also more difficult for older ships to get the financing. There is a growing pool of demolition candidates. This is due to the fact that there's been a super cycle between 2003 and 2008. These are coming. This part of the fleet is coming to maturity, let's say, of 15-20 years of life. Probably you will see an acceleration of the demolition dates. We see already this pickup in scrapping. In 2020, there have been scrapped only 10 vessels between MR and LR1 versus 44 ships only in the first nine months of 2021. Clarksons estimates 97 MRs and four LR1 to be delivered in 2021. If you look at the last quarters of this here in the graph, you can see that the fleet basically had no growth. The deliveries have been totally offset by the scrap ships. There's a limited new building order. There is on top of the price and the cost due to the cost of steel, but there is also the uncertainty on what technology to use because still we do not know what is going to be our future bunkers and we're talking about a new building, you are talking about an asset which you will keep for 20 years. Before you move to a yard and you decide to build a new ship, you have to be certain that for the next 20 years, this ship will be in line with the rules required. We have a very slowing fleet growth. It's only 1.9% in 2021 and less than 1% in 2022, and this is on the supply side. I think there are all the fundamentals there to be optimistic in the near future. I leave the floor again to Carlos on our NAV evolution. Thank you. Yes. Hello again. Just a quick look at our historical NAV evolution and where it stands today. As previously mentioned, this is based on brokers' valuations that we receive on a quarterly basis, and they are the same valuations we use to measure compliance with our loan-to-value covenants in our bank financings. They are from a renowned broker, and I would say they are quite reliable in this respect. It peaked last time, in the last mini cycle, let's say, in December 2019, $314 million. Then it traded down the overall NAV to a trough in March 2021 of $213 million. Despite the weak markets we have seen throughout 2021, the surprising thing is that the NAV has increased. Now it's back close to $300 million, that's $291 million. Not that distant from the December 2019 figure. On a per share basis, in U.S. dollars, it's at $0.24 as at the end of September, which meant that our shares were trading at a very deep discount to NAV as at the end of September of around 52%. We are convinced because we have seen this many times in the past that as soon as we start generating profits and the market turns this NAV discount will start falling and of course as we generate profits and cash also the NAV will increase. That should be very positive for our shares going forward. Basically that's it. The other slides in the presentation cover some of our ESG credentials which you can look through those at your ease and but of course we are more than willing to and available to discuss any of our such credentials. I pass it over to the Q&A there. Please let us know if you have any questions relating to the material presented. Excuse me. This is the Chorus Call 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 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 Matteo Bonizzoni of Kepler. Please go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Just two quick questions. The first one is a typical question related to the rate environment which you are experiencing in the fourth quarter. We have seen in the third quarter a new weakening of the spot to below 10,000 per day. Let's say for the fourth quarter, should we assume similar level, higher or lower? The second and last question is on the slide 11 of your presentation, in which you have introduced this new blue line. I would just like to understand how to model the estimates going forward. We were used to model your TC revenues, let's say, using the yellow line. Now I wonder, we should continue to use the yellow line or alternatively to use the blue line to model your revenues and to put a higher cost on top. Just to understand how it works. Thanks. I pick up the first one, and I leave to Carlos, the second one. Things going as they are going, I would say rates are going certainly better. To give you an idea, last week from in the U.S. Gulf, 18 MRs, they disappeared, so they have been fixed out, and many of them went to South America. It's a long trip, long ton miles. I'm not going to tell you this is going to be a bonanza. It's not. We are not there yet. Certainly the market improved. We saw that in in another corner of the world. Also because quite a number of old ships disappeared. Also because I would say in this moment, in this part of the year, you have a very low delivery of new ships from yards, because at this point, they postpone all the deliveries in January, February, in a way to gain one year of life. With that said, yes, there is an improvement. How much it's going to be, frankly speaking, I cannot say, but it's not certain to be terribly rich. Not for a minute, at least. Carlos? Yes. Thank you, Paolo. Regarding the markets and the rates, I would just like to add that, I mean, unfortunately, October was still a very weak month. So, when we are going to then average the results for the quarter, the weak October, unfortunately, is going to weigh on the overall averages. I mean, the improvement we have been seeing is really has occurred over the last few weeks. As you know, you know, the vessels are not always immediately available to fix for a new employment. Our voyages last on average around 20 days. They are slowly opening up into this better market, and they will be benefiting from an improving market, which I believe will improve further in December, but only for not that many days in the quarter, unfortunately. The FFAs for December are showing a much better picture. We actually recently covered the equivalent of one vessel through FFA contracts for Q4, for a conventional vessel, which would lead to equivalent earnings for us of $14,500 per day. Now, given where the bunker prices are today, that means around $17,500 per day earnings for an Eco vessel. That is definitely a... Given that we have 75% of our fleet that is Eco, that is definitely a very attractive level. What the market today anticipates is that December is going to be a very interesting month for the product tankers, at least judging by the paper levels for the TC2, TC14 routes in the Atlantic. Going then on your second question, we can