Okay, good morning, everyone, and welcome to this presentation of Odfjell's Q4 and Preliminary Full-Year Presentation, this time in front of a live audience here in Oslo. The agenda follows, I would say, a traditional pattern. I will go quickly through the highlights, and then I will give the word to Terje Iversen, who will take you through the financials, and I will continue with an operational review of the quarter behind us, and we will conclude this presentation with a market update and our prospects going forward, so then, if we turn to the highlights, I'm first and foremost very proud, on behalf of all my colleagues, to conclude a 2024 that was the best financial year in Odfjell's 110-year-long history. This financial performance comes at the back of a very strong safety performance, and also a year with high operational efficiency and no serious incidents during the year. We delivered a solid financial result also in the Q4, in line with the Q4 of 2023, but slightly below the record high three first quarters of 2024. Time Charter Earnings in Odfjell Tankers ended at $183 million. This compares to $202 million in the Q3, and this is a decline of approximately 10%. EBIT, $68 million, this compares to $91 million in the Q3. And we delivered a quarterly net result of $51 million, and adjusted for one-off items, we had $53 million that compares to $71 million in the Q3. The net result contribution from Odfjell Terminals was $2.2 million. This is slightly below the Q3, and it's mainly due to currency effects and one write-down. We continued to deliver on our carbon intensity. The AER for the Q4 came in at 7.1, which is also the average for the 2024 year in total. Also, during the quarter, we took one new building that was delivered on time charter, and we declared three options for stainless steel super segregators. These three vessels are currently on time or bareboat charter to Odfjell, and as such, they are already in our fleet. We also concluded contracts for three more vessels. They will be delivered between 2026 and 2028. Two of those vessels will be on time charter, and one vessel will be fully owned by Odfjell. Finally, the board approved a dividend of $0.78 per share based on our second half 2024 net adjusted results. If we look at the year in total, we delivered the strongest financial result ever with a net result of $278 million. Total declared dividend per share for 2024 was $1.78, and this equals in total $141 million. During the year, we took delivery of four vessels on long-term charter, and we now presently have 18 vessels on order, 16 on time charter, and two vessels that will be fully owned by Odfjell. So this implies that we continue with the renewal of our fleet, and we continue to expand our fleet. When it comes to the outlook going forward, we believe that the Q1 will be another strong quarter for Odfjell, but it will be slightly below the Q4. And this is mainly due to the reduced volumes that we saw at the end of the Q4, and we believe that this will continue somewhat into this quarter. So this concludes the highlights, and then I give the word to Terje to take you through the financial performance. Thank you, Harald, and good morning to all of you. I will, as normal, start with the income statement for this quarter. And as Harald mentioned, we delivered time charter earnings of $183 million, which was a decrease of $19 million compared to the Q3. The reason being that we saw reduced spot cargoes resulting in lower volumes for this quarter, while looking at achieved freight rates, we were on par with the Q3. We also had fewer days, more off-hire, due to higher drydocking, and one time charter vessel being off-hire due to the incident that happened in the Q4. Time charter expenses slightly up $2 million, while we see operating expenses very much on par with the Q3, $52.4 million, while we see that G&A expenses increased somewhat this quarter, from $17.9 million-$20.4 million, reason being actually only high activity in the quarter when it comes to traveling, consultancy, and IT expenses, but nothing dramatic related to that, more seasonal effects, I would say, and we saw then, as Harald mentioned, a decrease in the share of net result from the terminals under $2.2 million compared to $2.9 million. Looking behind the figures, they actually delivered the best EBITDA since the restructuring back in 2018 and 2019, but due to currency effects and some write-downs, the result was slightly down compared to previous quarter. EBITDA then at $110.5 million compared to $132.3 million in the third quarter. Depreciation at $41.4 million, very close to previous quarter as well. After a small impairment of $1 million, we delivered EBIT of $68.1 million compared to $90.5 million in the Q3. Net expenses, $18.2 million, also very comparable to the previous quarter. After positive taxes this quarter of $0.6 million, we underwent a net result of $50.5 million compared to $71.3 