Hello, and welcome to today's BW Offshore first quarter presentation. My name is Bailey, and I will be your operator for today's call. All lines will be muted during the presentation portion of the call, with an opportunity for questions and answers at the end. If you have joined us on the telephone conference, to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. Speakers, please begin. Good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the first quarter 2022 update of BW Offshore. My name is Marco Beenen. I will run you through the presentation together with Staale Andreassen, our CFO, who will cover the financials. Please note our disclaimer, then I'm moving to the highlights. We have signed a limited notice to proceed on a new interesting project for Shell and partners in Brazil, the Gato do Mato project. We have pursued this project for some time now together with our EPCI partner, Saipem. This has resulted now in a start with engineering activities while we finalize commercial terms and inflation risk allocation. This is an exciting moment for us. On our divestment program, we have progressed with divesting FPSO Polvo and Umuroa. I'll come back to that later. We're also pleased that now we have progressed our financial agenda sufficiently that we can increase our annual dividend with $20 million of BW Energy shares as dividend in kind, in addition to the cash dividend of $25 million a year, which we have been distributing past years. Operationally, we started 2022 with a good quarter, good progress on the Barossa project, with close to one-third complete now. Solid EBITDA and operational cash flow of $85 million and $148 million respectively. Our subsidiary, BW Ideol, as part of a consortium with TotalEnergies and Qair, has taken FID for a 13 MW floating wind farm development in the south of France, which is called EolMed. Operational update, then diving straight into Barossa, which is the most significant undertaking currently in the company. Since the start of the project, we had to navigate a challenging supply chain market, where we had to protect the schedule and lock in our costs as fast as our progress on engineering and definition would allow us to do so. I'm pleased with the progress we have made since and where we are now. We have delivered 2.4 million man-hours without any injuries. The keel laying of the hull took place ahead of schedule. Engineering has progressed till 90% 3D model reviews, and we have now placed the purchase order for all major procurement packages, and we've locked in all our key subcontracts. The latest of that was the integration contract with Keppel Shipyard, which is our long-term partner, and they have also significantly contributed to the success of the Catcher FPSO in the past. The inflation in the supply chain has, of course, also an impact on the cost of the Barossa project, as we also explained earlier. We do remain within the buffers of the project, and the project economics remain very robust. The project has now entered a phase where progress is very much driven by our key subcontractors, which we have carefully selected, and we're working closely with them as partners to ensure that the project remains on track. Moving on to fleet and HSE performance. First of all, the HSE safety statistics keep trending down on the back of an approved operational integrity framework. We still had an LTI on our unit in Mexico, Yuum K Náab, but fortunately, this was not a very serious injury, and we are implementing the lessons learned. To protect our people and the assets and operations from COVID infections, we still incur about $1 million a month of COVID costs that are linked to precautionary measures, including still quarantine and vaccination programs. At the start of 2022, we have changed the calculation of the commercial uptime to a weighted average of revenue contribution per unit. This means that going forward, we will be closer or we will have a closer relation to our financial performance and our commercial uptime, which will be governed by the performance of the core fleet. The historical numbers you see here in this graph are corrected for this new method. You also see that the quarter we have now is somewhat below the previous quarter, and that has to do with the 12-day planned shutdown of BW Adolo, because that's one of the three core units that contributes now very significantly to the commercial uptime. Here you see three core units in operation, plus the Barossa unit under construction. These core units deliver 98% of the backlog, amounting to $7.5 billion by the end of first quarter, and of that, 84% is firm. Highlighting Catcher, she's continuously delivering 100% commercial uptime, and it is also positive that Harbour Energy has commenced a 3-well drilling program now. BW Adolo is preparing for the tie-in to the Hibiscus/Ruche development, which will significantly increase the production and therefore the production tariff to BW Offshore. BW Pioneer continues to provide stable cash flow for both us and for our client, Murphy Oil. We are looking forward to hopefully extending it beyond 2024 for firm contract. We're making good progress with divesting the non-core fleet, which