Good morning, and welcome to this presentation of PGS's Q4 2020 results and our 2021 market perspectives. My name is Bård Stenberg, Vice President, Investor Relations and Communications in PGS. This presentation was originally planned to be a webcast but has been transformed into an audio cast, unfortunately. With us from management today are President and CEO Rune Olav Pedersen and CFO Gottfred Langseth. Before we start, I would like to give some practical information. Participants on this audio cast can submit their questions via the audio cast platform, and we will respond to them after management's concluding remarks. I would also like to draw your attention to the cautionary statement. And the risk factors disclosed in our 2019 annual report and the Q4 2020 earnings release. Agenda for this presentation is that Gottfred will start by presenting Q4 and preliminary full year 2020 results. Rune will continue with our review of 2020 and give you our perspectives for 2021. Gottfred will round off by giving our 2021 financials. With that, it's my pleasure to give the word to Gottfred. Thank you, Bård. I will, on the following slides, focus on the Q4. The seismic market remained challenging in the Q4 t here was limited new program activity globally, which led to weak vessel utilization. Client spend was muted due to the significant reduction of 2020 budgets implemented by clients early in the year. Despite this, we achieved a 70% sequential revenue increase from a very low Q3. The increase is driven by multi-client revenues. We saw a usual year-end increase, again, from very low levels in earlier quarters. We also benefited in the Q4 from sales related to license round activity in West Africa and Brazil. On cost, we had low cash cost in the Q4. We'll revert to that $80.5 million of quarterly cash cost. We saw an order book increase in the Q4, which points towards improved vessel utilization into 2021. Lastly, on this slide, our agreements with lenders are now moving towards completion following the court sanctioning of our scheme of arrangement two days ago on 2 February. A high-level look at the financial summary shows a sequential improvement of segment revenues, EBITDA, and EBITDA, a t the bottom right, the cash flow from operation does not show the same improvement. This is primarily due to our revenue profile in a collection period and intra-quarter distribution t he cash flow in Q4 is primarily driven by the revenues we generated in the Q3, which, as you can see from the illustrations, were quite low. On key financial numbers or figures, the Q4 segment revenues and other income was $172.8 million, a 40% decrease from Q4 2019. $172.8 million of revenues is $15 million approximately higher than the segment revenues we had in our pre-announcement in January and t he reason for this is that we have recorded $15.5 million of estimated government grants as other income in Q4. Segment EBITDA was $129.6 million, a 33% reduction from Q4 2019. We had a positive segment EBITDA of $20.5 million. Lastly, revenues on an as reported basis, which I hope you know is dependent on exactly when the surveys are completed and delivered under IFRS, was higher than the segment revenues in the Q4, but they were lower for the full year. Moving on to some specific matters impacting the Q4 financials w e recorded $30 million impairment on seismic vessels in the quarter. This additional impairment was driven by an increase of the estimated weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, used for impairment calculations, and it was increased to 12% from previously approximately 11%, which has an impact on the valuation of long-lived assets, w e recorded $18.2 million of multi-client impairments in the quarter. I mentioned already the government grants, b y Q2 w e had recognized $23.2 million. As other income in Q4, we have recorded additional $15.5 million. With respect to our debt rescheduling, which I will revert to in much more detail later, a couple of points impacting the Q4 and year-end financials a ll the debt involved is classified as short term at 31 December. The debt will be reclassified to long term in Q1 when the transaction is completed. We have charged to expense $4.2 million of previously deferred debt issuance cost. I go to Q4 operational highlights. We had contract revenues of $20.8 million in the Q4. 8% of our total vessel time was used for contract acquisition, and this related to a 4D survey in West Africa. The segment multi-client revenues amounted to $131.1 million. We had a prefunding of 185%, impacted by sales of surveys acquired earlier in the year, but still in the processing phase. Late sales for the quarter were $70.1 million. On vessel utilization, we had low utilization in the quarter, we had 49% active vessel time in the quarter based on statistics of five vessels. The utilization will improve significantly in Q1 2021. Moving to the balance sheet. A liquidity reserve of $156.7 million at year-end. Book value of the multi-client library of $616.1 million, based on IFRS or as reported, and $546.4 million, according to our segment reporting n ote that the book value under IFRS, which is slightly higher than the segment book value, should be seen in the context of deferred or not recognized revenues of $ 188 million at the end of the year, which will be recorded as revenues when the processing is completed and data delivered to the prefunder. Cash flow. We have a lower cash flow from operation, both in the Q4 compared to last year and for the full year t his reduction is driven by significantly lower revenues, primarily. The working capital at year-end is impacted by approximately $ 30 million of Q2/Q3 sales with payment agreed early 2021 a s earlier disclosed, this will obviously then benefit the Q1. Lastly, on this slide, I wanted to mention that other cash flow relating to other investing activities includes a legal deposit of $ 17.7 million relating to a tax case in Brazil. I will pause here and give the word to Rune Olav. Thank you, Gottfred. Good morning to everyone. My