Good morning. Welcome to the first quarter presentation from OHT. I'm Torgeir Ramstad, CEO, and I'm joined by Tom Jebsen, who is the CFO of the company. We'll go through an update on the company's operations, and numbers, of course. Before that, I just want to make you aware of the disclaimer. Which needs to be read separately. The agenda is numbers first, a little bit on status financing. We'll go through operations, and contracts for the vessels in operation. And new building status for the Alfa Lift and Vind One. I will come back, and dig a little bit more into the Turbine Installation market. And talk about the sweet spot for that part. Finally, round off with market, and outlook. I hand over with this to Tom. Yep. Thank you, Torgeir. This quarter was better, than the fourth quarter last year. Just a few items on the right-hand side. The time charter equivalent earnings increased to $17,600 in Q1, which was up from $11,200 in Q4. That can be split into two. The utilization was increased from 71% to 90%, which had an impact of approximately $3,000 per day. The rest was due to improving market conditions. Those improvements we have seen continuing into the second quarter. OPEX per day for vessels was $9,400, which is pretty much where we've been for a long time. Nothing to report there really, everything has been running well, knock on wood. EBITDA was negative with $100,000 in Q1, which was up from - $800,000 in Q4. If you look on the left-hand side, you see that the top line increased by, almost $3 million to $11.7 million. The next four lines are the split of the expenses. And basically, all of them are pretty similar to last quarter. Save for the voyage expenses, which obviously due to the higher utilization has increased. That gave us the EBITDA that I mentioned earlier. Operating profit after depreciation, was improved from $5 million- $4.1 million. Net profit loss improved also from $5.5 million- $4.3 million, the negative both numbers. Giving us an earnings per share of -$0.035. On the balance sheet, first again to the right. I refer you to note 10, which shows you the contingent liabilities. It's split between Alfa Lift, $173 million, and Vind One, $207 million. As you know, I'll get back to that on a later slide. We have got in place a first lien financing for the Alfa Lift of $135 million. It's the remaining part of that $173 million, but I'll come back to later. During the quarter, as you can see on the top line there. We increased book value of the non-current assets. Which is our vessels, and vessels being built. That increased by $20 million to $260 million. The main item there during the quarter, was a 10% installment on Alfa Lift. That's $20 million. As you recall from the fourth quarter, in December. We got in place a new revolving credit facility, with DNB amounting to $50 million. That was undrawn at year-end, and also first very late in the quarter. We utilized the facility, and at quarter end. We had drawn down $22 million, out of the $50 million that we have available. If you look on other current assets, you'll see that that has increased during the quarter. The same also with total current liabilities, which has increased from $31 million to $44 million. That's part of the accounting treatment, that we have for the Dogger Bank contract. Where we get money from the field developers before installation, and that is posted as a current liability. On the other hand, when we then utilize those funds. That is capitalized, as other current assets. If you look at the bottom on the left side. You see the cash flow statement, the main items. Net cash flow from operating activities, $4 million+. Net cash flow from investment activities, as I mentioned. The $20 million on the Alfa Lift is a big one. There's another $4 million related, to mission equipment investments for the Alfa Lift. Then the net cash flow from financing activities. That's the drawdown of the $22 million on the revolver. Over to status financing. A few weeks ago, we announced that we have in place an offer from DNB, and SR- Bank in Stavanger. Together with the two Norwegian ECA companies, that's Eksportkreditt and GIEK. For doing a $135 million senior secured first lien loan. Obviously, that is subject to satisfactory documentation. The banks are currently reviewing the first-round draft. I expect that we will be passed on. Let's say, second round draft within short. We hope to have this all settled before summer. Earlier, when we spoke to many of you in our efforts. To become listed on Euronext Growth, we indicated that we needed a $175 million facility. As you see, we have not managed to get that in place. It ended up at $135 million. That was basically due, to the commercial banks' reluctance to increase it further. Right now, we have a $40 million-$50 million tranche or amount. Which we need to get in place, before Alfa Lift is delivered sometime around new year, coming new year. Obviously, we have a number of, let's say, instruments in the toolbox. And they include both the bond market, industrial partner or for that matter, an M&A happening. Or also a possibility is to do an equity issue. On the 20th of May, we had the Annual General Meeting in our company. Where the Board, has been allowed to increase the share capital. By up to 50% of the current number of shares outstanding. Current number of shares, 122 million. We have now an allowance to increase, the share capital by another 61 million shares. Finally, let's get on to the first of the operating divisions. That we have, the transportation sector. Markets have obviously continued to be affected by COVID-19 during the quarter. At the same time, we see that the pricing is firming up. There's several reasons for that, but I guess the main. One in the