Good morning, everyone. I'm Catrien van Buttingha Wichers, Fugro Investor Relations. Thank you for attending this Q3 trading update, webcast, and analyst call. First, you're all in listen-only mode. I have a presentation. Mark Heine, CEO, and Barbara Geelen, CFO. I think that will last around 20 minutes or so. Thereafter, there'll be room for your questions. Mark, I'd like to hand over to you now, please. Yeah, thank you, Catrien. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Q3 2025 trading update. We start with the first slide and have a look at the key financial headlines of our results. The year 2025 has turned out to be a difficult year up to now, with lower revenue against a very volatile market backdrop, something I will elaborate on a little bit more shortly. Still, the third quarter did show an anticipated performance improvement compared to the first half of the year, and we're now at 12.9% for Q3. The EBIT margin reflects a notable improvement, obviously, compared to the first quarter, where we have a margin around zero and a 4.3% margin in the second quarter. Compared to Q3 2024, however, the decline was primarily driven by lower revenue. We're taking control of what we can by reducing our cost base and protecting our cash flow, and Barbara will also talk a bit more about that a little bit later. Our balance sheet remains robust, with a net leverage of 1.2 x. Above all, we're staying closely aligned with our clients' evolving needs, supporting them through key projects. In this quarter, for example, we are doing a significant, or we started a significant site characterization for Eni Deepwater Gasfield in Indonesia, but also work for RWE and Total Energies in the wind environment, wind postal project. Our innovative and scalable GroundIQ land site screening solution is also gaining traction, and also, for example, that is specifically done, for instance, in Germany now on a tenant landwind grid connection project. However, in the short term, the overall environment remains volatile. As per September's trading update, we anticipate a challenging winter season, with Q4 continuing to be subdued due to lower offshore wind activity and temporary reductions in the oil and gas client spending. Next slide, please. If I dive into the markets a little bit more, and specifically wind and oil and gas, to talk a little bit more about that. Offshore wind continues to face headwinds from high interest rates, rising construction costs, limited grid capacity, and shifting political landscapes. Here on the left side, you see a graph from the International Energy Agency, and they are currently estimating quite a change in the wind capacity that will be online in 2030. There's the gigawatts commissioned by various areas in the world between 25 and 30, and you see the reduction in the outlook there, -27% for the world in total. That's compared to the outlook in 2024, with obviously a strong reduction in the U.S., Europe coming down as well, and the rest of the world as well. China has not taken a part of this, or at least is not listed here. Obviously, a country that is developing quite rapidly also in the renewable sphere. If you look at what's happening in the short term, we can clearly see that developers are reviewing which projects are economically viable, also against that backdrop of higher cost and also less interest in green energy for the current pricing levels. I think it's important to say that it will take a little bit of time to further stabilize this market sector. I think it's important that, obviously, politics also takes some clear decisions on what kind of contract forms and subsidies are required for the development of these projects. In the longer term, we believe that offshore wind absolutely stays a key part of the diverse energy mix. When governments come in with contracts for different types of solutions, basically subsidizing these programs again, which stopped, for instance, in Europe, I think in 2018 or so, which now comes back on the board and will help and support very much, specifically the European market segment, where we believe that Europe, and also obviously China, remains the largest wind developers in the world, but also Asia-Pacific will steadily grow. U.S. will obviously pause for now, but we see Canada and Latin America coming in over time. If we look at oil and gas, we have also committed in our written in our press release that oil and gas project startups have temporarily slowed down. This is actually reflecting the short-term view from the energy companies to be very careful in their spending pattern for the second half of this year. This is really short-term focus, and this was also the main driver for our earlier trading update on the 22nd of September. Also on this slide, you see on the left side an estimate of the required demand for oil. Over time, you see that this is obviously becoming more uncertain with unsanctioned areas. We see obviously a depletion that is rapidly continuing. That means there are definitely new fields required to fill up the gaps or the depleted fields. It is quite important that investments will continue, and that we fill up this gap in 2030 and 2040 that are unsanctioned or even the additional supply that is required. If you look at lately what has been communicated in the world, there's a very mixed message. On the one side, we see that there's targeted exploration programs going on, however, with a strong emphasis on timelines and cost efficiencies because the energy companies are also preparing for potentially lowering oil and gas prices for longer. You no doubt have seen also the latest submissions of the International Energy Agency that they see some oversupply in, for instance, LNG, but also oil in the short term. That will keep the prices, I think, around a certain level, and that obviously will impact also the decisions around investments for these energy companies. At the moment, McKinsey is expecting that the capital and expenditure will be very focused and probably funneled to more competitive deepwater and shale basins around the world, very focused and concentrated around areas where they can secure returns in the short term quickly. If we go to the next slide, we see a summary of all our key markets in the long term, multi-years ahead. In the mid to longer term, our key markets are still, I think, solid, we can say. Offshore wind, as you see on the left side, still grows, CapEx and OpEx, however, significantly slower than what we have presented before. That was a 30+% increase in this market before. It's still growing, but obviously a lot slower. Oil and gas is slightly