My name is Terje Eiken, and I am the Interim CEO and COO. After the presentation today, we will have a Q&A session, so please submit your questions as we go along. The next slide is a disclaimer that I assume that everybody reads carefully, so I don't use time to present that. Together with me, Chris Lach, our Chief Commercial Officer, and Kristian Flaten, our Chief Financial Officer, we present status and outlook today. Before going through the Q 2 highlights, I would like to focus on another important issue. The UN recently released a report concerning environmental and sustainability with a very clear conclusion: the time to act is now. When Danish broadcasting covered this report, they focused on Danish companies already acting, and they chose to do an interview with our Managing Director in Skive, Rasmus Tersgov, who explained how we act now by processing household plastic into chemical products that are used for making new plastic with highest quality requirements. In Norway, a great example of acting now is our operation in Kristiansund, where we turn landfill or energy plastic into pellets that are used to make new products. Quantafuel is not only Skive and chemical recycling. We are present in a broader value chain. We aim for the highest possible percentage of recycling with the lowest possible CO2 footprint by focusing on upstream logistics and combining mechanical and chemical recycling. We do it in Kristiansund, at Skive in cooperation with Geminor, and are developing a similar facility in Esbjerg. Our target is to reduce the oil consumption and prevent plastic to get out of the cycle and end up in nature. We act now. The fundament for any sustainable business is a healthy HSE culture, and I am very happy to report that we have another quarter without recordable incidents. We fully appreciate the market’s focus on Skive, expecting confirmation of full production capability. As I will explain later, we need to install some equipment during Q4 turnaround to get to the long-term stable production enabling this full production capability. Nevertheless, Skive operation continue to make progress. We are producing several days in a row at each line, at high load with mixed post-consumer plastic. We have been testing and changing out components to create a robust, reliable system and subsystems. We increased the ownership to 100%. I would like to thank the minority shareholders for their support during the development. Due to the extended duration of the project or the installation and the need for new equipment, the CapEx is increased to NOK 610 million. BASF showed their continuous support by converting their loan into shares, and thereby they became the largest shareholder in Quantafuel. In Esbjerg, we have purchased the land or the property, and we are now preparing for EPC startup. In Kristiansund, we are increasing both our capacity and capability within mechanical recycling, and in Aalborg, we are building mechanical capacity in cooperation with Geminor. The CEO search is ongoing, and our board will inform you as soon as they have concluded. It has been a very seamless transfer from Kjetil Bøhn to the management team, and Kjetil continues as a strategic advisor. As I already said, Skive is making good progress, but we cannot report proof of concept yet. We are developing a new industry, but we fully understand the investors' impatience. We are 100% convinced and committed that we will get there. On the slide, I have listed some operational highlights. Like we are producing chemicals within the specification. We are producing at high load for three to five days at each of the two operational lines. We are producing at design capacity. We are processing large span of plastic qualities, and we have delivered products to BASF. I could also add a list of technical items we have worked on and solved, like we have created a stable and robust plastic feeding system. We have tuned the control system, especially focused on the pressure control. We have implemented online regeneration of catalysts. We have solved issues related to clogging of process equipment. Last but not least, we have processed 355 tons of plastic during 1,400 running hours. Still, we have one known obstacle preventing the long-term stable production at a high load. We have now concluded on which equipment we need to solve this issue. We have ordered the equipment, it will be installed in the Q4 turnaround. There is a stretch in the supply chains, this stretch has caused the turnaround to move slightly to the right compared with our original plans. We are sorry for that, we are now in close dialogue with the key suppliers to maintain the Q4 schedule. As we all know, process equipment is always designed and installed with a certain surplus capacity. However, during testing and tuning, we have seen that there are some bottlenecks or systems where we actually need a little bit more capacity during some operations. To cope with that, we have now borrowed capacity from line one and four to make line two and three operational. That is the reason why we've been running two lines up to now. After a turnaround in Q4, we will upgrade all the systems so that we have enough capacity in each subsystem to support each of the four lines, and thereafter, we can run all the four lines. For this turnaround in Q4, we have a dedicated team planning the installation, following up the sub-suppliers, planning commissioning, startup, operational procedures. With these changes installed, we are fully confident in reaching proof of concept around year-end, and then we have the capacity to reach full production. I will turn the focus to Kristiansund. Here we are developing a plant with a unique capability. EU targets 55% recycling within 2025, we aim higher. Expansion of the mechanical capacity and capability is on track. We are moving now into a new facility, providing more space for better integration and future expansions, and testing of the pilot reactor for chemical recycling is ongoing. After we adjusted some equipment and the operating procedures, we now produce pyrolysis oil with high quality. The testing continues with a total program to ensure that we have the correct design basis when we start on rolling out the permanent chemical plant in Kristiansund. On the picture, you see a smiling Erik Fareid looking at an oil sample from this pilot reactor. For those who don't know Erik, he is one of the main reasons why we have Quantafuel today. Now, I would like to hand over the word to Chris, who will talk about technology, sustainability, and growth. Please, Chris. Thank you very much, Terje. I'm very glad to be here, very glad to present this. I will be saying a few words about the positioning of Quantafuel in the circular