million in the Q3. Earnings per share then ended at $0.64 compared to $0.90 in the Q3. Adjusting the result for non-recurring items, we delivered a result of $53 million, which then is included in the calculations of the dividend for the second half. Going forward with the time charter earnings per day and also looking at the cash break-even, we saw that the time charter earnings decreased. We ended at $30,744 in the Q4, down from $33,906 in the previous quarter. We also saw that cash break even ended at 23,386 compared to 23,137 in the Q3, bringing the 12-month rolling average to 22,783 compared to our target of $21,000 per day. Slight increase in the cash break even driven by more off-hire days related to dry-docking activities and the time charter vessel being off-hire, and also the somewhat higher G&A expenses, which I mentioned in the previous slide. Going forward, we expect cash break even to decrease slightly due to reduced interest expenses after we repaid our last outstanding bond in January, and we also included here estimated or calculated P&L break even, which this quarter ended at 22,368 per day compared to $22,110 in the previous quarter. Looking at the balance sheet, we see that the book value of ships and new building contracts increased somewhat this quarter to $1,253.5 million, reason being that we took delivery of Bow Aquarius in December. That vessel was paid with cash on the balance sheet and was included in a debt facility start of this year. Also, on the right-of-use assets, we see an increase from 307 to 385, and that is long-term charter agreements. We took delivery of Bow Tiger this quarter, increasing right-of-use assets, and also we declared options for three vessels, which Harald mentioned is on operational lease today. And right-of-use assets and current debt right-of-use assets increased then with the purchase price for these vessels. Cash and cash equivalents under that 147, slight increase. If you include non-drawn loan facilities, we are at $239 million. We saw then a stable quarter-on-quarter development, although we then purchased the Bow Aquarius based on cash on the balance sheet during the quarter. Total equity stands at $929.8 million, increase of $41 million. We see that non-current interest-bearing debt decreased from $745 to $501.5 million, main reason being that, of course, we are paying installments, but we also repurchased two vessels that are currently on a financial lease that will be included in a new loan facility so that the debt related to those two vessels has been reclassified from long-term to short-term. We also see that the current portion of interest-bearing debt is increasing this quarter, being $211.5 million compared to $168.1 million in the Q3. Also included in the current portion of interest-bearing debt is the bond that we then repaid in January this year of $100 million. Operating cash flow this quarter [was] 89.5, decreased from 117.6 in the Q3, and the main reason, of course, being the reduced time charter earnings this quarter. On the investing side, we had Bow Sky, which was refinanced during this quarter from lease to bank debt. And we also then acquired Bow Aquarius, then impacting the cash flow for investments to negative 45.3 compared to negative 1.4 in the Q3. On the financing side, we also repaid two vessels on the financial lease, which we then refinanced one of those, and we left one of those unencumbered. We are left with a net cash flow for financing activities at negative 41.7. As mentioned, the total for the quarter was then an increase in the cash of $2.5 million. Looking at the cash flow on a more longer term compared to the previous 12 quarters, as mentioned, we delivered operating cash flow of $90 million this quarter, reduction because of the time charter earnings being lower, while we had cash flow for investments negative $45 million, mainly impacted by Bow Aquarius and also some higher drydocking activities this quarter. Then we are left with a free cash flow this quarter of $44 million compared to $116 million in the third quarter. Looking at the longer term, we delivered the strongest free cash flow this year that compared to a very long time back in the history, or actually the best free cash flow ever delivered from the company. And also, 12 months rolling free cash flow under the $83 million. And if you adjust them for debt repayments related to right-of-use assets, being the time charter payments this quarter, we reached the 12 months rolling quarterly free cash flow at $66 million. On the financing side, looking forward, there are not many loans maturing, even though we are quite active when it comes to purchase options, financing of purchase options, and also refinancing some financial leases. As of year-end 2024, we had nominal interest-bearing debt at $704.5 million. We expect that to remain stable throughout 2025. In the Q4, we acquired, as I mentioned, two vessels on the financial