up since the last presentation, or what we showed last time. It was - 3% for the CapEx. OpEx was coming down a little bit. Now it's up 1%. We see some momentum there. We specifically see also momentum in our backlog. Barbara will talk a little bit about that. What we do is not necessarily directly the same as what the market is doing, so always be a little bit careful between those differences. If you look at the infrastructure in the long term, that hasn't changed too much. That is still a steady growth, moving forward with a lot of projects that need to be done to replace existing infrastructure or aging infrastructure. I now want to hand over to Barbara for more details on the financial side. Thanks, Mark, and thanks to all on the line for joining us for this call. As mentioned by Mark already, Q3 showed a notable improvement versus previous quarters, and this was especially from an EBIT and operating cash flow perspective. In line with the previous quarters, our top line was impacted by the changing business environment. As Mark alluded to already, in this quarter, we generated around EUR 100 million less in offshore wind revenue than in the same period last year, whereas oil and gas declined modestly. On the other hand, infrastructure and water-related revenue were up slightly. If you look at the EBIT, let's look there, that is a 12.9% margin for Q3. This margin reflects a notable improvement from the previous two quarters, which was part driven by the cost reduction program that is well underway, which I'll talk about in a bit. I also want to still compare it a little bit to Q3 2024, where the margin decline was primarily driven by the lower revenue in offshore wind. If you think about that on a like-for-like basis, the improved operational performance is reflected in operating cash flow, and this increased to EUR 95 million, up from EUR 36 million in the second quarter of this year. Next slide, please. In a couple of comments on the regional performance, we saw a decline in marine revenue of 12%. The main three drivers for that were a lack of offshore wind in the Americas, pricing pressure, and the geophysical services in Europe, Africa. Finally, a relatively high volume of low-margin pass-through revenue from inspection and monitoring campaigns in APAC in a comparable period last year. Offshore wind also played a key role in the 15% downturn within our land business. The nearshore service line was impacted by a slowdown in project volume across Europe, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Most notably, this was in Japan. In addition, on the land side, we see continued subdued infrastructure markets in Hong Kong and Saudi Arabia due to tightened governance budgets. If we compare it to Q3 2024, the margin decline, which can be seen in the graph on the bottom, was primarily driven by the lower revenue, with the most significant effect in Europe, Africa, where the majority of our fleet is deployed. Next slide, please. If we look at what is happening in the backlog, this is a slide that we showed last quarter for the first time. Because this demonstrates our ability to recalibrate our business through our diversified and market-agnostic business model, because we serve clients across different end markets and different geographies. When you look at the composition of the backlog in the top graph, you can clearly see that the decrease in renewables is partly being replaced by oil and gas. The oil and gas backlog increased in all regions except in the Middle East and India by 12%. The backlog includes EUR 321 million in renewables today, which is a decrease of EUR 270 million compared to September last year. The large majority of the current renewable backlog is in Europe, Africa, and then in APEX. Next slide, please. As we said, we are taking action by reducing our cost base, and we already announced a comprehensive cost reduction program. This addresses both fixed and variable costs to align with the current market realities, with approximately two-thirds from workforce reductions and a third from operational efficiencies. While the personnel reductions in certain geographies take time to implement, by now we are delivering significant reductions in staff levels and third-party spend. In September, we announced further measures in response to the further deteriorated market conditions. This includes increasing the planned workforce reduction from 750 to 1,050 FTEs, which is a very difficult step, but a necessary step. We expect to be able to complete the majority of these 1,050 FTE reductions by year-end. We continuously monitor top-line development, and we will implement further measures if and when required to safeguard profitability and cash flow, while at the same time maintaining a strong foundation for future growth. Next slide, please. As you can see on the cash flow, operational cash flow in Q3 was EUR 95 million. On the graph on the right, it shows that by the end of September, working capital as a percentage of 12-month revenue amounted to 15.1%, which is in line with the bandwidth of 10%- 15% that we communicate about. In line with the previous years, it is expected to unwind in the fourth quarter due to the seasonality pattern that we have. On the CapEx, the CapEx for Q3 was EUR 30 million compared to EUR 52 million in Q2. Last year in Q3 last year. We maintain our guidance of EUR 250 million for the full year, excluding the head office, as mentioned before. Overall, free cash flow for the quarter totaled EUR 26 million, a year-on-year decline. From EUR 103 million, primarily driven by lower EBITDA and higher working capital. Next slide, please. Let's have a look at the balance sheet. Our balance sheet is robust with a net leverage of 1.2x, and it's well below our leverage target of 1.5x. The net debt position decreased to EUR 411 million as of September 25, which is down from EUR 437 million at the end of June at mid-year. In October, we arranged a EUR 40 million term loan with a one-year maturity to add flexibility and as a liquidity backup. We see this as a prudent measure. We want to ensure that we have sufficient liquidity in the business to fund the ongoing business. I want to hand over to Mark, who will talk about the outlook. Yes, thank you very much, Barbara. The last slide before we hand over for questions. For the outlook for 2025 and 2026, basically stated the following. We have a challenging winter season ahead, and this is maybe different than what we have seen over the last couple of years, but we do see that seasonality kick in again, and that will also affect the fourth quarter, especially now with some projects