talk this morning will revolve around the following themes. I will speak a little bit about 2020, a summary or recap of what we have been through this year. I will give some comments to the market outlook for 2021 and onwards. Also, we will talk a little bit about PGS' strategic direction and how it fits in with the energy transition we are currently experiencing. Lastly, I will come back to guidance. Let's start with a 2020 review. As you know, 2020 developed very differently than expected. It became a very challenging year for PGS. We went into the year optimistic and had just refinanced in the beginning of the year. COVID-19 came, and we have experienced a 30% revenue reduction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and our clients' reaction to it. We had to respond swiftly to this challenge, we did, and we have through the year substantially reduced our cost. We have reduced our CapEx by 50%, both versus what we expected to spend last year. And, we have, as Gottfred touched upon, refinanced and extended maturities on most of our debt. Well, in spite of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been able to maintain strong vessel and imaging project execution, and I am both impressed and proud to say that our operations department have been able to keep our vessels going, complete crew changes, in spite of tremendous challenges in this year. Further, we have, in spite of the challenges we have experienced, also continued the digital transformation agenda, and we have delivered several milestones during the year. As I will come back to and show you, we have also been able to capitalize on our integrated offering, being the only company with vessel and a large multi-client business and an imaging business, being integrated and operating through the value chain in seismic. To 2021. Excuse me. How do we view 2021 and onwards? It is clear that we have started an energy transition in the world i t has accelerated through 2020. It is also clear that the world will need oil and gas for decades still, and therefore also need seismic for decades still. The best indications of where seismic spending moves from a low level is to look at the oil price. The current oil price and outlook supports a market recovery. We have an oil price sitting well above $50 currently. As you can see from the lower graph, the break-even oil price after CapEx and dividend for our clients is sitting around $50 million. We expect seismic spending to increase gradually in 2021 versus 2020. Now, we have seen several investment houses and analysts and our oil companies showing that the increase or the overall E&P spending is expected to increase very limited and maybe even when you look at the overall offshore E&P spending drop somewhat in 2021 versus 2020. I would like to remind you all that seismic typically is an early cycle mover, 2018 can here serve as an example, a year where offshore E&P spending dropped 70% and seismic spending increased 5%, as we showed in the Capital Markets Day for 2018. We expect with this oil price, and as I will show you on the next slides what we are seeing happening in the seismic industry, to see a gradual recovery into 2021 from 2020. Are we seeing it in our business? Yes, we are. We are seeing bids and leads withdrawn from the market in 2020 re-emerging for execution in 2021. The slides you see here, which is the bids and leads curve, giving an indication of the bids we have in-house now and the leads that we are recording currently. If you look at that in combination with the fact that the industry order books are increasing, this is a positive sign. We also see a trend of increasing 4D activity, which is a typical early cycle sign, and w e also saw that into 2017 from 2016 and into 2018. What we are currently seeing in the seismic business is early indications of moving upwards. For PGS, we will have a majority of our vessel capacity allocated to contract acquisition in 2021. As I alluded to, the order book is up quite a bit from Q3 to Q4, and as of year-end, we had an order book of $202 million, $89 million of those related to multi-client. We have added further backlog to the order book after quarter end. Based on this, as of end of January, the vessel booking sits as follows. We are fully booked on our five vessels in the Q1. We have booked 13 vessel months in the Q2. We have already booked 10 vessel months in the Q3 of 2021, which obviously is a significant improvement to the vessel booking we saw at the end of Q3. We get a lot of questions regarding the energy transition i s it possible to make money in seismic if the demand never comes back to the earlier highs we have seen because of the energy transition? The answer to that, in our view, is yes. We believe that 2020 was a likely low point for the marine seismic industry. The supply side in the seismic industry has dropped continuously, more or less, from 2013 until 2020. We believe, as I said, 2020, late 2020, early 2021 represents a low point. Seismic supply will start to increase slowly again from summer season of 2021. In 2013, there were 60 seismic vessels operating worldwide. Today, well, we could probably say there is approximately 15 operating worldwide. In the same period, our PGS' operating costs are significantly down. We acknowledge and realize and hope that there is an energy transition w e expect it to accelerate, and we expect it to impact the seismic revenue potential going forward. However, as I've already said, oil and gas will continue to be a large part of the energy mix for decades to come, and there will be a need for seismic. It is important to realize we do not need a return to the 2013 demand levels for PGS to generate healthy future cash flow. In fact, the seismic industry will not be able to cope with a return to 2013 levels. With the reduction in seismic supply, the adjustment of the PGS organization, we are positioned to deliver healthy future cash flow even if the seismic world and the seismic demand or the demand for seismic never returns to its earlier high. A few more words