cover this also outside of the call, yeah. Because I will try to explain. I hope my explanation is going to be clear, but if it is not, we can talk also after the call, and I'll try to clarify that. We are going to change the way we present our income statement because of this new additional source of revenue, which we didn't have previously. Beneath that, we will have the freight revenue and the time charter revenue appearing in one line. Then we will have the voyage costs appearing in another line. The sum of the two is going to be what we have always called our time charter equivalent earnings. Then we will add to that our bareboat charter revenue. The sum of the time charter equivalent earnings and our bareboat charter revenue will be equal to our total net revenue. Now, the reason we are including the bareboat charter revenue beneath the time charter equivalent earnings is because if we added it before, together with the freight and time charter revenue, we would be comparing apples with oranges. The sum of these, less the voyage costs, would not have been equal to the time charter equivalent earnings. That is one explanation. Now relating specifically to these lines here, what we did here is we tried to adjust the bareboat charter rate to transform it into a time charter equivalent rate, into a rate which is comparable to the rate which we earn if we employ our vessel on a time charter basis. The way we did this is to add to the bareboat rate what we deem will be an assumed, let's say, direct operating cost level for our daily direct operating costs to service this contract. We use the assumed level of the daily direct operating costs in this particular analysis was the actual level of daily direct operating costs in the first nine months of the year, which is around $6,700. You can then work backwards, you know, to derive what the bareboat charter rate would have been. We thought that from an analytical perspective for the analysts, it would have been better to present this bareboat charter rate on a time charter equivalent basis so that it can be compared with the other contracts, and so that we can then also include an overall average on a time charter equivalent basis for our time charter contracts and for the bareboat charter contract. I hope that is clear. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Massimo Bonisoli of Equita. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I hope you can hear me well. Just a couple of questions. The first on the vessel impairment in third quarter, if you can shed some light on the impairment, considering that if I got correctly, the net NAV of the vessel were improving over the quarter. The second question is on the refinancing of the balloons. If you can provide any details on the cost of the refinancing that you expect versus the existing funding cost now in place. Yes, thank you. I think that I can take both questions. Relating to the impairment, yes, it is true that there has been a positive dynamic in the vessel prices over the last few quarters. I would say that the price at which we sold the vessel was quite close to the broker assessment that we received for the value of that vessel, as at 13th of September. Nonetheless, unfortunately, the book value of the vessel is not reflective of the current market conditions. It's reflective of the market conditions at the time the vessel was bought. This was a vessel which was amongst the most expensive in our fleet, especially when we compare it to other vessels of the same age, of a similar age. That is why there is this impairment. Regarding the financing costs, all the balloons have been refinanced at very similar levels. I would say competitive levels also relative to what we have negotiated in the recent past. I think that there is good appetite by the banks today to provide new bank loans to the IS. It might not be the case that there is a good appetite to finance the sector as a whole, but I understand that there is good appetite to finance what they perceive as being the strongest players in the sector. All of these financings are at a cost below 250 basis points, and I would say around 240 basis points with some additional potential benefits depending on how the vessel is employed, that can further reduce the costs, the margins on the loans. An additional question if I... Yeah. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Please go ahead. If I may squeeze in an additional question. Just your NAV calculation at the end of September, I imagine it doesn't include the divestment of the High Venture vessel you just announced? No, it doesn't. No. It includes it at the broker valuation as at 13th of September. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question is from Daniele Alibrandi of Stifel. Please go ahead. Yes. Hello, everybody. Thanks for taking my question. Let me say, it's good to feel an improved sentiment with respect to the previous calls, together. Going to the question. The first one is actually a little bit already answered, but I try anyway. In light of these deals that you have announced, I mean, the bareboat charter out for LR1 and the disposal of the High Venture, how should we expect your direct operating cost line, and also your financial profile going into 2022? Maybe related to this, if it's possible to expect in next year maybe another disposal, because I saw that there are some vessels like for example High Valor, which have similar features to the one which was disposed. This is my first question. I let you answer because then I have another more technical question that maybe... Okay. Yeah. I'm not too sure I understood the first part of the question. It's relating to how this this disposal is going to affect our costs? Yes. Your cost, your operating cost line and also your financial profile, both the deal announced on the bareboat and the disposal of the High Venture. The deal announced on the bareboat out, we will have this, as I mentioned previously, this bareboat charter revenue, which will appear on a separate line below the Time Charter Equivalent earnings. The sum of the two, we are going to classify it as our total, let's say, net total net revenues. The line items beneath the total net revenues are not going to change. They're going to be the usual line items we have. On this particular vessel, since it's bareboat chartered out, we are not going to be incurring direct operating costs. From a modeling perspective for you, this vessel would not be generating direct operating costs. Of course, the