first quarter is the fact that, the crude oil price is increasing. Which means that oil, and gas is coming back again. I mentioned earlier, that year-to-date utilization for those five vessels was 90%, and OPEX was $9,400 per day. As you surely are aware, we fitted gas scrubbers to all five vessels. That was completed in January 2020. So far, what we have been able to log. We have had savings in buying heavy fuel instead of low sulphur. Amounting to something like $8.9 million. Which gives us a payback of 78%, of the original investment in the scrubbers. Finally, at the bottom of the slide on the left-hand side. You see a split of revenue per cargo category, where renewable products makes up over the last 12 months. Rolling 12 months, makes up 48% of revenues, and other renewable assets makes up another 9%. That's really what I was going to say. Torgeir, you want to take over? Thank you, Tom. Okay. I'm sure everybody's most concerned, about the situation in the market. And our positioning for the installation contracts to come up. We have earlier mentioned, that we would expect some contracts to be announced already in Q1. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I think we've all been taken by surprise, in terms of the time. It's taken for all of these developers, to develop their projects. I have to state, none of these contracts have so far been awarded. And that means we haven't lost any. Nobody else has got any other projects, that we are tendering for. We are all probably, as an industry community, waiting with eagerness. For the first clients to declare their cards. We have been too optimistic as a result, and are still waiting for those first contract awards. The main reason for this delay, as we see it now. And maybe developers take a different view. But we just see, that these tenders go in several rounds. They come out, like in several cases last autumn in Q3. With one concept for their wind farm, and then they go several rounds after that. Because in the meantime, the turbines have changed. The turbines have developed. Even the next generation turbines, have already developed. What was previously a 14 MW, could be a 15 MW now. What was previously a wind farm with 100 positions, could be a wind farm now with 110 or 90. As a result, all of the parameters change, and that places a demand. On spending more time in the design phase. And therefore, they have not been ready to award contracts. Of course, every time you change something on the turbine, on the top side. Something down below, the foundation, will change as well. There's an iterative process, that takes that additional time. We just have to play along with that, and we certainly do. We are submitting second-round tenders, third-round tenders for the same projects. Those new submissions will then address, the latest design of the wind farm. What's good then to note, is that we haven't detected. Other than maybe, with one exception. Any delays to the execution timing for these projects. In terms of executing foundation installation, most of these still maintain a plan. To perform foundations in 2024. That is perfect timing for us, and probably for the clients as well. Until, of course, they discover that there isn't capacity, in the market on the supply side. That's a different thing that, we have discussed at length in other forums. What we see then, is that some of these key projects. Which have already seen a delay, they have to declare their cards in Q3 this year. The reason for that is, some of them are coming up to an FID, Final Investment Decision, later in the year. In order to reach that milestone, very key milestone for them. They have to place contracts, and sign contracts by Q3. Also, some projects are tendering the auction rounds in the U.K., for instance, that goes in in December. They need to know their costs before that. That means they have to conclude in September latest. The good thing, Alfa Lift comes off Dogger Bank B in time. For the very lucrative 2024 season, and Vind One is delivered also in time for that. We look forward to participating in these tenders. And then hopefully being able to come up, with some news in the not-too-distant future. When it comes to the installation activities. That's obviously, only for now the Dogger Bank A, and B project. It's all going well. We're in the detailed design phase still, and we'll continue to be in that until we go offshore. We have the progress we like to see. There has been some client-introduced changes on the project. Some component weights have increased, and some other detailed design elements have changed. That means we are in discussions about. How to reflect these changes technically, in our methods? But also, commercially. This is a very natural process, that goes on in any project like this, and no issues whatsoever. We just need to go through that phase. Again, it places a bit of extra effort, and burden on our team on that project. Very important also, we are in the procurement phase. We're buying equipment, and buying services. The most significant one, was the placement of the piling hammer contract, with Menck in Germany. Menck is one of just, a handful of leading players in that segment. This is a massive piece of kit, 900 tons, 25 m high. And is a key piece, in order to succeed in piling these monopiles. That's been done very much in line with our plans, and looks very good. We go on to other elements like grillage, and sea- fastening items, and lifting equipment. Some of those contracts have also been placed. Either for detailed design, or for actually procuring the hardware. We will continue to see, placement of such contracts. In the few months to come. Client relationship is excellent. That's our view, and I think that's the client's