lease. One of these were added to an existing bank facility, while the other was left unencumbered. We secured at the end of last year a new favorable $242 million bank loan facility, financing our core fleet tonnage and enabled us to lower our cash break-even cost and capitalize on favorable purchase options. Six vessels will be included in that structure. In the Q1, five vessels will be financed with this facility. These vessels include then the two on operational lease and two on financial lease, as well as one of the bareboat vessels that was acquired in December. The six vessels will be included then in the same facility in 2025. CapEx and time charter commitments. On top of this, we showed what are the CapEx, including the purchase options. As I mentioned, we are quite active on that side, so that is impacting the sums here. If we summarize all the declared purchase options and the new buildings, we are at $247 million. And during the Q4, we declared purchase options for three vessels currently on operational lease. Total declared purchase options for operational lease now stands at four, whereof the first three will be financed by the new bank debt facility together with Bow Aquarius, which were purchased then in December. All the declared purchase options are well below current market values, and obtained financing will be around the full purchase amount for these vessels. Also important to note that all declared purchase options are included in the balance sheet year-end as current debt, right-of-use assets, meaning that we are actually the CapEx, unfunded CapEx, is only the two new buildings, which accounts for $87.3 million that will be financed then before the delivery of the vessels. In addition, we have two new buildings on order for our own account. That is the $87.3, which then includes the 26,000 dwt vessel that was ordered in the Q4 of 2024 to be constructed at Shin Kurushima Dockyard in Japan, which will then be delivered in 2027. Long-term time charters, as per end of last year, we have concluded 16 new buildings for long-term charters to be delivered in the coming years from second half 2025 to until 2028. Total sum is of the nominal time charter payments is $970. And as stated in the table, there are then gross figures, including that it's a total time charter commitments, but when these are capitalized, we will not include the estimated OPEX element. So it's only the bareboat element that will be accounted for in our balance sheet. These vessels together with our new buildings account then for 16% of the current order book in our core segment. I'll leave the word to you again, Harald. Thank you. I will continue with an operational review of the quarter behind us. First, looking at the ODFIX graph, and the ODFIX is a graph that presents our average time charter earnings for our full fleet. As we see, we saw a reduction of 10.7% during the quarter. If we look at the Clarksons Chemical Spot Index, then we saw a reduction of 7.6% for the same period. If we then turn to the next graph, which is illustrating the influx of crude tankers into the CPP or product segment, I think the first takeaway from this graph is that crude tankers have always been, to some extent, operating into products. What's special is that during the second and Q3 of 2024, we saw a massive increase of crude tankers swinging into products, and during the Q4, we saw a similar decrease, and the situation is now, I would say, more or less back to normal. There is a lag in these shifts, meaning that we expect that going forward, we will see gradually a reduced presence of product tankers swinging into chemicals. If we look at our contract renewal process, we actually renewed 45% of our expected annual volumes during the Q4, and despite even softer markets, we actually renewed our contracts at healthy rate increases. Total volumes were reduced during the quarter, and most of the reductions came in spot volumes. If we look at the graph to the right, we see that in the Q4, we lifted 3.1 million tons of cargo, while the quarter before lifted 3.4. That is a reduction of 10%. And this implies that during the quarter, we managed to maintain the achieved freight rates, and the 10% reduction was mainly due to a reduction in volume. And since we saw a bigger increase in spot volumes compared to the contract volumes, that explains why we have seen an increase in the contract coverage from 50% to 53% in the Q4. If we then look to our carbon intensity, we, as I mentioned, saw an average AER in 2024 of 7.1, and that is also the same that we reported for the Q4, 7.1. This is a slight reduction, 0.7% compared to 2023. Then just to take you slightly behind the figures, since 2008, Odfjell has done more than 150 retrofits of energy efficiency devices. That, combined with the renewal of our fleet, is the reason why we have managed to, over the years, reduce or improve our carbon intensity with almost 53%. We