being de-scoped and deferred to 2026. We are continuing to focus really on our cost savings program. That's very important to execute on that, and we try to get most of it out of the way by the end of the year. We're scaling back investments moving forward to also reflect the lower growth environment, resulting in significantly lower CapEx in 2026. With that, I would like to close the presentation and open up for questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question at this time, please press the star or asterisk key followed by the digit one on your telephone. Please ensure that the mute function on your telephone is switched off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. If you find that your question has already been answered, you may remove yourself from the queue by pressing star two. Again, please press star one to ask a question. We will pause for just a moment to allow everyone to signal. We will now take our first question from Luuk van Beek of Degroof Petercam. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Yes, good morning. A question about your cost savings because you did quite drastic action with roughly 10% headcount reduction. At the same time, there's a war for talent, and the medium-term outlook is still more optimistic. How are you balancing your ability to benefit from a recovery in the medium term with the need to bring down costs in the short term? To what extent are you keeping spare capacity or protecting certain capacity? My second question is about the current cost focus of customers. Does that also bring some opportunities for you, given the new technologies that you've introduced over the last years, the USVs and other things that are more efficient than previous technologies and your ability to combine services to find a cheaper solution to get the right data? Okay. Thank you very much, Luuk, for your questions. Maybe first around the headcount reduction. That is obviously a drastic measure and obviously something you try to avoid as you can. We are definitely protecting the key expertise that we have in our operations. It is very much aimed at how can we organize ourselves in a more efficient manner. This also means, do we have in certain areas of the business maybe build up for growth and further enhancement and professionalism on the support side, on the functional side as well, whereas we try as best as we can to protect the operational power that Fugro has. Yes, there is absolutely war for talent going on. We want to keep our good people. Unfortunately, if you go through a cycle like this, you always see that the motivation in the organization is affected, but we try to keep that to the highest level with extra communication and effort to protect our operational capacity there. If I move to the technology side and what we can do around cost, I think the key thing that we see right now, what you refer to is especially the traditional energy companies that have quite a few projects on the board and also looking at exploration in certain particular areas, as I mentioned before, being very focused on what projects can generate quick returns in a very short timeframe. This asks also for Fugro to be super efficient and combine data sets efficiently, where we potentially skip longer processes that you might have seen in the past in certain oil or gas developments that they now want to do in a much quicker cycle where we also are asked to combine data more efficiently. We have solutions there, for instance, with our Fugro software to allow clients to have more easy access to all the data that is collected around these fields, that they also have quicker access to the data that we collect in the field. With our remote solutions, we can also transfer data quickly to the shore and process faster. There are definitely solutions that help these clients in this difficult environment. U.S. fees are also kicking in, being a solution, albeit I think we have to acknowledge that this is still a very early stage in a transformation that the industry is going through. It's absolutely moving to more remote and smaller assets. At the same time, this takes a little bit of time to make that very efficient. We see, if our U.S. fees are working properly, then this is very successful, and we can help our customers there as well at lower cost. If you talk about the land business, I spoke and I referred to one of the technologies we developed, it's called GroundIQ, where we use geophysical data more on the land site screening and site characterization, combining with traditional geotech work. This is really gaining traction. We started with that in the Middle East, and they are already generating quite a bit of revenue on that, with faster returns and better insights, which is really, yeah, very promising what that shows. Now we see projects also kicking in in Europe and the Americas, and we will roll this out in the upcoming period across the world. We definitely see this as a major shift in how we do work on the land side, with a lot of potential moving forward. Thank you. That's clear. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from David Kerstens of Jefferies. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions. First question on the savings you realized in the third quarter. I think OpEx was down 13% year-over-year in Q3, but pretty much in line with the second quarter. I appreciate there's probably also seasonality in OpEx in the fourth quarter. What do you expect relative to the fourth quarter of 2024 in terms of cost savings coming in? The challenging winter season in Q4, how challenging will that be? Without cost savings, would that be a break-even quarter, similar to the first quarter of this year, or would you say market conditions are incrementally worse than what you saw in Q1? Maybe a more general question, how does the current downturn in your end markets and actions taken by the company to safeguard profitability compare to historical downturns? You are more diversified this time around, but you also now see weakness in oil and gas, and should we still anticipate a recovery for 2026, given the current market conditions? Thank you very much. Thank you, David. First question maybe for Barbara, around the cost savings and the OpEx, and then I will take the other two. Yes. David, on the cost savings, you mentioned indeed, OpEx down, but in line with the second quarter. We are making progress on the cost savings program. I'm not going to be more specific on that, in terms of the P&L impact. I can already tell you that because there's a lot of pluses, minuses in that, but we're executing on plan