view as well. We have a very good dialogue, and we have had no unwanted incidents on the project. As before, we plan to start offshore execution in around late summer 2022. When it comes to the new builds, going to plan there as well. Alfa Lift was launched, as we know, on the 20th of February. And moved to the outfitting quay. We have transported the main crane components, from Germany to the shipyard. There's a picture of that. We have also, in parallel with all of this. Made or done a separate overload test of the main crane's hooks. To avoid the same type of incident, that we were all scared about. When we saw first of May last year, a crane from Liebherr. Collapsing under an overload test. Rather than risking that, we have made a separate test, and it's all good. We are seeing heavy activities from the shipyard side. To catch up with certain delays, in certain disciplines on board the vessel. We have regular dialogue with the shipyard management. And they maintain delivery, at the end of this year. However, as we have described previously. We intend to keep the vessel, at the shipyard during Q1 next year as well. Because simply the mission equipment, the pile gripper. And the upending tools, and certain other things. Are produced at the neighboring yard to the shipyard. As such, it's much more efficient to then, install this equipment on board the vessel whilst in China. And get it fixed, where it's supposed to be. And connect up the equipment as well, before we sail off for Europe. There will be probably, an overlapping period between finalization activities by the shipyard. And these activities around the mission equipment. When it comes to the Turbine Installation Vessel, Vind One, much earlier phase there, of course. We're finished with basic design, which has been done between GustoMSC, and the shipyard. We're well into detailed design, approaching 20% progress. Main focus has been, from our side anyway. Not only to review those documents, that come out of these design phases. But also, to, together with the shipyard, select the key equipment on board. Now we understand that contracts, have been placed for the main machinery. For the thrusters, for the electrical systems. And the full automation, and control system. For the crane, for the jacking system. Most of the main components are placed now. This effort has been very important for us to be involved in. Because the selection of the right equipment is not only about price, or maintenance, or performance. It's also about weight. A jack-up is weight sensitive. We managed now to increase the variable deck load capacity. From the original 8,750 tons, to now approaching 10,000 tons. This is very important for the payload capacity of the vessel. In terms of number of turbines, it can take. Delivery, as previously announced, end of May 2023. I said, in the beginning in the agenda. That I'll take a look at the sweet spot for Turbine Installation, and I have a few bits to cover that. I'll start off, by the way, by bringing up a slide. Which one of our competitors, showed in their Q1 presentation recently. And that's shown on the right-hand side. You probably recognize the light blue color. I won't mention names. What they did was they tried to compare, an upgraded existing vessel with our vessel. The upgraded vessels are to the right, and our vessel is to the left. What they did, though, was they missed it a little bit. I mean, the technical data for our vessel were misrepresented. We just need to put that record straight. You see the numbers. I won't go through the details, but they are quite different. Except from the deck space, which they got right. All the other numbers were wrong. The main message is, our vessel will be able to carry, f our of these next-generation turbines per trip. It depends, yes, on final design. Especially, in the case of the Siemens Gamesa 14 MW or 15-MW turbine. Because in some cases, the towers are even higher, and heavier. With a medium-sized tower, we're in that sweet spot of four units. That has an impact, of course, on the economics and the efficiency of the vessel. There are some key questions, that you may want to ask these players, who convert existing vessels. I won't say that, they're wrong on these points. But they are important points, that need to be considered. I won't go through them, but bear in mind. That brochure-level numbers, and performance criteria aren't always, what they set out to be. It's a complex matter. More important for us, is not to compare with converted vessels. But to compare ourselves with new-built vessels. If we do that, and I've taken an example here. Where economics for our vessel are to the left, and an NG-16000X design vessel is to the right. The NG-16000X was recently placed, by one of our competitors at a shipyard in Korea. You see different CapEx levels, $230 million for our vessel, $330 million for the other vessel. Simple mathematics then dictate, that if you want the same payback time. For the bigger vessel, the NG- 16,000X, you need to increase your day rate by $75,000 per day. If our starting point is $250,000, and a payback of 4.8 years. It's a substantial increase, that's required in order to give, shareholders the same return for their investments. That is the economical side. Now, if we look at the technical side, and compare these different designs. First of all, we're in business of installing turbines as efficiently as possible. As I mentioned earlier, one key criteria is number of turbines you can carry on board a vessel. Now, there's a simple sort of mathematical relationship here. Between number of turbines, and the time it will take to install a wind farm. Looking at the graph to the left. That shows number of turbines per trip, relative to the