believe that in the future, and I also have to add that as long as we are burning fossil fuels, we need energy to bring the vessels forward. This figure will never be zero as long as we are burning fossil fuels. We believe that the greener fuels will be more expensive than the fossil fuels, and therefore the winners in the future will be those who are spending the least amount of those greener fuels. For us, it's important to make our vessels as energy efficient as possible, and the learnings and the equipment that we are installing today will also have a benefit when we are gradually switching to more greener fuels. I'm also happy to say that for the second year in a row, all our vessels were CII rated C or better, and also almost 50% of our fleet had a CII rating of A or B. That's wonderful results. We have decided to increase our ambitions for 2030 from 50% to 57% reduction compared to the 2008 IMO benchmark. One of the things that will bring us there is the introduction of sails. As we have announced previously, we are introducing sails, so-called suction sails, on board the Bow Olympus. I have to brag a little bit about our technology department because, as you can imagine, on a vessel with 33 tanks and basically piping all over deck, it's not easy to locate and to place four huge sails on the chemical tankers. We managed to overcome that challenge. The next challenge is that once you have found a suitable place for those four sails, you also need to strengthen the deck considerably because these are not built as sailing vessels. They are built as motor vessels. Managing to strengthen the deck below all this piping is also a technological and really fantastic achievement. All of that is in place. We've done that. What we are waiting for is to trade these vessels from Asia to Europe and then to put on board the sails. I hope that that will happen within four to six weeks' time. Based on the experiences on the Bow Olympus, we will decide how many vessels will be introduced with sails going forward. But right now, we have great hopes to that installation, and we are quite confident that we will show positive results from it. On the terminal side, we continue to perform well. The average commercial occupancy rate was 95% in the Q4. We delivered, as Terje said, an EBITDA of 11.2. This is the strongest quarterly result since we did the restructuring of terminals back in 2019, and it's up from 10.8 in the previous quarter. We are positive to the near to medium-term outlook, and we also expect a modest uplift in the occupancy rates for the Q1. This means that the tanks that we are constructing are actually put into production as we go. We also have several ongoing expansion projects. We have two at the terminal in Antwerp, the so-called Tank Pit R that consists of 10 stainless steel tanks. Five are already commissioned and in production, and the remaining will be commissioned sometime during the Q1. Yes. Then we've already started construction of the next tank pit in Antwerp, the so-called Tank Pit Q, and we expect that tank pit to come in operation during the second half of this year. And finally, we have started, we have made the investment decision to build out the area in Korea called E5. In the beginning, we will construct 10 carbon steel tanks, approximately 88,000 cubic meters. We've already rented out 27% of those tanks, even if the tank pit will first be operational slightly less than two years ahead. And then a market update and our thoughts about the markets going forward. Relatively busy slide, but if we start with the MR earnings, I think the first thing that you should observe on this slide is the difference in earnings back in 2022. That is the last time that we saw a big influx of swing tonnage into chemicals, and then we saw the improvements in 2023 and 2024, which led the swing tonnage to disappear, and then we see the decline in towards the end of 2024. But still, I think it's important to notice that earnings in the MR segment is today higher than they used to be in 2022 when we saw the last time that we saw a big influx of swing tonnage into our segments. It's also noticeable that the fluctuation, sort of volatility, is slightly bigger east of Suez than west of Suez. East of Suez is also where we see the biggest influx of swing tonnage. Looking at the chemical rates, I think the first observation is that there is less volatility west of Suez and more volatility east of Suez. Again, this is, in our opinion, a result of more influx of swing tonnage east of Suez. Finally, west of Suez, we do see a decline in volumes in and out of Europe, while we see more stable volumes out of the U.S. Then looking at the swing tonnage, as you can see, back in 2022, at the peak, we were at 11% of MR tankers swinging into chemicals. Today, this figure is around 6.5%. But with the recent strengthening of crude earnings, we anticipate that, and the disappearance of clean tankers in