on the energy transition. What does it do to seismic demand except for reducing it? I think it's clear that the energy transition drives the oil companies', our clients', focus from frontier exploration to the field and more mature hydrocarbon basins. As you can see from the drawing we have made here with the arrow indicating typical segments in the seismic industry, if you could call it that, or at least different types of work, starting on the left with frontier exploration, which is typically 2D or sparse 3Ds over large areas. This is almost exclusively done as multi-client, and it is not important to own vessel or technology in this market. If you move one step to the right, you get to what we have called targeted exploration. These are large, high-density 3D multi-client surveys in proven hydrocarbon basins for exploration purposes. Now the importance of technology is increasing and owning your own vessels can be a benefit or not, depending on the market conditions you are in. If you move one step further, you get to near field exploration or in-license exploration, and this is where the marine contract business model typically starts to play. Here, as I will show you could play both contract, it's in the license, it's near the field, or you could do multi-client as we do, typically with strong pre-funding. Obviously then the importance of technology and owning a vessel is increasing because you cannot do contract work if you are not owning your vessel i t just simply doesn't work that way. When you move to the 4D, which is the last dot there, which is production optimization or production seismic over a producing field, repeated seismic over a producing field, you have to have a vessel i t's always contract and technology is of high importance. We believe, as I said, that the demand for seismic will more and more switch towards, let's say, the right end of this scale, away from frontier exploration, which we believe will not grow going forward, and all the way to the 4D market, which we actually expect to grow going forward. Access to high capacity vessels and differentiating technologies will be important as we see this energy transition take tow further. You could almost say that the development we expect because of the energy transition will play into the strength of the PGS strategy. We are a leader in production 4D seismic with our high capacity vessels with multi-sensor streamers on all our vessels. We are deploying a joint contract and multi-client approach, allowing us to play on every spectrum, and I will show some examples of how we have utilized that last year. We will, in our multi-client strategy, grow our multi-client library, improve in hydrocarbon basins, and we will continue to do it with high pre-funding. We do believe that optimizing operating cost and increasing efficiency will be important as energy transition continues. We will therefore focus our R&D on digital solutions, and we will focus our R&D on giving a better image, which is important in 4D. Now, to 4D, t he number of companies applying 4D to one or more fields have increased fivefold in the last 10, 12 years. We have been a leader in 4D for this entire period. We did acquire the world's largest 4D baseline survey in 2019, and I think it's fair to say that all new major discoveries generally consider 4D production optimizations early in the development cycle now. We expect this market to grow going forward. Now, if you look at the bottom left graph, you see the number of 4Ds and you see in dark the number of 4Ds being done by multi-sensor streamers like GeoStreamer. You see the number of 4Ds being done with conventional streamers in light blue. As you can see, multi-sensor technology dominates and takes a larger share of the 4D streamer market all the time. The GeoStreamer technology was the first multi-sensor streamer technology and is regarded as a benchmark for 4D acquisition systems. It is important to note that if a 4D has been shot with a multi-sensor baseline or even just once, it will, for the remaining life of that field, remain a multi-sensor 4D acquisition or campaign. We have not seen examples of people going back to conventional streamers after first having done a multi-sensor streamer. As most of you will know, we have multi-sensor technology on all our vessels, and we have a very large market share of multi-sensor technology in the world. We believe we will retain a large market share in this growing part of the market. Over to why it is important to deploy a joint contract and multi-client approach, and I will give two examples. The first example is from Egypt. Egypt, this summer, awarded seven large blocks, primarily to super majors. All these blocks or licenses need seismic on them. We are facing what we will call in-license exploration. PGS have won all of this work. We have done several of these blocks under a multi-client model where we utilize the PGS multi-client permit in the area, and we've done one of these surveys as a contract program. As I said, these acquisition primarily cover held acreage awarded in recent licensing rounds maybe y ou could ask, "Why are they then multi-client?" Because we have a multi-client permit, we were able to start acquisition immediately after block ratification. This was important for several of these supermajors to get going as soon as possible and then avoid a lengthy tendering process. Therefore, we were able to use that and get in and find a commercial model that worked for them and worked for us. Now the late sales potential here obviously comes from farm-ins, et cetera t hese are very large blocks, and there are few members in each of them. The contract survey we are currently doing, they were not so keen to starting early, and they were more picky on the technology that they are deploying, and therefore we wanted more on that basis. We won 15 vessel months for Titan class acquisition in the latter part of 2020, and we will be in Egypt well into the Q2 of 2021. This just shows us that playing across these various business models delivers