there, and we are generating, realizing, of course, we have lower operational third-party costs because of lower activity levels versus last year. There is certainly an element of the cost savings program executed in the third quarter as well as we already had expected. Moving to Q4, we are in a different situation there in terms of, as we are managing for challenging conditions. We have also added quite a number of assets, so there are some shifts happening in our cost base, whereas the top line is not as strong as expected. That's why we're warning for the winter season, on the exact EBIT. We're not going to give guidance. Otherwise, we would have done that. What we would say is that it is challenging. What we see back is that we now moving more with the decrease in the renewables revenue that we have. We revert a little bit more to a traditional seasonal pattern, before the years of 2023 and 2024, of lower Q4, lower Q1, and then more the high season Q2, Q3. I'm handing back to Mark for the last question. Yeah. Talking about how challenging the fourth quarter is, Barbara already said a few things about that. I think you're looking obviously for a little bit more guidance on the margin, which we will not give you. We basically want to emphasize that what we communicated in September was primarily related also to what is happening in the fourth quarter. We saw some effect in the third quarter for sure, but we anticipated a certain amount of projects to be started and executed in the second half of the year. That's why we communicated as we did around mid-year. We saw after the announcements of a lot of companies mid-year that, especially the oil and gas companies, tried to push out some of the projects to next year and also descoped some of the work. This has all to do with the returns that they had based on the lower oil and gas prices. This is all retaining cash and keeping the hand on the wallet for them. We have been trying to move some of the work that we actually already secured for 2026 into 2025 to do that before year-end. This is not really happening because the companies really want to only start beginning of next year with some of these projects to make sure that they don't spend the money in 2025. This is a short-term situation specifically around oil and gas. Therefore, it's important to understand what is happening there. In the midterm, on the one hand, you see that these companies are preparing for lower oil and gas prices for longer. However, they also need to develop new fields, and there is a race going on who's going to supply the oil and the gas in the future. There are many new projects on the board in many areas where Fugro hasn't been for more than a decade, for instance, or for a decade roughly. There is activity on the board. However, they will be much more selective what they will kick off and what they won't kick off. In general, we're not negative around oil and gas developments. However, in the short term, there is absolutely, in fact, effect, and that is primarily visible in the fourth quarter. Moving forward, we have projects on the board, and we will execute some of the work that has now pushed out to 2026 in 2026. We're also careful in guiding very specifically moving forward. Obviously, we have shot ourselves in the foot a few times before, so we're also a bit more careful in that sense. What is happening right now around the downturn? How different is that than maybe the previous downturns? If you look at, for instance, the COVID downturn, you obviously saw across the board everything being down by 20+% over time, which is a totally different situation where you have to cut across the board in operation, in management, in support and functional groups. Whereas now we very specifically try to make the organization also leaner and more effective, whereas we maintain and sustain to have a particular level of operational capacity because we see that this capacity is still required moving forward. There are insights that projects will be back on the board, and then there are activities also ongoing for next year and beyond. Having said that, and we communicate very clearly about that, the wind business is still in a difficult situation. As I just showed, there's maybe some growth in the world, but significantly less than before. Almost all the regions have less gigawatts on the board for the upcoming years, and that's very important to realize. Oil and gas, not negative, but be careful, especially in the very short term. That's what we currently can guide for. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Philip Ngotho of Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking the questions. I have two. The first one is more related to your comments that you see longer term, longer term outlook. You're positive on that, also given that you're seeing policy refinements or CFDs being implemented that should rebuild confidence and momentum. However, at the same time, we saw this week, of course, the news came out that the UK plans to allocate slightly less than what the market was hoping for to the AR7 round. It was seen as a disappointment, potentially leading to less capacity receiving support on the AR7. I'm just wondering, to what extent, are you still confident that governments will have sufficient resources, also given all the spending that has to go into defense, to really kickstart this offshore wind sector? Maybe as a follow-up on that, if this, for whatever reason, or we see these CFD measures really coming in below expectation, although there's still then a bit of growth, how big do you see the risk of the industry really remaining in an oversupply situation for the coming years, specifically the geotechnical and geophysical market? That's my first question. The second one is more on strategic choices. I acknowledge the measures that you're taking. Those are indeed quite drastic. I was wondering, in the discussions that you had on this internally, have you, for example, considered also, for example, for the geophysical fleet to maybe move more towards a charter model and potentially divesting assets from the balance sheet to just make the business more or less capital intensive, lowering your overall cash flow break-even level as well. I mention the geophysical market just because, of course, as you point out, it's more competitive and there's lower barriers to entry. You have lower visibility, so maybe it also makes sense to not really be owning those assets. Apologies for the long questions, but those are the two questions I have. Yep. Thank you very much, Philip. Okay. So first, around the policies and how