products, our expectation is that gradually the product tankers will swing back to products. Unfortunately, this takes time. First, the crude tankers have to swing out of products, then products have to swing out of chemicals or easy chemicals. And then the less sophisticated chemical tankers have to swing out of the more sophisticated chemicals. So this will take time. And keep in mind that we are operating in the long-haul deep-sea segment. So typically, a voyage in our books takes approximately 70 days, two and a half months. So gradually, we think that we will see that the chemical segment will be operated by chemical tankers, but have some patience on that piece. Looking at the order book today, the order book is at 16% of the total fleet. And I also have to say here that we have recently changed the data provider. So the data on this slide is not 100% comparable to our previous slides, but I think the correlation is around 95% or something like that. So it's good enough for this purpose. Also here to take you a little bit behind the figures. The graph for 2025, this represents 22 vessels that are supposed to be delivered during 2025. And if you're looking back to 2024, there were only two chemical tankers within the core segment that were recycled. If you're looking back to 2023, there were only three core chemical tankers that were recycled. That means that right now, we are pushing in front of us approximately 50 chemical tankers in the core segment that under normal circumstances would have been recycled. Therefore, we are not concerned about the order book as it stands today. You also have to take into consideration that Odfjell has today 16% of that order book, so a large share of the vessels that are on order are for Odfjell accounts. 18% of the fleet are more than 20 years of age, and 7% of the fleet is more than 25%. So we think that what we see today is a natural renewal of the core chemical tanker fleets. If you're looking at the segments, the orders compared to the age of the super segregators is more or less equal. So we will not see with orders that are in place today, we will not see an increase of the capacity and the number of super segregators. Large stainless steel, presently, orders are so low that going forward, we will see a decrease in that segment. So what we are looking at is an increase of the so-called medium stainless steel segment, which are the 25,000 tonners. That's mainly vessels that are on order today. Then I don't think I have to educate you on geopolitical instability. As you all know, it's significant, and we see it in several locations. We also see the first signs of increased protectionism. We see the introduction of tariffs that may potentially harm global trade. There are analysts who claim that this will have a positive effect on the tanker segment simply because that more inefficiencies and new trade routes will be introduced when the market is adapting to those new tariffs. We see macroeconomic uncertainty both in China and in Europe, and of course, that is affecting global trade. At the same time, we saw that we had an increase of chemical production of approximately 3% in 2024, and we expect more or less the same increase in 2025. We also see some interesting effects on the dark fleet, which today comprises of somewhere between 13% and 22% of the tanker fleet, depending on whether you are counting the vessels or you are calculating the deadweight capacity. What we are seeing today is that more dark fleet vessels are idling. They are not actively sailing. And we also see the first signs of dark fleet vessels being circulated for recycling. So there are things going on with respect to a quite massive dark tanker fleet. Our main hypothesis is that the swing tonnage will decline as crude has already moved out of CPP. We have an opposite effect when it comes to the Red Sea, where we anticipate that if the Red Sea should reopen, we will see a reduction in ton-mile production of approximately 2%. However, presently, Odfjell is not sailing through the Red Sea, and none of our competitors are sailing through the Red Sea. We believe that this situation will continue. To summarize this presentation, we delivered solid performance in the Q4, and we rounded off a year when we delivered the best results in Odfjell's 110-year-long history. We saw somewhat declined earnings in the Q4. We saw a reduction in volumes, but nevertheless, we managed to renew 45% of our contract portfolio with rate increases. On the terminal side, we saw a slight reduction in the net result contribution, but still, the underlying figures are very solid for that business area, and we are very optimistic about the development of the E5 project in Korea. Market outlook, we do believe that the reduction in swing tonnage will lead to improved volumes and improved earnings going forward, and we expect the volumes to remain stable also in 2025. To summarize, the Q1 is expected