plastics economy. Many of you have probably seen this logo. It's a very good one, but it's deceptively simple because it shows or doesn't show or hides the complexity we're dealing with. If you know what we're talking about, then reduce and recycle are actually in conflict with each other. Why do I say they're in conflict? That's because some of the most efficient plastic materials in use are not the most easy ones to recycle. If you look, for example, at a multilayer film, it will save roundabout 25% of packaging weight, yet it is difficult to recycle in mechanical recycling. In order to build a successful, effective circular economy, what in our mind needs to happen is that we take the materials that are most suitable in the application and then find the right suitable recycling methodology for that. There is no one size fits all for the application, but different approaches are preferred also when it comes to recycling. That's why Quantafuel is looking at the bigger picture and building up our presence, and why we are looking at both mechanical and chemical recycling and the sorting strategies behind that. I will now take you through the value chain we are building up in Denmark for the Aalborg pre-treatment plant, as well as the plant in Skive and the R&D work we're doing. A significant step in this is the decision we made in quarter two to build a pre-treatment or sorting plant in Aalborg. What that plant will be doing is it will be taking in household waste from the Nordics, mainly with a target to put it into our chemical recycling plant in Skive. There are some fractions in that waste which is coming in, which we don't want to put into that plant. For one hand, we see here on the upper end, there is some material which can be recycled mechanically. That is sorted out in this plant and put into mechanical recycling, which is ecologically and economically more effective. We are taking some material that we don't want to have in our chemical recycling plant, such as drink cartons, Tetra Paks, or metals. That is sorted out and taken off by Geminor, some plastic fractions for incineration. The mainstream then goes into our Skive plant and then is forwarded as the pyrolysis oil, as chemical raw material to our partners at BASF. That is proceeding, as Terje was talking about. We have achieved sufficient stability in our Skive plant to now be testing material from different suppliers so that we can correlate what the resulting oil is with the input rather than any operational issues which we might have. We are now actually testing the material supplied by our contractual partners such as Geminor and Grønt Punkt Norge. We do not stop there. Today, the plastic waste that we're using is desperately looking for a home, and the material we produce is in short supply, so it's easy to find off-takers. Going forward, as volumes increase, the plastic waste that is priced attractively will be harder to get, and the specifications we have to deliver to our customers will be more narrow because the dilution effect will be less. This is why we are today developing the technology to deal with these future challenges. We are today working to improve our technology to be ready for what's coming, and for that, we are working with our own teams in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, but we're also working with our partners at NTNU in Trondheim and with BASF and their partners, which is a cooperation that we think is very good and helpful. Just don't take our word for us being ready and doing this. We are keenly aware that we have to be able to prove that what we're doing is true and helpful and not greenwashing. That's why we are working with our partners in Geminor for the upstream and our partners in BASF with downstream and third-party providers, ISCC Plus and REDcert2, for the certification that we can actually track our document of our product, the full chain from waste collection towards the production of new materials. In Q2, we have achieved certification by REDcert2 and ISCC Plus. We're also aware that there's a discussion about the environmental footprint of chemical recycling. In Quantafuel, we are working with an external party, NORSUS, to do a detailed life cycle analysis, both to be transparent but also to use the right levers for optimization going forward. This optimization, we will then implement in our future plans and our future setup, which I will talk about in the next slide when we talk about the growth. We have mentioned Esbjerg. Esbjerg is our first mega plant in Denmark and one of the biggest in the European Union. This is the first time we are developing an integrated plant with all capabilities, achieving recycling rates second to none. In one site, we are combining the sorting line, the pretreatment line, and then the chemical treatment line, which is phase II. We have today purchased the land and are very grateful for the very good cooperation we have with the Esbjerg community. Esbjerg continues as communicated and as planned. Currently, both industrial and commercial partnerships are being evaluated, and we will communicate any developments there as they are ready for communication. This is one part of the slide that you've seen before, and we've taken some liberty in adjusting that slide, updating it, modernizing it. We have talked about Kristiansund. We have talked about Esbjerg. The only additional project I want to talk about in any detail is the Amsterdam plant because we have made steps forward on that one that are significant. We're working here with VTTI and Vitol, and we have agreed the site and scope of the plant and are getting ready to submit the permit applications. A number of other projects that we have communicated previously are proceeding as planned, and we will of course inform whenever we pass a significant milestone. The main thing that is required to maintain this broad effort and fund these projects is cash, and that's why now is a very good time to hand over to Kristian. Kristian, stage is yours. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Our full financial figures are included in the first half year 2021 report. I want to highlight a few key items for the year so far. Quantafuel has total assets of NOK 1.55 billion, with a total equity of NOK 933 million at the end of Q2. We had NOK 495 million in cash. We are pleased to see that we are getting closer to the end of our project CapEx for Skive and Kristiansund. Remaining CapEx for the two plants is NOK 70 million, including the additional cost described by Terje. Gradually, this means that we are shifting focus towards operational cash flow from Skive and Kristiansund. I would like to highlight the completion and integration of important M&A transactions like Geminor, Replast, Skive minorities, and Hulteberg licenses, which means that we are also streamlining the financial and operational performance within Quantafuel. During this process, we have a tight follow-up on all costs, SG&A and OpEx, to ensure lean and cost-efficient day-to-day operations. By the end of Q2, we had debt of NOK 80 million, adjusting for the conversion of the BASF convertible loan in July. BASF now has an ownership of 10.6% and is our largest shareholder. We are grateful to see the continued high interest in our company and our share. 