frees up liquidity without having a significant impact on operational cash flow. It also creates the opportunities to simplify the global onshore organization. More specifically about the units, BW Joko Tole in Indonesia is now close to completion of the transaction we have announced earlier. Umuroa has been sold for recycling, and we will supervise on-site together with Grieg Green to ensure that all these activities are done in full compliance with The Hong Kong Convention for Ship Recycling, but also BW Offshore's recycling standard. Polvo has been sold to BW Energy for $50 million, and this unit will now be refurbished for redeployment on the Maromba field in Brazil. Yuum K Náab in Mexico, this unit comes to an end of its financial lease term in July this year, so very soon. The title will transfer to our client, Pemex. We're supporting Pemex as much as we can to be well prepared for a safe continuation of the operations of the units when this term ends. This slide shows the remaining units with short-term contract extensions till the end of the year and early next year. First, Petróleo Nautipa. That unit will stop production end of September, and then we go into a decommissioning and demobilization phase. The units in Nigeria may extend their contracts and/or will be divested as well. We're making progress on the transaction opportunity for Athena. BW Opportunity remains then the redeployment candidate, and this is a very interesting redeployment candidate. We have now a few discussions with clients on various redeployment prospects. Obviously this has a strong business development focus for us. With that, I'm handing over to Staale to run you through the finance section. Thank you, Marco. As you can see, operating revenues came in at NOK 194 million in the first quarter, and we delivered an EBITDA of NOK 85 million. Financial performance on the core fleet was solid for Q1 with high commercial uptime. The sale and purchase agreement entered into for BW Joko Tole stipulates that the economic impact from the operation would be for the benefit of the future purchaser with effect from thirteenth of November last year. Although it's taken us somewhat longer to close the transaction than earlier anticipated, we are now closing in as we speak. As a result, we have excluded any economic impact from this operation from EBITDA for quarter one. Quarter on quarter, this has an impact on the results of approximately $10 million. Depreciations reduced from $68 million in the fourth quarter to just over $55 million in Q1. Changes are mainly driven by removing FPSO Joko Tole and Polvo from the base of depreciation as these were classified as held for sale, awaiting completion of the sales transactions on these two units. We reported a very small gain on sale of asset as Umuroa was sold for a slightly better price than net book value. As we are 100% hedged against floating rate increases on all our loan facilities, we are well protected as we now see interest rates are increasing. This ensures that our cash flow is not impacted by increasing interest costs as this is offset by the hedges we have in place. As rates continued to increase in the quarter, the value of these swaps increased, and we booked a mark-to-market gain of approximately NOK 26 million for quarter one. BW Energy carried out one lifting in the first quarter with approximately 1 million net barrels to them at a price of $120 a barrel. This gave the company a net result of NOK 36 million and consequently NOK 9.5 million as a net contribution to BW Offshore, booked here as share of profit from equity accounted investments. As you can see, net profit for the period came in at just over NOK 46 million for Q1. Cash flow from operation has been mentioned, NOK 148 million for the quarter, so another good quarter operationally. 61 million came from underlying fleet operations and the rest came through prepayments of the Barossa FPSO day rate. We invested a total of NOK 180 million in the fleet. The majority of this is related to Barossa, a total of NOK 163 million, and the remaining is linked to ongoing activities on the fleet, including repair activities for BW Opportunity. As we closed out on the sale of Cidade de São Vicente and Umuroa in the quarter, we received 27 million related to these two units. We continued to fund progress on the Barossa project through our joint venture with ITOCHU, Meiji, and Macquarie. BW Offshore injected NOK 5 million in the joint venture, and at the same time, the joint venture funded in NOK 84 million as payments for progress on the project. With other elements being relatively self-explanatory, you see that we ended the quarter with a cash position of NOK 235 million net to BW Offshore. We started using this overview last quarter as we wanted to create full transparency on the status on funding for the Barossa FPSO. Primarily as the structure is only partially consolidated due to having equity partners involved. The progress on funding is also a good measure for how we are progressing on the project overall. As you can see, equity and debt, we draw that pro rata based on forward-looking calculations of funding needed for the project. We did draw another NOK 