same applies, but we will have the usual financial expenses related to the financing of this vessel. The interest expenses related to the financing of the vessel will of course continue flowing through our income statement. Of course, relating to the other vessel that is sold, from the disposal date, there is going to be one less owned vessel in our fleet. The direct operating costs going forward will decrease. As it is one of our older vessels, it is also one of the most expensive to manage from an operating perspective. The disposal should other things being equal contribute to a decrease in the average daily costs. Of course, we are talking only about one vessel disposal, so the benefit should be marginal. I hope I answered your question. Yeah. Sure. Maybe should we expect potential other disposal? Or maybe... Yeah. The potential other disposal, yes. You can expect potential other disposals. Yes. There is quite a lot of interest there, as I mentioned previously, at more attractive levels. We had these three older vessels in our fleet, which we mentioned several times. It was our intention to dispose of them at the right moment. We sold one now, and there are two more to be sold. Over the course of the next few months, a year, we expect to sell these other two vessels. Okay, thanks. The other questions relates to the asset values which been increasing since 2021-2023. On the Handysize, can you please share with us which is the current price for a Handysize new build and after five years, please? I know it's a boring question, but it also help me to model some things. For a Handysize new build vessel? Yeah. Oh, I don't know. We have the answer for an MR new build vessel. We have that in our presentation. I would say maybe a Handysize is at a small discount to that, a few million dollars less, I would imagine. Paolo, do you know? I mean... Yeah. If you are talking about a high- cubic Handy, they normally have the same beam as an MR. The space that they occupy in the yard during construction is exactly the same as an MR. You can discount a couple of millions of dollars from the MR price at maximum. Yeah. We are assuming in our presentation, you know, based on the recent data from Clarksons, $41.5 million, the different costs for an MR new building. You would probably be around $40 million-$3 9.5 million for a Handy. Okay. Is it fair to assume you build prices for LR1 around $50 million? Yes. Maybe something even more, I would say. Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Arianna Terazzi of Intesa Sanpaolo. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your presentation. I have a question on the impact of payment on carbon emissions. Have you already estimated this impact on your financials for the next years, or are you accounting any provision relating to this item? Thank you. No. The only thing I want to say is the reason why we are selling the older ships is because we are exactly putting the fleet online to for this new emission trading coming in. Carlos, go ahead. We are actually working on this right now. Today I received a first kind of simulation which I personally didn't have time to focus on because we had the board meetings this morning and the call with you later. We are working on this. We don't have a figure yet on the cost of the emissions. Of course, we would only be able to eventually have a forecast based on some assumptions that we would have to make as to how many vessels would be operating and where they would be operating. We don't have a figure yet for this. What we believe is that this cost is going to be passed on to the charterer. Eventually it will have to be paid by the owner, most likely. It will then be passed on to the charterer as part of the negotiation of the charter rate for the employment of the vessel. Because the one who is going to be paying for the bunkers is the charterer. The charterer is the one who's going to be deciding where the vessel is going to be sailing to, and is going to be in control of the overall emissions of the vessel. Depending on how the vessel is employed. It is going to be a matter of negotiation between the owner and the charterer. It is going to increase the cost of operating the vessel, but it is a similar effect to an increase in the bunker cost of the vessel. That is the way I would look at it. Thank you. Yeah. The next question is a follow-up from Matteo Bonizzoni of Kepler. Please go ahead. Yes, just a follow-up question on this point on the CO2. I was looking at your sustainability report, which is in any case for the entire group, d'Amico, no, not only I think for International Shipping. I was looking that the group should have CO2 emission, if I remember correctly, around 0.8 million ton. Is it right? Just to share what is the part related to d'Amico International Shipping. Yes. I mean, look, I don't have the figures of the emissions. You're probably correct if you're referring to the emissions that you found in our report. Yes. We have to make some assumptions as to where our vessels are going to be trading, and there is a phase in. Basically what happens is that we are going to be paying for 100% of the emissions for voyages between European ports. We are going to be paying for 100% of the emissions where the vessels are in port. We are going to be paying for 50% of the emissions for a voyage between a European port and a non-European port. There is also a phase-in which happens. In the first year, we are going only to be paying for 20% of the emissions that our vessels are going to be generating. In the following year, this percentage rises to 40%, then to 70%, and then to 100%. We are going only to be paying for 100% of the emissions in 2026. The cost in euros for the first year, which is 2023, should not be that significant. It's the first year of measurement. The cost is going to be generated in 2023, and then we will need to buy allowances to be surrendered by April 2024. Of course, we can start buying the allowances in advance and building a stock of allowances that we then can surrender at the first date, which looks today will be April 2024. The cost, I prefer not to give a cost until we have really fine-tuned our calculations here. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Gentlemen, there are no more questions registered at this time. I'll turn the conference back to you for any closing remarks. No. Thank you very much for attending our call, and let's meet again on the phone for the result of the next quarter. I thank you, and bye-bye.