we look at the midterm to longer term dynamics of that market. We still feel that the world will go through an energy transition, or maybe we should say more an energy evolution as some of the reports now talk about, where every form of energy is required moving forward. Everything will be part of the mix, and offshore wind is absolutely a very competitive way of providing energy and will stay on the board is our estimate. That's also what most of the reports say. There will be differences between regions, but we believe that definitely Europe and also, as I said before, some areas in Asia will continue to push for this and will build on this because also, getting the energy out of, well, imported, so to say, from other areas is also expensive and very much affecting the climate. It takes time. For instance, even this morning, you saw in the Netherlands the newspaper message around Nederwiek wind farm, which was actually not new news, so to say, because we already knew that this will not fly. The minister actually already in the Netherlands stated that we need to get a contract for difference in place to let this new license go on. I was a little bit surprised that they still put it in the market because we felt that this shouldn't happen because it only creates negative sentiment, more than required. On the other hand, I think they do this specifically to also make sure that changes are enforced because people obviously get worried about the fact that without a different contract, this is not going to fly. You refer to the AR7 license rounds in the UK. This is another good example of what we see as a market being really in a subdued situation right now. The government in the UK has indeed also stated that they can allocate more money if that is required moving forward, but obviously, this is not a positive sign. Let me be very clear about that. That's also why we are very specific around, yeah, we do not see in the short term, and then I'll talk about in the next one or two years, this to be drastically changing. It will be changing again, and it will move on, and we will get those contracts back in shape. There's a lot of discussion going on between many parties in the industry to make sure that governments, but also not only in particular, governments of countries, but also in the European Union, that there are decisions taken that this is moving in the right direction. Obviously, there's a competing business with defense. As we said before as well, if there's more opportunities on the defense side, then we're also happy to play a role there. We do not necessarily see, if you take an average there, that there's a big oversupply, for instance, on the geotechnical side. Maybe there's a temporary drop, as we said, for the winter season, but we do see that the assets that we have will be deployed, and therefore also we maintain the operational capacity that we have and the levels of vessels. We have scaled down a little bit. We did release some of the lease assets already over the last year. On the geophysical side, as you referred to, and that's also jumping into your strategic choices question, we obviously discuss everything. We have moved some geophysical capacity already to the fiber optic cable market. That means that they are not deployed anymore in wind or oil and gas because there are long cable routes, full ocean depth, capacity you need for that. Six-kilometer depth you need to reach with your measurements. We need some different equipment on board of these vessels. We have moved assets into that market, which is still quite buoyant with a lot of new fiber optic cables being installed around the world, for obviously, internet and AI and all sorts of data centers that need to be connected. The Googles and the Facebooks of this world are on top of that. Fugro is involved, and has a very good position there to do a lot of these cable route surveys. We have moved some assets around. We can reduce, by taking out one or two older assets, which we might do in the upcoming period. Having said that, we have some very good geophysical assets that we still continue to need, moving forward. There will be price pressure moving forward as well on these assets, but we have invested in them before. In that sense, it's money that has already been spent in the past, and that can really help us right now moving forward, also to create a competitive business for us in this area. We obviously will follow that very closely. Divesting these assets would be very unwise because you're just giving the competition the assets that you used to work with. We have been competing with our old assets in the past when we sold maybe something, and we felt this is not going to come back in the industry. Then you're competing with your own asset with a very long and great reputation, because Fugro used it for maybe 25 years in this area. If we take assets out, we destroy them and they will not be coming back in the market. Owning your assets is, in some ways, and obviously in the upcoming period, maybe difficult if there's an oversupply, but we actually try to manage that supply very well and very carefully so that there is no oversupply by taking out maybe some lease assets, or concentrating on our own assets only, or taking out some older assets or moving them into different markets. Okay. Thank you. Very clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Jeremy Kincaid of Kempen. Please go ahead. Good morning, Mark and Barbara. I have two questions. Firstly, Mark, during your commentary, you sounded a little bit more optimistic on a slight recovery in oil and gas and potentially FY 2026 than you did for offshore wind. I was just wondering if there's anything when your jobs are postponed that your oil and gas customers are saying, you know, that the postponement might only be 6- 12 months or if there's anything like that. I was just hoping to get a little bit more color around that. Maybe I might be reading between the lines too much, but interested in your thoughts. The second question I have is just, yeah, it sounds like FY 2026 will be a little bit quieter than previous years. I'm wondering, should we expect to see any vessel conversions potentially from geotechnical to geophysical given the different dynamics in the markets there? Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Jeremy. On your first question, I think you're listening very carefully. In that sense, yes, there is a difference between wind and oil and gas for sure. This is also why we specifically in the press release tried to also make a distinction between those two. Wind overall is in a subdued situation. This is ongoing already for longer. Since the beginning of the year, we have been communicating about it. Obviously, very clear what is happening in the U.S., but also in the rest of the world with high interest costs, more expensive supply chain, no big contracts taking off the green energy, the grid capacity. There is a whole rift, and then the political changes as well, a rift of issues that are ongoing on the offshore wind side. That will take time to fix this and to see this changed around. This will take longer for sure. In oil and gas, we said very clearly in the very short term, and actually we said that before in the second half of the year, they are very careful in spending money. Obviously, I haven't been in the boardroom with all these energy companies when they took the decisions, but my information tells me that they obviously look very carefully at the first half of the year cash returns and are very careful in spending it all in the second half of the year. They have paused some of these investments or pushed them out into next year. They can't really push them out much further because they need to develop some of these fields. They are in a race and competing with each other who brings on the next field as quickly as possible with great returns. They will not take five or six years anymore to bring an oil or gas field on stream. It needs to be done in three years. There is a lot of pressure on it. That also asks for very efficient work from, and data supply from, Fugro. We do see a little bit more on the board for sure, moving forward on the oil and gas side. As I said before, there are countries on the board and areas on the board that we haven't seen for a long time, like all the developments in Africa that multiple energy companies are looking at, or in South America, just as an example. If I move into your next question around 2026 and being quieter, we have stated what we stated in our press release on 2026, and that is that we do not guide for 2026 right now. That's too early and there's too much happening in the market. I'm not confirming or reaffirming what you just concluded there. Are we moving vessels from one operation to the other operation like geotech to geophysics or vice versa? No, we're not because those vessels are very specific and not being able to mix those. You can do some light geotechnical work on geophysical vessels, and that is happening all the time. That is more shallow water CPT cone penetration work that we do from our geophysical fleet, which is needed, for instance, for cable routes, also interconnected cables in offshore wind farms or other CPTs that need to be done for the work offshore. You cannot do the drilling from a geophysical vessel. We are not transforming any vessels right now from one to the other operation. If we talk about 2026, there is still work to be done on our vessels as always. However, it's a bit lighter on the work that needs to be done because we had a lot going on at the beginning of this year, 2025. In 2026, we have significantly less modifications to be done. We have one bigger modification still on the boards, which is for the Fugro Scout, and that will continue to happen. Other than that, there are no major overhauls planned. Clear. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Thijs Berkelder of ABN AMRO. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning all. Question on your order intake and backlog. Your order intake in Marine was down 36% year-over-year, and your backlog in Marine is down 13% from a year ago. Should we roughly assume both have a 50/50 volume price mix? Second question is on the guidance for the 2026 CapEx. You're guiding significantly lower. Does it mean that you're clearly slowing down your investments in uncrewed surface vessels? Or should we see it primarily as that you slow down the conversion of the existing fleet? This while I can imagine that having less work for the existing fleet, it in principle is now the time to bring the necessary upgrades to all these existing vessels. Barbara, maybe. No, on the order intake, in marine, what we can say, yes, this has gone down mostly because we see there are two developments, as I also showed in the backlog. The order intake in oil and gas is pretty healthy, whereas in the renewables, it is below 100. We see, as we mentioned before, there a different trend in the end markets. Now, if you talk about price and volume, that really has to do with the type of service that we do. Where we see on geotech, the prices are holding up quite well. We also are very clearly there the market leader and the demand remains to be there. That's very healthy, with the caveat of seasonality, I would say, but that has already been explained by Mark. On the geophysical side, there is pricing pressure. This is also why you see the top line being the top line for Q3, where we have a relatively high utilization of our assets of 76%. Pricing pressure on the geophysical fleet. There's really a mixed effect. You also have the difference in regions where activity levels differ. For example, in the Americas, obviously the offshore wind came down quite significantly with the behavior of the energy companies as we see it at the moment. On the CapEx, what I can say, yes, we have to look, we have completed our geotech CapEx program. As Mark just mentioned, we're still in one large conversion. We have to look at the affordability. This is really a capital allocation question, and that is really driven also by the market backlog that we see for 2026. We're still looking at that, and that will determine also how we're going to split the CapEx wallet that we feel we can allocate for next year. We will always have a level of EUR 100 million -EUR 125 million on maintenance and sustaining. Of course, that's flexible as well. In the end, you can shift. You can decide not to do something in a certain year and allocate it elsewhere. We remain very committed on the remote operations and the transformation. Having said that, just like the energy companies, just like our clients doing, we need to see where we can allocate the best cash in a best possible way, also driving what is leading to cash flows in 2026 and what is really resulting into cash flows in the longer term. It all starts obviously with the market backdrop. Conversion in the existing fleet, there we are pretty much, as I mentioned, the geotechnical side, done. We believe that the asset integrity is absolutely there, we're well-maintained and invested. Of course, we can always optimize, but that is not going to be very big in 2026. Yeah, a follow-on. Thijs— Yeah? Maybe if I can