number of trips. You need to undertake, to complete a 64-turbine wind farm. That is just taken as an example. You see, for instance, that if you take four turbines, you need 16 trips. You need 13 trips, for five turbines on board. If you work out the scheduling of the activities. Undertaken by a Turbine Installation Vessel, and add the statistical waiting on weather. Up to a 50% confidence level, you get the red curve to the right. That red curve shows the number of days, you need to set aside. To actually complete a 64-Turbine Installation campaign, with different vessel types. NG-14000X takes 207.8 days to be very precise. Whereas the slightly larger unit, NG-16000X, would take 196.7 days. A difference of 11 days. Of course, you can then go up to an even bigger unit. And you cut the time by a further nine days. 20 days reduction in execution time, altogether compared to our units. If you consider the biggest unit in the market. Then the question is, when you consider the gap between an NG-14000X, and an NG-16000X of 11 days. Will those 11 days be enough, for the client to pay $12 million more for the project? Because that's the effect of adding $75,000 per day, to that bigger vessel. $12 million is the additional cost, that the client needs to pick up. If the owner of the bigger unit, is supposed to get the same payback time as we will get. I leave that to others to consider. There are, of course, benefits to the client in such cases. They could potentially cut the time, for the entire wind farm construction. By 11 days, and achieve earlier production. Question is, is 11 days really going to be factored in by them? We believe very firmly, that we have a very attractive shipbuilding contract for Vind One. A very attractive combination of cost, and capabilities. And we have hit the sweet spot in this market, for Turbine Installation as we see it now. On the market and outlook, to round off a little bit looking ahead. As Tom mentioned, transportation is looking stronger, and stronger. The first thing that normally happens in an upcycle in a market, is that utilization goes up. We have already seen that, up to 90%. The next thing that happens, is rates go up. And that is about, to happen as well. We expect that, to continue into the next few quarters. It may happen gradually, but it will happen. We expect a longer term, a squeeze between supply, and demand in our favor. Because of all of these projects, that have been secured by our competitors. In market segments, that we are not addressing. The capacity in the market will fall. If we then add to that an increased. A massively increased demand, for transportation services in the offshore wind business. Which is a new market, which is something that wasn't there before? Then we are looking ahead at quite exciting times. Of course, as a company, we are actively bidding a number of projects. All the way to 2027 for pure transportation. We continue to secure contracts in that segment. Because that is of strategic importance to the company. There will be some oil, and gas projects within decommissioning. And some gas developments, refinery projects. They will not dominate, we believe. We think offshore wind will be more, and more important in that segment. Same view on the installation. Needless to say, market predictions are going up. In the installation of wind farms offshore, bottom fixed, that is. Rystad now has a prediction of 250 GW. It came out a few weeks ago. That's a higher number compared, to what we've seen before. And it's going up every quarter. We see new countries coming up with new targets, and they are increasing massively. There will be this critical bottleneck, in the foundation installation market. Primarily for monopiles, and also later for turbines. Primarily for foundations initially, because if projects are going to start in 2024, 2025. There isn't time to bring new-built capacity into the market. Maybe a little bit into 2025, not certainly for 2024. That's too late already. For turbines, that normally happens one year later. That can, of course, be addressed by more capacity built between now, and then. We are firm in our belief, that especially the foundation market is under pressure. And we will try, and get a good position in that. We have availability for those years, as I mentioned. We are tendering a number of projects, over $2 billion worth of projects now. One project alone between $0.5 billion and $1 billion. These are big projects, complex undertakings. We're up to it, and we get a very good feedback. From the clients in our dialogues. If we then hope again, to see some contract awards now latest within Q3. Then we're sure we are going, to be able to bring some good news, in that segment as well. Of course, in this type of pressured market, we maintain discipline on our pricing. And we want to continue being disciplined. We're finished with this. This slide I won't go through, but we've shown it before. And it summarizes our strategic direction from a pure oil, and gas-dominated transportation. Or specialized transportation company to an integrated, and leading offshore wind T&I contractor. That is a transition, that will take place in 10 years. By the end of that period, we will almost completely be dominated. By renewable revenues in our books. With that, I say thank you for your attendance and interest. And we'll check if there's any questions that have come in. Here's a question about the Alfa Lift. What do you see as the best alternative for closing the funding gap, from the smaller bank facility on the Alfa Lift, Tom? Lucky me, I get one question at least. As I stated, I consider those four items, that we listed to be part of a toolbox. And we're looking into all of them. There's dialogues with different parties, and