to be another solid quarter for Odfjell. It's slightly below the Q4 and that's basically due to the reduced volumes that we saw at the end of the Q4 and now in the beginning of the Q4. This summarizes our presentation, and we are now open for questions. And then I suggest that we start with questions that might be among the audience, and then we continue with those online afterwards. Yes. Any questions? Yes. Thank you. Hello. It's online. Oh, okay, okay. So, Kristoffer from Arctic, can you comment a bit on the COA increases, so more details? And on swing tonnage, what level do you sort of see on MRs before they switch in and out? Can you comment a bit on that? Yeah. To your first question, I think we had an average rate increase in the Q4 of approximately 12% in average. Then on the swing tonnage, I think there is a turning point around $15,000 per day whether the swing tonnage or the product tankers will swing into chemicals or remain in CPP. And we actually saw a dip recently below $15,000, but I think the dip was too short to kind of have an effect. So below $15,000 over time, there we believe that product owners, those who have the ability, will be tempted to swing into easy chemicals. Thank you. One more on the COA portfolio. You said you did about 45% of renewals this year. Can you kind of comment a bit on whether you see the absolute figure sort of increase more COA volumes up from 53%, or do you expect it to remain kind of the same? I think we expect that in average during the year, we anticipate that we would have a contract coverage of somewhere between, I would say, 55% and 60%. Okay. Thank you. Hi, Jørgen from DNB. The 15,000 MR rates that you talked about as this entry point for it probably into chemicals, I imagine that must be a relative number, wouldn't you agree? So sort of could you say anything about the time charter or equivalent rates, rather premium maybe? Wouldn't that be more relevant than an absolute level for the MR rates to incentivize swing? Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't speculate too much in how the tanker operators are making their considerations. But our observation is that when it's dropping somewhat below $15,000, then we see that the tonnage is starting to move into chemicals. But it has to be over time. And we also have to remember that many of the product MRs are actually sailing 100% in easy chemicals. We have, as an example, several operators in Bergen that are operating solely in chemicals. So there will always be a basis of MRs in the chemical space. And then, of course, there are MR owners that are utilizing the opportunity, but it comes with a cost. You have to clean up the vessels to be of chemical standard. And you also have to be in a position where this makes sense. So it's not something that you do just the other day to switch back and forth. Okay. Thank you. And if I can follow up with one more on the Red Sea situation, any solution and return to the Red Sea first? I think what's important to note this when it comes to the Red Sea is what the Houthis said when the truce was introduced. They said that they will not attack any vessel as long as the truce is in place, but that they will start attacking again if the truce is broken, and we don't want to have a vessel in the middle of the Red Sea in the event of someone breaking the ceasefire, so presently, there is only one solution, and that is to stay away. If you were to return at some point, what would sort of be the thinking around the profitability in Odfjell? Because I mean, it has some implications on the trade routes and the overall demand or supply, I mean, within tankers, but I imagine some higher inefficiencies on your end as well, so some considerations around that would be nice. Sailing around Africa, of course, it is less efficient than sailing through Suez. But just to illustrate it, the worst-case scenario is if you have a trade between Turkey and India. That is a trade route that used to take, I think, 11 days. Today, it takes more than 40 days to bring that cargo from Turkey to India because you have to sail all the way around. If you are sailing when the Panama Canal was closed, then those vessels that used to transit the Pacific, they sail the other way around. And the shortest way, the other way around, was through Suez and then to Asia or to Singapore. But the additional number of days, if that vessel decided to sail south of Africa, was only four days. So it all depends on the trades that you are involved in, whether there is a massive loss of sailing around or whether there is more a modest loss of sailing around. But I think typically on the Middle East to Europe trades, I think there is an increase of approximately 25% when it comes to the number of sailing days. And that is basically the most important route when it comes to Suez Canal transits. Okay. Thank you. I didn't hear all of your questions. I hope it answered. I was thinking