add two things, just on the specifics. I think it's important, 100%, what Barbara says. Maybe on top of that, it's good to mention that we are working on seven USVs at the moment in our development group. They will be issued in 2026. This is going to be completed. We are continuing with that. We will also reinvest in additional units. Going over to what Barbara said, we will review how fast we will go moving forward thereafter. We are in full force at the moment. The other thing is that we're still completing our Blue Dragon. We spoke about that before. That's our seafloor robot that will also come on stream beginning of next year. We're also not stopping there. We are still very committed to our strategic roadmap, especially around remote operations, USVs, geotechnical advancements like the Blue Dragon. Good to hear. A follow-on question on your cost savings program. Earlier, you planned to cut 750 FTEs, which to me says on roughly 10,000, so 7% cut and anticipating, let's say, a market 7% weaker than you assumed before. Now you are lifting that to more than 1,000. Should I read it in that you in principle are adjusting the organization for having 10% less volume work and maybe a bit of extra pricing pressure? For, let's say, a downturn of something like minus 15% in 2026? It's a good question, Thijs, and I will only partially answer that. We had around 11,000 people earlier, and we are decreasing that indeed to around 10,000 now. What is important to keep in mind is that we are also progressing on the technology and innovation side of the business. We are still taking people off vessels, bringing them onshore with the remote operations. It's not said that we can do less work in the future with that. We will be working differently in future on that. What is important to realize is that unfortunately all these redundancies are very painful. What we have said is we still are quite busy and in some places very busy. We are hiring operational staff. We need to execute the projects, and obviously we look at the fixed and the variable, also the flexible layer in that. There is an element in uncertain markets that you need to be more flexible and therefore you need to also have a more flexible cost base. We are absolutely making sure that we have sufficient people on board, but also really technical staff and the deep expertise that we have as a market leader, that we're absolutely protecting that. My point is really that there's many ways in different functions also in the company where we can benefit from automation, from remote operations, from robotics to really also increase, and at least maintain the same productivity levels and still be ready when growth is returning, that we really can benefit from that growth and positive market development. Yep, okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Quirijn Mulder of ING. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Two questions from my side. The first one is, let's get back to the profit warning in September and what you're now saying. In September, you said, okay, we haven't seen this be any time before, this collapse in oil and gas clients' behavior. Is there anything, can you add to that? Is there still, is it as it is? Is it bottoming out? Is the situation even getting worse if you compare that to what you have seen in September? That's my first question. On this, on Americas, for example, can you give me an idea about your profitability in the different regions, especially with regard to Americas? Because I think they went through the cost savings in an earlier phase than the rest. How is the outlook there? Maybe to refer also to the LNC part. Yeah. Okay. Quirijn, thank you for your question. First, to go back to September 2022, the September 2022 message and what we said there. There were a lot of things happening in the beginning of the third quarter with messages coming out to us and saying, okay, this project will start later. This scope is lower than we estimated before. All these kind of things. We have over the last couple of weeks not seen any new descopings or notable delays in our field or in our projects that we have on the board. That's what I can say there. Can you say is this bottoming out? I think it's more important to realize that we said it has an impact on the second half of the year, specifically the fourth quarter. This is a temporary measure that oil and gas companies take in the short term. In the longer term or in the midterm, they take a general measure, which is more related to, as I said before, high returns, quick development of fields that have good IRRs in a short timeframe. Those things are happening in general. As I said, there's more on the board for oil and gas. That is also what we said. If we talk about profitability per region, then I can say we only issue that on a full year basis. You will have to be a little bit patient there, Quirijn. No, we are not. No, of course not. I understand that. It's a very good question, but I'm not going to give you the answer on that. Can you give us some idea about the trends in that direction? If you, so Americas is a good example. There was a downturn already flagged at the end of last year. All the problems already started with the election of Trump and the discussion about the wind. You took some measures. In general, you should be able to show the first signs of a recovery on cost savings in Americas earlier than the rest. Is that happening? We say nine months later. Actually, this comes back to the question you asked that, midyear, why am I not seeing it? Because then we were showing actually the image. I think it's good to realize that we are readying the Americas or we are recalibrating the Americas to make the shift from a serious drop in an end market in terms of turnover to new, to other markets. That means that yes, we have done cost savings and restructuring. At the same time, we're also developing and building up for the new opportunities that are there. I think it's important to reiterate the growth of data centers, the increase in critical mining, and the opportunities that are there also in Latin America and, as Mark earlier said, in Canada and Latin America. You need to take that into consideration, that cost time, because there's quite some shifts also in your talent base, where you need to invest in before you can also benefit from that. Now we all read in the newspaper about these giant data centers and these large and these small nuclear plants, but this takes time. We have to be a little bit cautious to say, why is it not showing through? We have to realize the backdrop against which we operate