the best commercial value for both the client and for PGS. A second example is Angola. We have been, and we still are, the key seismic player in Angola. We are a trusted industry partner w e have been there for years, w e have invested in there for years, and we operate in Angola all the way from supporting licensing rounds, doing proper multi-client with low pre-funding just in front of a licensing round, and then supporting the round with seismic. We are currently generating revenue from the Namibe Licensing Round that happened last year, and we expect to generate more revenue from that multi-client campaign in a very mature basin. We have done near field exploration, and in-license exploration similar to the Egypt example as we are currently shooting a large block under the multi-client business model, once again for early access. We've done several 4Ds in Angola a good example of where the integrated model plays to our advantage. Now, onto the multi-client, which is the next topic so h ow will the energy transition impact our multi-client strategy? As you can see here, we have a multi-client library in all proven hydrocarbon basins in the world, more or less, and less so in frontier areas. It is clear, as I said, going forward, we will only at a very limited degree invest in frontier area. Our main focus will, going forward, be mature and proven hydrocarbon basins for investing in the multi-client library. The areas where there are activity is what determines where to invest and where we should expect revenues. What you see on this slide are some of the activities we expect for 2021, which are of importance to PGS either because we may consider to invest there or because we already have invested there and have a library there. I will comment on a few of them. Starting maybe in the West, in the US GOM. Well, there is considerable uncertainty, at least I find it considerable uncertain what will now happen in the US GOM as President Biden has frozen activity, so to speak, for 60 days in the US Gulf of Mexico. The last thing I heard was that the March licensing round is expected to be delayed, at least. We don't have large exposure to the US GOM, which I will come back to. Of greater interest to us is what is happening in Canada, where there will be a call for bids in Labrador South, and we expect to be back this summer for further acquisition in Canada, and these jobs are always highly pre-funded. Further south, we can move to Brazil, a very exciting area for us. The 17th round was moved from 2020 to October 2021, and we have during 2020, and we are currently acquiring most of the blocks in the Campos Basin, which will be part of the 17th licensing round in Brazil. We are currently on site acquiring that so, t he outcome of that round will be exciting for PGS. Then over to Norway, obviously, we have the APA round just announced, which was active, and then we have the 25th licensing round coming up mainly for blocks in the Barents Sea. It's going to be interesting to see the tax changes which supports an investment and activity, how that plays out for the seismic industry. Egypt, I have talked about, w e expect that to remain active during this year. Angola, the Namibia licensing round carried out last year is still in the process of being finalized and w e expect to see revenues from that going forward. And also from new licensing round for deepwater blocks in 2021. Finally, I would like to mention Malaysia, which has announced a licensing round in Sabah and one in Sarawak and a s you know, we have a fairly large multi-client library in the Sabah Basin. Quite a lot of activity around the world, which will be important for our multi-client investments, also for the investments we have made earlier and potential late sales. Now, where did we do surveys in 2020? As you can see, we did surveys in Canada, Brazil, Norway, Egypt, Angola, mainly proven and rather mature hydrocarbon basins in line with our strategy. I will skip to more on what did our multi-client business generate of revenues and what do we look like compared to our competitors. As you can see from the net book value and Q3 and the segment revenues in 2020, we have a fairly large share of the total multi-client libraries. A little bit more than 25%, to put it that way. When you look at the revenues, it is important to note that revenues in multi-client, and in particularly late sale revenues, will fluctuate from quarter- to- quarter and from year to year, as we have always said. Last year, we had a relatively weak year when you compare to our competitors while we were relatively much stronger in 2008. When you look at what we have been doing in 2020, we are once again relatively, or compared to our peers, performing quite strongly and w e are the largest multi-client player in Q2, Q3, and Q4 of 2020. We are quite satisfied with the investments we have done in earlier years and how we have played the multi-client market this year. You see the revenue over investment ratio obviously dropping 2 020 was a very challenging year, but we are satisfied that we were able to maintain prefunding level very close to 100%, also in a very challenging year as 2020 was. I will be brief here. Africa and Middle East, main contributors to prefunding revenues in 2020, and Europe and Africa, the main contributors to late sales revenue in 2020. When you look at this, you see that the various regions where we have library contributes in various degree in various quarter, and this will fluctuate also going forward, speaking to the importance of a geographically diversified library like we have in PGS. The Gulf of Mexico, as I mentioned, after President Biden came to office, he has put a freeze on activity, if I can put it that way, for exploration activity for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. We thought it was important to inform you that we obviously have very limited revenues from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for 1%-3% of our annual multi-client revenues from 2016 to 2020, and that we have not acquired seismic