time will show which one it will be. I just can't say the rank them one, two, three, and four. Sorry for that. Yeah. Another tricky question on that topic. You mentioned industrial player or M&A, as potential financing routes. For the $40 million-$50 million capital call ahead of the Alfa Lift one. Can you add some more color? I can start by saying that, that is always in the toolbox, of course. We wouldn't do our job, if we didn't consider all options. There is an interesting, industrial logic in certain potential combinations, of course. We see that our clients are cooperating. You saw Equinor, and RWE went together the other day. To bid for one of the two Norwegian projects. I think we will see that, in our segment on the supply side as well. We are already bidding together, with partners on certain projects. This is a natural evolution. We're not saying that there is a specific process. But we need to do our jobs, and consider that alternative as well. The industrial side of that is quite important, of course, to get that right. Don't know if you have anything to add, Tom? No, I'd go say we're fine. Part of our job to consider all four. Yeah. Another technical question. You seem to have upgraded your VDL from 8,750 tons- 10,000 tons on the Vind One. And can you discuss the rationale behind this, and any implications for the construction costs of the vessel? The rationale is simple, as I said. A jack-up lifts out of the water. In order to have capacity to lift payload, the vessel itself needs to be as light as possible. Because there's only so much you can lift, in our case, 31,000 tons. The less the lightweight ship can be, the more the payload can be. What we have very in a structured way together with the designers, and the shipyard done? Is we've just been clever about selecting solutions. We have gone to higher tensile steel in certain areas. We have selected, and now like these thrusters. Which are 60 tons lighter than the competitor. It's the same performance, but by being conscious. About these things, you can get it right. From the outset, GustoMSC already had a fairly substantial contingency. In the variable deck load calculations, which we are now tapping into as well. We believe we will approach 10,000, or we will reach 10,000. The good thing about that is that, there are no substantial costs to it. It's just making the right decisions, and the total variation order volume, o n that vessel is in the region of 1% of CapEx. I'll add that on the previous slide, you saw a higher crane capacity as well. On the extended boom, 1,600 tons instead of 1,250 tons. The 1,250 tons has been the official number on our webpages, and in GustoMSC's catalog. We had, six months ago, a process around that, and we decided to up that. That increase in capacity on the crane, is also within the 1% VO volume compared to CapEx. Part of the investment case, is that the current transportation fleet. Will contribute cash flow, to help reduce the funding gap for the AL1, and the Vind One. How do you view this going forward, given the current run rate EBITDA from Q1? Yeah, sure. I believe we mentioned in the Q4 presentation. That we would see improvements during first quarter, second quarter. In the second half of this year, there's going to be a much stronger market. That's still our firm belief, that will take place. Yeah. I guess that's the answer to that question. What is the status on the down payment for Vind One? How much have you paid so far? How does the payment schedule look like going forward? I'm sorry, where did you see that one? The top one? Top one. There it is. I was reading at the bottom. Okay, take the bottom one afterwards. The next payment for Vind One, is subject to yard progression. Of course, November, December of this year. There's two further 10% installments during 2022. When I mentioned the $40, $50 of funding gap that we have. I have assumed that, when it comes all the way into early next year? Then we still have currently $60 million in cash, and $22 million of unutilized capacity, in the revolving credit facility. On top of that, back to the previous question. Yes, we think that we will see positive cash flow contribution. From the five transportation vessels during this period. That looks actually pretty good as I see it. If I can go on to the next question. I highlighted the board approval, of doubling of a share count. How do you want investors to interpret this? I hope investors interpret that positive, because when we invited the investors into this company? We made it clear, that we would be a growth company. That would have to order several newbuildings. Which obviously, will need to be funded up, as the building process progresses. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. That we insist on having that flexibility, and I know it's a discrepancy from the recommended. A society in Norway called NOR, which comes up with best practice? And they believe that, we shouldn't have such a large allowance. Again, we think that given that we told you all. How we would be handling? What we would be doing? It was quite obvious, that the board need to have that flexibility going forward. And that's why we've done it this way. I think I'll just round off with a very quick one, and then we'll call it a day. Have the new build options for the Turbine Installation Vessels, Vind Two, et cetera, now lapsed? The answer is no. We have, though, an adjustment mechanism in the agreement with the shipyard. If steel prices or copper prices go up, which they have done. Then there is an adjustment factor to be made. Otherwise, I can confirm that we have those options in place. I think with that, we round off. Again, thank you for your attention, and have a good day, and a good weekend.