more because I imagine there are some volumes that all of a sudden disappeared, right? That weren't as relevant and trades that fell out. Yeah, they disappeared. That's correct. And that's a good observation. The volumes didn't disappear, but they went in other directions. And that is also what we expect to see when tariffs are being introduced, that those volumes will continue to be produced, but they will find new trade routes. Yeah, they will find new trade routes. Thank you. Bendik, Clarksons, the tariffs on Canada were obviously paused, but how do you think a potential trade war between the U.S. and Canada would affect the chemical market? There are some volumes going over the Pacific between Korea and the West Coast of Canada. We are not involved in that trade at all. So we will not have any direct consequences of the potential tariffs between Canada and the U.S. What's interesting is the U.S. dependency on Canadian crude oil, which may have an effect on the crude segment, which again might stimulate the products segment and so on. So there might be positive effects on those tariffs on the crude oil, but that remains to be seen. Right now, the tariffs are paused for 30 days. So I think none of us know what will actually happen early March. But for Odfjell, we don't do any cargoes in and out of Canada. You said that in terms of the guiding for 1Q and 2025, you observed lower volumes into January, especially. How should we think about volumes, and do you think it will stabilize at a lower level in 2025 compared to 2024? Well, the production is there. As you saw on this swing tonnage graph, there is nothing wrong with the total volumes being produced in the world. The problem is who's lifting those volumes. And right now, during the Q4, too many swing tonnage vessels were lifting chemicals. So therefore, it's important for us that those are swinging back to products and that chemicals are lifted by chemical tankers. On my numbers, at least I see that easy chem rates have been declining more than the specialized chem lifting rates. Do you have any considerations in terms of that? One more time. I didn't get that question. Yeah, the rates on lifting easy chems have been coming more down than the rates on the specialized chems. That's correct. That's correct. Yeah, do you have any consideration in terms of how we should think about that? Should it be more two-tiered, or is it going to stabilize on the easy chem side due to the? No, I don't think that we will see a two-tier market. There are not enough specialized chemicals to fill up our vessels. So we are lifting a combination of easy chemicals and specialized chemicals. But I think what makes Odfjell interesting and a valuable client or supplier is because of the sophistication of our ships, where we can basically take anything that floats. But there are not enough specialized chemicals in the world to fill up all our vessels all the time. So it's a combination. Thank you. Any more questions from the audience? Okay. Let's jump to the online. Yes. I think I remember, actually. There were quite a few questions on the same topics that we just had now in the audience and going on rates and tariffs and COAs. There was also one question on the COAs, if we could comment on our expectations for renewals going forward in this quarter or beyond, if we can expect the same development or we see another picture. I think it's difficult to conclude on negotiations that have not started yet. I think the most important observation is that even if we saw a declining momentum in the Q4, we managed to renew 45% of our total volumes with more than 10% increases. And I think that's an extremely good achievement of our team. And of course, we hope that that will continue as well. But I think that's a bit too early to conclude. Yeah. And then there was a question on the new buildings and the order book, and if we could comment on the number of how many new buildings will be delivered each year, 2025, 2026, 2027. I think I can provide some information to that question also afterwards, but I believe we maybe comment a little bit on this year, perhaps. I don't have all the figures, but I think what I said about 2025 is a good reference. There are 22 vessels that are scheduled to be delivered this year. Whether they will be delivered this year or next year, that's yet to be seen. But the 2025 graph represents 22 vessels, and the majority of those vessels are J25s, meaning the equivalent of a Japanese 25,000 tonner, which again is in some way the new 20,000 tonner, which used to be the typical gold standard within chemical tankers. Okay. I think we have covered the other topics here. And of course, for anyone viewing that you have questions afterwards, feel free to send me an email on the contact details at the end of the presentation. And I think that concludes the presentation and the Q&A. So. Okay. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you.