data in the Gulf of Mexico since 2014, and that is obviously out of our books by now. We do have a segment multi-client book value related to the US Gulf of Mexico of $19.2 million as of year-end, this is a reprocessing exercise we did on our Flex Vision dataset. It's never good to see freeze on activity, which is important to seismic, but it will have limited or no impact to PGS. Once again, we show this as we normally do every year. What you see, we have solid multi-client diversity and client mix, where we sold multi-client data to more than 80 different clients in 2020 with good geographical sales diversity as we always do and a ll the larger and smaller oil companies of the world are obviously our clients. Moving away from our multi-client business and on to digitalization. As I said earlier, we continued to focus on digitalization and digital transformation, I would say, of PGS through this difficult year. We've had substantial progress on cloud-based multi-client sales platform. We have now uploaded most of our post-stack multi-client data to the Cloud, and we have, as you know, announced a strategic partnership with TGS and CGG for a shared multi-client marketplace. It's going to be interesting to see how the three of us can utilize the multi-client asset once it is available on the web and in the Cloud. We have had tangible results in optimizing vessel operations. We are seeing effect on energy transition, we are increasing our vessel speeds because we have been able to take the data which we generate on our vessels, on our streamers, and put it into context and push it out to the vessels again so that they can use these software tools based on machine learning algorithms and all the data we collect to optimize efficiency and speed. We've also entered into predictive maintenance primarily on our streamers. The picture you see on the bottom left is from that program, where we try to predict which streamer sections are about to fail so that we can switch them out while we are deploying before they fail when they are in the water. We're also looking into how we can improve HSEQ through this. Here we have done a lot in 2020, but there is a lot more to do and I'm looking forward to taking out further benefits of digitalization in this area. Another area where we have progressed significantly is imaging or processing in the Cloud. We have typically processed all the multi-client data we acquire and data for external clients using supercomputers we have purchased. That is about to end. We are moving the processing from our own computers and onto the Cloud, giving us flexible and scalable compute capacity and obviously much lower CapEx exposure as we do not have to buy these supercomputers. We will simply use the Cloud when we need it, and we will use how much we need at any time. We have also deployed machine learning and artificial intelligence in the processing sequence and accelerating therefore the time from data acquisition to delivery to the client. Here we have done a lot during the year, and you should expect us to do quite a bit more over the next years. Now on to guidance. We expect group cash costs to be below $400 million in 2021, or with five vessels active throughout the year. We expect multi-client cash investments to be approximately $150 million, and we expect to use approximately 45% of the active 3D vessel time in multi-client acquisition. CapEx we expect to be approximately $40 million in 2021. In summary, we have proactively addressed the very challenging 2020 seismic market. We believe that 2021 is likely to show a gradual or slow recovery versus 2020. We base that on higher oil price, giving positive cash flow amongst our clients, and that deferred activity from 2020 is coming back in 2021. We have seen obviously booking and backlog increase quite a bit in the earlier part of 2021. We are positioned for earnings improvement with low cost and lowest industry supply for decades. As I've spoken to the integrated service offering position PGS for the energy transition, we believe the energy transition plays to that strategic model. We have used 2020 to kick start or kick off the digital transformation to accelerate strategy execution, such as more efficient and less costly acquisition and imaging in PGS. With that, I give the word back to Gottfred to take you through more of the financials. Thank you, Rune. Starting first with this slide, financial strategy. Our financial strategy is to deliver profitability before growth. Our primary focus will be on cash flow and profitability, and we will be moderate on CapEx as we go forward, w e aim to deliver a return on capital employed higher than our cost of capital over the cycle. A key priority is to reduce debt and get to a capital structure that will sustain future downturns w e will therefore apply our cash generation primarily to reduce debt with a target of the net debt level to be below $ 500 million-$ 600 million. Our financial strategy remains unchanged from what we talked about earlier, but the developments that we have experienced in 2020 have extended our expected timeline to deliver on this strategy, including the targeted capital structure. Moving to our rescheduling of debt maturities. In the Q4, we agreed amendments to our loan agreements with all parties to the export credit facilities, and all except one lender to the RCF and TLB facilities t herefore, we had to move through a scheme of arrangement in U.K. to make these amendments effective for everyone. The scheme was sanctioned by the court two days ago, and we are now proceeding to close the transaction, which is expected to happen during February. The agreements, in short, defer all scheduled debt maturities and amortizations to September 2022 and beyond. The fees that the agreements provides for the lenders is $8 million of cash fees to the lenders and $8.4 million of so-called PIK, or payment-in-kind fees, to those lenders. And the payment in kind in practice means that the fees amount is added to the loan balance and repaid together with the