60 million on the project debt facility in the quarter, and we injected a total of NOK 10 million more equity. Prepayments from Santos is paid based on a percentage measured completion on the project, as well as some defined milestones. As you can see from this overview, we have received in total now close to 30% of total estimated prepayments by the end of the quarter. So far, project CapEx is now nearing NOK 500 million in total. With six hundred million in funding, we are overfunded at the moment, but this is to cover profit margin interest on the project debt and working capital for the project. The balance sheet shows that we continue to be in a good financial position. Our net debt position was reduced to just over NOK 600 million by the end of the quarter. Equity ratio increased by 2%- 35.9% in Q1, primarily driven by a strong Q1 net result. Overall, we have a good balance sheet and we have a good headroom to covenants. Total gross debts stood at just under NOK 900 million by the end of the quarter. As you can see on the right-hand side, we continue to amortize on our debt. Except for these regular debt maturities, we have no large maturities before end of 2023. As Marco has mentioned, we've been able to move forward on divestments on non-core units. This is freeing up liquidity and at the same time we are now entering a market with stronger underlying commodity prices. When you couple that with the fact that we are well hedged for interest rate exposures, we are now in a situation where we do not foresee that we will need to refinance the majority of outstanding capital markets debt, but rather repay the significant part of this in due course. For the secured loan facilities, the plan is that we will start addressing this during 2023 and we will consider to stretch these maturities in line with how the development on the underlying operations that these are secured against. As has been mentioned earlier, we are continuing to streamline and rationalize our fleet portfolio. As has been mentioned, we have been able to close out on the sale of Polvo for $50 million. We have now closed out on recycling of Cidade de São Vicente and Umuroa, which is also removing carry costs on having these units in layup. We are now very close to close out for Yuum K Náab, which will also bring another NOK 50 million in liquidity to the company. Although we are working on a large project and we're pursuing other project opportunities, we do now have a very comfortable liquidity situation having freed up close to NOK 200 million in liquidity since October last year when we include the block sale we did on BW Energy shares. In total, as you can see, we have a liquidity of just over NOK 400 million by Q1. We have now been paying an annual cash dividend of NOK 25 million for the last two years. We have kept this despite taking on a large new FPSO project and also investing in BW Ideol and progressing on our renewable track. We think we have been delivering on the rationalization program on the fleet by divesting non-core assets, and we're also tracking well with our other activities. This puts us in a position where we are able to increase in the annual dividend. As has been mentioned already by Marco, we have decided that we will add NOK 20 million to our annual dividend for 2022 through dividending out BW Energy shares in kind on top of the NOK 25 million annual cash dividend. We do believe that the model of dividending out BW Energy shares in kind with cash is a good solution for our shareholders as we pay direct deal in cash topped out with dividend in kind that allows shareholders to benefit directly from future value creation in BW Energy. Dividend in kind for BW Energy shares will be done in the same manner as we do with cash. We will dividend out shares in kind on the quarterly basis, meaning BWO shareholders will receive in the next quarter $6.3 million in cash as well as $5 million through BW Energy shares in kind. With that, I'll hand it back to Marco. Yeah, thank you, Staale. I'll continue then with giving you an update on our strategic investments and look on the market. The window of opportunity for new project remains open or I would say even widens. On the back of the energy security concerns, the Brent price is now in a steady over $100 per barrel, and that significantly increases the probability of contract extensions and redeployments. We also see that there is more interest in lease and operate versus owning production assets by oil majors as there is a reallocation of capital in connection with the energy transition. The supply demand in the FPSO space looks attractive. There is a healthy number of new projects in the pipeline for at least the next five years, probably a decade. There are a reduced number of active FPSO players. Amongst those, most of them have already relatively full order portfolios. That gives an interesting balance. This gives us confidence to find the right projects which meet our investment criteria. Those are that we want to invest in infrastructure like FPSO projects with firm contracts of 15 years or more, plus options. We aim for a return on equity of 50%, just like Barossa. We want to contract with investment-grade