in, but the opportunities are there and we will be able to monetize on those, but not in the next quarter or so. Yeah. Maybe good to add there, Quirijn, is also if you look at the revenue development of the Americas, you have received those numbers. On the top line, you see a currency comparable growth number of -10%. Whereas we have also communicated before that renewables in the Americas was EUR 170 million in 2024. On a region that does less than EUR 500 million, EUR 170 million is an enormous drop. Whereas now you see revenues coming down less than basically you could expect with taking wind out completely. That region is indeed during the course of the year finding other markets, as Barbara has been saying, to deliver our services in. In that sense, I think a very good, positive development that we see in that market where there are other opportunities for Fugro to move into. It takes a little bit of time and therefore also not immediately visible, but over time and especially also next year you will see different markets to be served out of the Americas with quite a bit of opportunities there, not only in the U.S., but also in Canada and in South America. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Thomas Martin of BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Hi there. Three, I think if I can. Back to the deferrals that you highlight in September. It sounds to me like you feel that these projects are being deferred into early 2026, first half, maybe some early second quarter or late first quarter. I wanted to understand how much visibility you have around those deferrals at the moment. You know, is significant risk that there could, again, be further deferrals, pushing these already deferred revenues from first half next year into second half next year, for example, around about the oil price trends. Second question was just on tendering activity, really related to the order intake question. It looks like order intake was reasonable for Q3. First of all, I was expecting, are tendering activity levels declining beyond seasonal norms through Q4 to date? Or do you think you might be able to maintain order intake at around about these recent levels? Third question, just on the CapEx for 2026, appreciate you're not going to give us the numbers, but can you give any insight into what areas of CapEx are the potential levers for 2026? From what you said before, it didn't sound like really it was USVs in the short term. You mentioned the sort of ongoing maintenance levels, EUR 100 to EUR 125 million. What are your levers for deferring? Operationally, what types of activities are you looking at in terms of being able to defer CapEx for next year? Where's the flexibility? Thanks. Yeah. Very good. Okay. Maybe first, back on the deferrals. As I said before, we haven't seen, in the last two or three weeks, any new news on additional deferrals. It has been a specifically, I think, concentrated period after the half year for everyone, all the companies reporting their numbers, where we saw action taken from quite a few companies, and therefore also direct impact there. The projects that are deferred indeed will start in the first half of next year and continue there. It's not like, as we said before, projects are canceled or, or not a lot, at least, was related to cancellation, or put out in indefinite deferrals where we don't have clarity on when, what is happening. That's what we can say. Obviously, taking into account that, yeah, first quarter is still winter season as well, so it's difficult to execute work when we have high sea state. In certain areas, it's not possible to execute those projects in the first quarter, therefore starting later as well. Tendering activity, you asked if order intake is declining beyond the normal seasonal pattern. No, we have not seen that. Having said that, obviously, in general, we see lower tendering activity on the offshore wind side, quite clearly, and that's also visible in our backlog, which is, well, not half, but close to half than the wind backlog that we had a year ago. If you see the order intake, as Barbara spoke about before as well, on oil and gas or a few other areas, we see that this is higher and above the 100% book to bill, for instance, on the oil and gas side. There you see a growth in the wallet that we have in oil and gas for the backlog. It is shifting, as we said before as well. We see that shift. We're filling up the backlog. Maybe it hasn't increased the backlog, but it is definitely filled up and made of a different composition. That is good. On the CapEx, maybe one thing from my side, I just wanted to emphasize again, we are still committed to our strategy, and therefore that means that we will continue with the things that we have on the board. We just need to balance the way and the speed of certain things. We're not stopping developing USVs, for instance, or other things, as I just mentioned also on the question of Teijs. We are very committed to continue, but we might pace a few things in a different way. We also have a different profile with the large modifications in the geotechnical survey being completed. We have been clear about that as well. We will move some of that room that we have towards remote solutions. We just added now that we need to balance that more in line with what we can spend and what is possible with the lower growth that we have seen over the last one and a half years. That's great. Thanks. Could I just clarify one follow-up on the deferral side? The contracts that were being deferred, as per your September update, is it correct to understand that they are now basically signed first half of 2026, largely signed, i.e., they couldn't be delayed without further contractual penalties from the clients? Is that the correct understanding? I don't have all the insights on every contract situation right now, so it's difficult to make a generic comment around it. For instance, one of the deferrals that we saw was the geotechnical campaign for the Cyprus work that we did for, or we're going to do for Eni. That is now confirmed to start early next year. Yes, we will kick off that, and that is a great example. For instance, an important project that we announced earlier on, which we could not complete this year, but is actually partially starting next year. Thanks. Thank you. At this moment, there are no further questions. I would like to hand over to Catrien for any closing remarks. Thank you all for dialing in, listening in, asking questions. If you might have any more, please contact me. Thank you, Mark, Barbara. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Bye.