loan. Lastly, on this slide, we will issue NOK 116.2 million convertible bond. NOK 67 million of that will be settled for or has been subscribed for by exchange of a corresponding RCF, TLB amount so t hose loans will reduce correspondingly. The remaining NOK 49 million will be issued against cash payment to PGS. More details on the main terms on the next slide i will seek to be relatively quick on this. The $350 million RCF that we have had for some time will be converted into a TLB. The facilities will now be combined into a term loan maturing in 2024 at a total amount of $873 million, which takes into account the addition of the PIK fees and deduction of amounts exchanged into the convertible bond. This TLB will have an amortization profile as shown on this list, with the first amortization, $135 million, starting in September 2022. With respect to the export credit financing, all amortization through to second half of 2022 is deferred, total of approximately $106 million, and that will then be repaid over one year, approximately starting December 2022. There will be an excess cash or excess liquidity sweep, which applies to liquidity above $200 million until the first installment on the TLB and the deferred ECF amounts have been repaid. Beyond that date, there will be a similar sweep for liquidity reserve over $175 million at each quarter end. The financial maintenance covenants have been amended. Particularly the leverage ratio is increased to start at 4.5 x and then gradually reduce to get back to 2.75 x by 2023. Yeah, I move on to the next slide. Very short slide shows the changes to the amortization profile. As you can see, we are eliminating all maturities through the first half 2022. Those are then recaptured over the period from September 2022 to March 2024. I included a slide on capital leases, s ome short comments. As of now or start 2021, the recorded lease liability is $159 million. The amortization or repayment for 2021 will be approximately $40 million, which is less than what we had for 2020 m ost of the lease liabilities relate to vessels, approximately 70%. Most of the liability, again, is denominated in U.S. dollars. I then move to cost and the quarterly cash cost illustration, $80 million of cash cost in the Q4 and y ou'll see that there is a strong reduction over the three last quarters of 2020. The Q4 captured all of the effects from our cost savings, and also was impacted by low vessel utilization or survey activity level a lso, the $80 million we had in Q4 is below our run rate cost with normal utilization, and we will have a sequential increase in Q1 2021 as utilization already will be signi ficantly higher. On the annual numbers, the 2020 gross cash cost ended at $426 million and as we have pointed to earlier, this is a reduction from the initial plan and what we said on last year's Capital Markets Day, $600 million, close to, or $175 million reduction for this year. The run rate reduction is more than $200 million, as we expect 2021 cash cost to be below $400 million with five vessels. The cost estimate there is based on the market pricing and exchange rates and similar applying at the start of this year and, of some importance, the krone- dollar exchange rate, we have applied this $855, and the oil price used for fuel cost estimation is approximately $55 Brent. We move then to CapEx, $36 million of CapEx for the full year 2020. We expect or plan for a slight increase in 2021 to $40 million, approximately half of that relates to streamer investments, including investments in the next generation GeoStreamer w e expect the gross depreciation to be approximately $150 million. A portion of that will be capitalized as we use vessels and imaging equipment for multi-client projects, approximately $50 million expected to be capitalized. On the multi-client financials, we have a solid track record of delivering pre-funding in or above our targeted range a s you will see from the illustration to the top left. For 2020, we had the pre-funding of 98% on $222 million of investments. We plan to invest less in the coming year, as Rune has pointed to approximately $150 million, and using approximately 45% of our vessel capacity. I move to tax. This graph shows our cash tax payments over recent years. We operate our largest vessels in the Norwegian Tonnage Tax Regime. Our current tax or cash tax typically is determined by withholding taxes in countries where we acquire surveys or where we are tax resident and have no carry forward tax losses t ypically varied between $10 million and $35 million per year. I move to foreign currency and sensitivity. This is probably known territory, but a fairly significant portion of our cash cost and CapEx is in non-U.S. currencies o bviously, majority is in U.S. dollars, but there is a significant portion of Norwegian kroner and British Pounds, most importantly and w e therefore know a strong U.S. dollars, as has been the case throughout 2020 mostly, benefits our reported cost and vice versa. Thank you. A 10% change of the dollar-krone exchange rate has a $10 million-$12 million full year effect on our EBITDA and a similar 10% change for British Pounds against the dollar has approximately half of that effect. We do not hedge leasing commitments in Norwegian kroner since we see that as close to being natural hedges. I am at my last slide, and to sum up, we have achieved an extension of debt maturities and amortization to September 2022 and beyond, and we're very satisfied with that. We do focus on cash flow to reduce debt and to manage the new maturity profile that we have established with the ongoing amendment. We have reduced our cash cost run rate with more than $200 million, or more than 33% o ur CapEx have been reduced by 50%. We will continue to exercise cost and CapEx discipline as we move forward. I will stop there, and then I believe we are ready for Q&A. Yeah. All right. We have some questions already from the audience. We have the first question from Jørgen Lande in Danske Bank. You seem to plan for a higher contract allocation in 2021. Can