counterparties to be able to finance this in an attractive way. Together, these criteria allows us also to find partners to co-invest in the assets. A project we have been pursuing for some time now, and that meets all those criteria, is the Gato do Mato project for Shell and its partners in Brazil, as I mentioned at the highlights. This has now been progressed to a limited notice to proceed, to kick off engineering and locking in capacity with the key subcontractors. The Gato do Mato development is an oil and gas development offshore Rio de Janeiro, which over time will also export gas to shore for power generation. We will execute the EPCI phase in partnership with Saipem, and we will replicate the financing model of Barossa, meaning we will include infrastructure investors as equity partners. During the LNTP, we will finalize commercial negotiations, in particular, in view of proper risk allocation of the inflation risk we currently see and where everyone is struggling with in the supply chain market. Upon successful completion of the LNTP scope, it's the intent of Shell and their partners to award them an 18-year lease and operate contract to the BWO and Saipem partnership. Our subsidiary, BW Ideol, progresses well in floating wind infrastructure developments and is amongst the frontrunners who are actually transforming the pipeline of prospects into real projects. As mentioned in the highlights, the latest development there is the FID made on the 30-megawatt EolMed project in partnership with Qair and TotalEnergies. This is one of the very first floating wind developments in France, and it is in the same area where later the commercial tenders will be launched for the Mediterranean Sea. BW Ideol announced earlier that they will team up with EDF and Maple Power, and that's the same consortium and partnership that is also bidding for the Brittany tender. Obviously very well-positioned to continue to secure project portfolio now also in France. The EolMed development will consist of three 10-megawatt turbines supported by the patented Damping Pool floaters by BW Ideol. In the previous quarter, we mentioned that BW Ideol was one of the winners in the ScotWind licensing round with the award of an option agreement for close to 1 GW development. This has now been formally signed while the consortium progresses with the consent application. We're also pleased that the interest by various major oil companies in the potential of floating wind farms powering oil and gas developments has now resulted in the first feasibility study to study the wind power to platform projects. Again, this is in particular interesting for FPSO developments, having in mind the typical water depth that those developments are in and where floating is the right solution. An update on our sister company, BW Energy, in which we hold a 27% ownership interest. BW Energy is proceeding with the Maromba development in Brazil, and for that we have sold the FPSO Polvo, as I mentioned earlier. BW Energy is also progressing with the Hibiscus Ruche project in the Dussafu field with a tie into our Adolo FPSO, and that will boost the production with about 30,000 barrels extra per day. First quarter was a very good quarter for BW Energy with one lifting completed of about 1 million barrels at a price of $120 per barrel. As BW Offshore, we benefit from this exposure to the high oil price to our significant ownership, and we also benefit from the production growth on Dussafu to the production tariff on Adolo. That brings me to the summary of a good quarter and a positive outlook. Our main focus is the safe and timely delivery of the Barossa project, clearly. We're now also kicking off engineering activities for potential new project, Gato do Mato for Shell, through a limited notice to proceed. We are delivering on our divestment program of non-core FPSOs, which frees up liquidity, and that supports investment in new projects, and it also supports an increase of our direct return to shareholders. The high oil price supports contract extensions and redeployment prospects, and we are actively discussing these prospects for BW Opportunity. We continue to support BW Ideol to expand their project portfolio and team up with them for EPCI and power to platform opportunities, for the oil and gas sector. That brings me to the end of this update of quarter one, but very happy to take any questions. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. If for any reason you would like to remove that question, please press star followed by two. If you've joined online, you can submit a question using the ask question text box under the video. As a reminder, if you are using a speakerphone, please remember to pick up your handset before asking your question. Our first question today comes from Haakon Amundsen from ABG. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Thank you, guys. A couple of questions from me. Congratulations on Gato do Mato. I don't know if you can put some more color on it. I understand you haven't completed the negotiations and everything. Can you give some more details on the structure? What I'm trying to understand better is kind of your net equity share of the CapEx on that project, so roughly the size of the project. That's question number one on the project. The second thing, what can you do to kind of protect your position with respect to inflation and supply chain concerns on that project, that you know was not present on Barossa? Thanks. Yeah. Thank you, Haakon. I can start with the first question, and Staale you may wanna comment on the first question. Talking about inflation, you know, obviously that's the issue in today's world. We've seen the inflation impact last year. In the current security crisis also in the world, it's a difficult topic, and that's exactly a key topic that has still to be concluded during the LNTP. I can say our client understands that. Our consortium with Saipem, we're discussing that with Saipem, and then that's why, you know, we still need to conclude a final commercial model and a proper risk allocation. At the same time, everyone agrees that it's in the interest of the project and all parties to progress engineering, with the aim to maintain schedule. Staale- Maybe on- Yeah, you wanna comment on that one? On the first question which if I understood, Haakon, what you were asking for, if you're sort of some numbers on that or size on the project relative to, for instance, Barossa, if I understood you correctly. Yes. Yeah, for example, and also if there's going to be kind of a prepayment of the day rate or anything that's on the Oh, okay. Okay limits the net equity you need to inject in the project. If you can talk a little bit about the numbers and the net exposure, just to better understand that. I think we need to be a bit conceptual at this point in time. So far it's a Limited Notice to Proceed we have been awarded, and we haven't finalized all the commercial terms under the contract. The model and structure will be replicating the Barossa structure where we split this up. In this case, it will be different in the sense that we will team up with Saipem on the EPC part, while on the ownership side, we will bring in equity partners as before. There will be an element of prepayment under the contract. We don't want to go into details on how much that is relative to how it was on Barossa. Barossa was probably a bit of an extreme case as such with prepayments being close to half of the overall project value. This will not be in the same magnitude, but it's a significant portion as such. In terms of overall size of the project, it's a smaller FPSO, but with inflation, we're not very far off from when it comes to estimated CapEx numbers. Also these things are still to be firmed up. I'm not sure if you wanna add a little more, Claus. That was. No, no. That was very helpful. Yeah. Thank you. Just a couple more housekeeping. You mentioned that you're likely able to repay the unsecured debt at maturity. That's also valid in the case where this Gato do Mato is proceeding and BW Opportunity is being redeployed or what should we think there? I mean Yeah. Is this a scenario where you? Yeah. What I think I said was that we are in a position where we could repay majority of the capital markets debt. We haven't decided exactly how much, but liquidity and it is good and the cash flow going forward also looks good. This also includes a case with Gato do Mato, and we do not have the intention to refinance $400 million of capital markets debt. As a ballpark figure, we could look at rolling over somewhat less than half of that at the most, I would say as it is at the moment. Okay. Thank you. That's very clear. Just one last for me. I'm sorry for bothering you with four questions, but. Mm-hmm. Did you spend any more of your contingency on Barossa in the quarter? I can comment on that. We haven't changed our view on you know, how much contingency we need to draw for to complete the project. That hasn't changed much. There is naturally, as you progress, you know, and in this inflationary environment, as we progress there and kind of completed most of the procurement commitments, we also continue to draw from the contingency. Not, I would say not beyond what we assumed we would do. You know, in my view, the project is very much in control. We're just dealing with reality, but you know, we had allowances for that. We have solid project buffers and, you know, the overall net result for the project is still very robust. We're still very happy with the developments. All right. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. The next question today comes from Christopher Mollerlokken from SB1. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Yes. Good morning, gentlemen. Starting with Barossa. You said that you have placed all the major procurement packages now, but if you were to provide an updated CapEx number for that project, what would that number be now? We always include contingencies in the project number, in the project CapEx. From that perspective, it hasn't changed that much. Maybe slightly above, but not that much because that's how we estimate things. We have allowances, contingencies, and then profit, and then that together defines the buffers. There hasn't been really a change there. Good. In terms of Gato do Mato, you do specify that there is, of course, inflationary environment now in the supply chain. Could you give some color on how you're tackling that? Because we're hearing from some sources that, you know, from some sub-suppliers, you get one-day pricing quotes, you know. Yeah. You've talked with Shell now for seven months, and of course, it's hard to give them a price which will not be valid tomorrow. How is it possible to proceed without having basically floating prices in the contracts with the end clients? Yeah. Will it be a floating-based pricing? Yeah. No, but this is exactly, I mean, you're spot on. You know, inflation is one thing, but if you understand the inflation and you can project the inflation for a while, then you can price it properly in and you can have a, you know, you can have kind of a normal process of pricing and then defining contingencies around that and things kinda work. I think today that is just. I think it's impossible. That's exactly the topic we're working on with our clients. How do we deal with that? Who can absorb those risks best, if any, you know? One outcome is that, you know, it will for. It will not be possible to take FID and sign a contract, at least not right now today. That's why we proceeded with an LNTP and still, you know, progress on the schedule. How that will look in a couple of months, we don't know yet. Ultimately it will be about who can take certain risk and how do we allocate those risks. Of course, the reality is that inflation is very much driven by the energy cost of energy and oil and gas prices. Oil and gas companies are in a certain way hedged, you know, for project cost versus their revenues. Obviously they're a better place to take some of these risks. Thank you. Just a final, perhaps a bit, boring, but there is no boring questions. On the interest rate hedges. You have the gain in first quarter, but just the mechanics there. Will the hedges have a certain maturity, so when you refinance it will be, or when you do a new exercise with the hedges, will they be more costly to do because interest rates have increased since you first placed them? Just to understand how it works. It is correct. When we hedge our loan facilities, we would normally hedge it kind of a bit light so that the hedges taper off as you're amortizing on your debt. The day you don't have any more debt left, then all your hedges have expired. You basically lock in your interest rate on your loan all the way through. You go from a floating to a fixed interest rate on your debt. It's basically maturing. Yeah. What I want to say, when we say 100% in fact, we were trying to look ahead when we did refinancing on the corporate facilities and also on the Catcher facility. For those that since they mature in 2024, and we expect that already at that point in time, we will try to roll it out further. We have hedges that goes beyond that. Which means we would depending on where the market is at the time, we know at least what our interest rate would be in terms of the margin, the fixed portion of it if we are to extend our debt. Which is beneficial if you believe in a higher interest rate environment, going forward. Thank you. Final question. With the announcement that you will dividend out shares of BW Energy with the closing prices from Wednesday, that would imply that we could receive shares in BVE for 11.5 years. Is that the run rate or is it more like a starting point? I can start with this and, Marco, you can chip in on this one. We're not. We haven't thought 11 years ahead when it comes to deciding our dividend. With the board, we discuss the dividend on a yearly basis. The board has given an indication of a dividend for this coming year. Of course we have board meetings also on a quarterly basis where we can calibrate if we think we can increase the dividend further. I think you should take it as that this is what we look at for this year. Depending on our outlook and how it looks like, we could increase or change that dividend going forward. You're right. If things stay the course, then you would continue more or less forever. Yeah. True. Great. That's all from me. Thank you. Thank you. There are no additional questions waiting on the conference line, so I'd like to pass the call back to the management team. Okay. Yes. Go ahead, Staale. Yeah, no, I was switching to the web where we. There's a couple of questions on the web as well. It continues with the dividend. Yeah. The first question comes from Sindre Sørbye from Arctic. The question is, dividending out BW Energy shares may be a good idea in theory, but have you considered that this will likely create a constant overhang in the BW Energy shares? Again, I can start with this one. Yes, we have debated this quite heavily as such. The fact with the current dividend, given that we have one large shareholder, it would only be, or it would be in the ballpark of 800,000 shares. It would go to the remaining 50% shareholders on a quarterly basis. If assuming everyone sold their shares on day one, you might get somewhat overhang. We think that the volume of shares that could hit the market is relatively limited. Secondly, we have debated this with certain shareholders and we get the impression we are doing what shareholders in BW