you explain why you do this and also link this to the prefunding levels you are currently facing? Yes, I can comment on that. The reason for that is quite simply what we have currently booked and what is sitting in our backlog versus the multi-client programs we are currently planning. It is of course driven by the market demand that we see for our services currently. In that, there is of course an estimation of what we will do in the parts of the year, the Q4 and parts of the Q3, which we have not booked, which may of course change. This is the way we see it right now. There is no link to do prefunding here, put it that way, i t's linked to, as I said, the demand for contract services and when we believe we will do and how we will allocate our resources in multi-client. We have another question from Ares Konovich. Do you plan to take out other vessels from layout? Well, we are currently planning on operating five vessels through 2021. It is also clear that we have experienced significant booking w e're fully booked for the Q1, w e have strong booking both in the Q2 and Q3. I will not rule out the possibility of introducing a sixth vessel to the summer season. That is a decision we will take if and when the demand is there for such a sixth vessel. Yeah. We have some questions from John Olaisen in ABG Sundal Collier. Polarcus has initiated a sales process of its vessels. It would be interesting to hear some comments from you on this situation. He also asks, are you interested in acquiring the Polarcus vessels? First of all, I just would say we have quite a few vessels in PGS, as I indicated also in the last question in lay-up. I don't think I will comment too much upon the Polarcus situation. It is quite sensitive and a challenge situation for Polarcus as a company. Yeah w e have further some questions related to Polarcus. Have you seen any effects of the Polarcus situation? For example, oil companies contacting you to take over some of the jobs that Polarcus was supposed to undertake in 2021. Do you think the Polarcus vessels will be out of the market? Potentially there will be only two significant vessel owners left in the market, PGS and Shearwater. Will this lead to improved industry discipline, higher utilization, and better pricing? Well, that was a lot in one. I can say that it is clear Polarcus has, as was announced, broken off from the operations they had. As far as we understand, informed clients that they will not be performing the work they had in their backlog. Yes, we have been contacted by clients in this respect. I think that is what I can say. Basically after the announcement, this came as a shock to us as it did to everyone else. With respect to the market development, I think you summed it up in your question t here is a chance that there will be only two players in the market. We have both of us significant vessels. Whether this will be more discipline or what they will do t he supply side is both the function of the vessels and the function of what is available of streamers, obviously, both within PGS, in Shearwater, and on the Polarcus vessels. I don't know how long the Polarcus vessels will stay out of the market, but w hen Dolphin were put in a similar situation, those vessels were out for approximately a year so a t least I guess it's reasonable to expect that in the short term, these vessels will not be part of the seismic market. John Olaisen has another question somewhat related to the question from- Jørgen Lande. He says 45% of active fleet allocation to multi-client is a move towards less multi-client and more contract. Is this a deliberate strategic shift or just a minor effect of the short-term opportunities? He also wonders whether it will be possible to give some indications of expected 2021 prefunding levels. Yeah, on the prefunding levels we will not say anything more than that w e expect to stay within the 80% to 120% range also in 2021 and a lso linked to my comments that we will focus on high prefunding also going forward, I guess could support that statement. With respect to the 45%, I think you should assume that if the market remains as it is, we will be around 50/50. It will be more call it opportunistic swings between around the 50/50 mark depending on market demand and where we have vessel, how that fits with where the demand is, and whether we do some of these surveys as multi-client or contract in these nearfield exploration in license integration may also affect this. I don't think it's a deliberate move towards more contract going to 45. We had more than we expected of multi-client last year, and now we're gravitating more back to the 50/50 mark, which we have been at. Next question is from Christopher Møllerløkken in Carnegie. You talked about the demand for 4D surveys, but 4D surveys tend to be relatively smaller in size. Wouldn't your large Ramform vessels be competitively disadvantaged versus smaller seismic vessels? No, I think the history shows that that's not the case. Yes, some of the 4Ds, and maybe as you're referring to the 4Ds in the North Sea are of smaller size. Obviously the 4Ds that we see moving forward are also of very large sizes i refer to the largest 4D we have done in 2019 i t was several months of Ramform Titan acquisition. This varies. I think to his point, it is important, and we have stated it is important before to have a diversified fleet. We would hope to be able to introduce, over time, more of our vessels so that we have some vessels that are smaller and some vessels that are larger, which brings a better balance because different surveys require different configuration and sizes of vessels. Next question is from Stig Erik Kyrkjeeide in Kepler Cheuvreux. You have 100% coverage for Q1 and 77% coverage combined for Q2 and Q3 versus 58% coverage for Q2 and Q3 last year. Are you starting to see some price traction for Q2 and Q3 based on this booked position? We are a very small industry. I will be very careful commenting on prices and what we see on pricing. I think I will limit myself to saying that the prices we have seen hasn't dropped this time as far as it dropped in 2015 and 2016 when there was an abundance of seismic vessels in the market and the demand dropped. It was more dramatic than in terms of pricing than what we see now. Other than that, I will be careful in our very consolidated industry to comment on pricing. He further asks, can you update on timing to reactivate and relate the CapEx for the three vessels taken out in 2020? It will only take weeks maybe to introduce the first maybe a month so w e can delay that decision to fairly close to when we see we have sufficient work for that vessel. It takes a little bit more time for let's say the seventh vessel and probably even more time for the eighth vessel. Depending on how long it will take before we, let's say, introduce the eighth, we may need a new streamer set for the eighth vessel if it takes quite a bit of time before that is introduced, obviously the lead time is longer for that vessel. Yeah. What about CapEx to reintroduce a vessel? Yeah. There is very limited CapEx for the first and probably also for the second. As I said, if we go to the eighth and if that is in, let's say, a year or two or whenever that may be, we will probably need a new streamer set of what, $40 million to reactivate that. Another question from Stig Erik. The 2021 multi-client CapEx guidance, it is based on the industry environment as is? or does it take into account a gradual improvement in the seismic market during 2021? The multi-client guidance is based on, as I said, how we see the industry right now and first of all, what we have booked, what we see there, and then what we have not booked in the Q4 and in the Q2 and Q3 and what we think we are then going to do with our vessels. I'm not sure it is correct to say it takes into account a gradual recovery i t more is a reflection of what we currently see. We have another question regarding Ocean Floor Geophysics. If we can elaborate a bit on our expectations and plans in terms of cooperation or cooperating with Ocean Floor Geophysics. This is a company where we have an ownership share. They have taken over our EM equipment and everything suitable to do an EM business so w e will, of course, to the extent possible, help them generate revenues from that business. I don't think I will comment too much about what other plans we may or may not have together with them w e think they are an interesting company with good people and interesting ideas, which we may cooperate with on also on other things. We have a question from Amy Wong in UBS. On the US Gulf of Mexico, I understand it's not a material part of your multi-client book. As you say, you seem to have had the foresight to reduce investment in that region. What are your thoughts on other governments that might put tighter restrictions on new leases and exploration? It's obviously a difficult question to answer, t his came as a surprise to me, I should say, as well as probably everyone else a lthough we had noted President Biden's comments in his campaign, obviously, as I'm sure our competitors had as well. What will happen in other regions? We try to follow the political debate in the most active areas where we operate. We take that into account when we invest. It is a very mixed picture around the world. On aggregate, not very concerned that a lot of governments will impose this to the extent that it will have a very large impact on the global seismic industry in the near term, at least. It is a difficult question to answer, I must say. Another question from Amy Wong. On your joint venture with TGS and CGG, could you talk more about the timeline, client reaction, and material investments in the platform? No, I think I will be cautious there. We will, of course, the three of us, we are in this together, so I will be cautious commenting too much on it alone in respect for the other two. We will try to make announcement to the market as we progress. I have not heard anything negative from any clients after this t he clients of PGS are generally very excited about what we are doing in the digital space, including the fact that we're moving our multi-client library into the Cloud and making it available electronically. Obviously allows for a different way of consumption of the multi-client library, different way of transferring a library, immediate access, et cetera t his is a development very much supported by our client, and the cooperation on the market platform with CGG and TGS is a step in this direction, so f ar we've only received positive feedback on the PGS side. We have another question from Christopher Maleraken in Carnegie. What would be a fair assumption for vessel steaming and yard stays and standby for Q1 2021? No, I don't think we want to be this specific. I think it is on average over the years, we have used 2%-4% of our time on the yard, and a bit over 10% on steaming. I don't think we will go into specific indications on specific quarters. Next question is from Mick Pickup in Barclays. You talked of next generation GeoStreamer. What does this bring? Yes. I would say first and foremost, it brings a much cheaper streamer in production. It will be cheaper to produce the actual streamer, and quite significantly cheaper than what it is today. That is the first benefit. It is more operational solid, so that it will be less subject to wear and tear. Therefore, hopefully, it should also be cheaper to operate. We try to address the operational challenges on it i t's more on efficiency and cost of production than it is to, let's say, improve image t here are also, obviously, if you talk to our experts, some improvements to what we can do on the imaging side and things like that. For this perspective, it's more on cost and efficiency. Thank you, Rune. At this moment, we don't have any further questions, so we can pause for a moment to allow people to type in their questions if there is any last-minute questions from the audience. As there are no further questions, that concludes this presentation. Thank you all for participating, and goodbye.