Offshore want, and that is that we make a clean company where those who are BW Offshore shareholder can decide whether they want to own BW Energy shares or not. That's why we decided that we think a good way of increasing our dividend is that we instead of for instance, selling BW Energy shares and increasing the cash dividend, we'd rather go. We drop the middle step, and we increase our dividend by handing out BW Energy shares as a dividend on top of the current cash dividend that we have. We're not overly concerned that this will create an overhang on the BW Energy shares at the moment. To add on and stress, I mean, as we do it per quarter, you know, it's not, in relative terms, not a super large volume in the market. As Ståle also pointed out, I mean, many BW Offshore shareholders are also shareholders in BW Energy. It's known that this is a discounted share and the prospects look really good. You know, we don't expect that this will result in a kind of a dump of shares in the market. That should. We don't actually expect an overhang effect. Next question is from Bendik Enger-Olsen at Danske Bank. Congrats on another solid quarter. Two questions. The first one, could you elaborate on the timeline for the engineering contract or the LNTP for Shell? Maybe, Marco, you could say a few words about that. This is capped by a dollar amount and in an initial four months. You know, we're not driving the timelines. That's in control of our client, Shell, and their partners. Whether or not that phase would be extended or not, that's to be seen. I think that depends on the developments in the supply chain market and on our commercial negotiations. Okay. The next question is, could you elaborate on how you have locked in key contractors for Barossa construction? So, i.e., how much of the 70% that remains on the project relate to procurement versus man-hour? I think you already said that, basically procurement is close to 100% when it comes to equipment. Maybe you want to elaborate on that. That was right. Maybe that was misunderstood. You know, Barossa project in terms of committing costs to external parties through POs and subcontracts, that's kind of done. Now we can. In that sense, we're not very sensitive anymore to inflationary effects on Barossa. It's really more for, you know, as some of the questions pointed out, how do you deal with that for new projects these days? That's a different discussion. On Barossa, we don't really have that exposure. Where there is exposure on what's happening in the global market is more if there's disruptions in supply chain. If our subcontractors struggle from disruptions for their supplies, and you know, and that's something we just need to work with them. If such effects would occur, that could cause delays, and then we need to see how we can, you know, turn sequences around to address that. That's what I also tried to mention. We work very closely now with our subcontractors to monitor their progress. If they are affected by either future COVID outbreaks or disruptions in the supplies of materials, then, you know, we will have to accommodate that by looking at our integration plans and sequence of doing that. There is always some flexibility to do that. Bear in mind an FPSO is an assembly of many components, and there's different ways of how you can put it together if a certain component would have some delays. That's really what we will focus on for the next, I would say, 12 months or so when all these pieces come together and we integrate it. Thank you. We have a question from Harald Nya in SEB. I think it's overlapping a bit with an earlier question. When do you expect to complete the LNTP for Gato do Mato? Which I think you have explained. Yeah. What's the tenor of that. The second part of it is and potentially secure the firm lease and operate contract with Shell. Yeah. Again, timeline is kind of capped by the amount, which is also in the press release. There is a cap there. The question is, will that be extended or not? Again, that's all in control of our clients, not in our control. Yeah. Thank you, Marco. I think that's the last question I have. I can see on the web at least. Maybe back to the operator. Thank you. There are no additional questions waiting at this time. Okay. Well, I want to thank. Marco, if you Oh. There was one more coming in. It just came. Okay. Just popped in. If you, Yeah. From Nick Linnane at Sefton Place. China now seems to be the biggest source of supply chain risk given its approach to COVID. How much exposure do you have to Chinese sourcing at Barossa? More or less zero. There is no Chinese content for the Barossa project. We don't have big subcontracts. I mean, there could be maybe subcontracts to subcontract to subcontractor. Somehow there could be Chinese components. But we don't have direct contracts with Chinese yards or main equipment suppliers. So in that sense, we are, you know, the Barossa project is well protected. Okay. Thank you. That was the last one I have on the web. If that was the last question, then first of all, I wanna thank for all those questions, very relevant questions. Thanks everyone for the interest this morning. Wishing everyone a good day. Thank you.