650,000 shares trade on average per day, and we have more than 6,000 shareholders, whereof 60% are non-Norwegian. In addition to our major industrial and strategic shareholders, we have an increasingly broader interest from institutional and private investors across Europe and in the U.S. We get a lot of investor calls and comments, and we acknowledge our investors' need for information. We can ensure you that we will always communicate important information to the full market. By this, I'm handing back to Terje for the summary. Thank you, Chris, and thank you, Kristian. As a closing remark, I would like to say that we strive every day for zero accidents, allowing everyone to walk home safely. We are committed to acting now, creating a sustainable business, attacking one of the major environmental threats. There are three takeaways I would like you to remember from this presentation. One, we are confident that we will reach our goals in Skive. Two, we are making significant steps towards a combined mechanical and chemical recycling setup. Three, we have a robust financial position. Thank you. That ends the presentation. I would like to invite Chris and Kristian back together with myself, we open up the question log. This is on the fly, you just have to excuse me that I have to read first before we can answer. The new pyrolysis technology in Kristiansund is probably more important than Skive as first generation. It will probably be the basis for a big scale rollout. I would say the reactor in our processes is very important. It's not the core part of Quantafuel technology. We will always search for the best possible reactors, creating the best possible pyrolysis gas suitable for the downstream purification process, which is the Quantafuel clue. Is there anything you would like to add from the R&D chemistry point of view, Chris? I like what you sometimes say. Sometimes it's better to have a Toyota that's running very well and reliable rather than the, I'm not going to name any brand now, the car that's very fancy, but always sitting in the garage. I think one of the key points we should mention here is that the Kristiansund reactor is driven electrically, so that from a CO2 point of view may make sense in certain applications. In other applications, the Skive reactor, which uses the gas produced in running the pyrolysis reaction, may be the better solution. In general, I think, as I also talked about the R&D work we do, the key thing is to have the right setup for the right location and the right partners. I think that's the best answer we can give. We look at what's given in a project and what do we want to build there. Like the Amsterdam plant is going to look different from the Esbjerg plant, but that's because Amsterdam is a different location from Esbjerg. I hope that answers the question. The same person is asking a follow-up question, so we can take that also. Isn't the proof of concept or commercialization more important to achieve in Kristiansund than in Skive, since this is more, let's say, newer technology? To that one, I will say, in Skive, we are proving that we are able to run for a long time with a high percentage of uptime, producing the right yield and the right quality. That is based on a reactor, which is continuously running and producing this gas flow with the pyrolysis gas. That will be the same in Kristiansund. If we can prove it in Skive, yes, of course, we have to commissioning also a new test or a new plant in Kristiansund. The proof in Skive is key to show to ourselves and to everybody that this technology is capable of long-term stable operation. We will have the same in Kristiansund, it's not more important than in Skive. Agree? I fully agree. As always, Terje. Thank you. I think this one goes to you, Kristian. How would you like to build the trust of shareholder in the future? Thank you, Terje. First of all, it's about for us to deliver on the technology, on projects, and operation, and from a communication perspective also, as I underscored in the main presentation, we will make sure, of course, always to communicate what we have of the important information to the full stock market at the same time. This first is just to kind of continue deliver and putting on all the best resources on all levels. Yeah. Another one, which is touching into both finance and technology and sustainability. Do you still expect a net positive income on receiving plastic waste, including disposal of the plastic you cannot use in your plant? I can talk about this for many hours, you know that. To give a short answer, if we do recycle the plastic, yes, indeed I do. That's why we are entering the sorting step in Aalborg, in Kristiansund, and in Esbjerg, because the recycling rate, especially in Denmark and the Nordic countries, is key for taking in the waste. If we can confirm that we do recycle the material, and that goes back to everything I talked about with certification and Geminor and the integration into the ecosystem, then we will be getting paid for the waste we're taking in, and we will be getting paid for the material we produce. However, if you look at, for example, Veolia, there is always discussion whether some of the material will also be used for fuels. In that case, we will, I assume, not be paid for the material we take in. The payment is very clearly tied to being able to transparently and trustworthily, I'm looking for the right word, I'll tell you, show that you are recycling this in a meaningful way. I hope that answers the question. I trust that it will, yeah. Thank you. Kristian, the same person has a follow-up question. Can you try to put some words on the pricing for the output you produce? What is the average price per ton, and how do you see the pricing going forward? Okay. Also. Yeah. We have a guided for that, on the long term, we have a guiding, and we maintain guiding that the offtake price is $1,000, but we have also indicated there is upside potential, but no change to guiding. Currently, we have an agreement for somewhat lower than $1,000 per ton, but we find that kind of the market remains still very supportive to our products. If I may jump in. Yeah I think there may be a certain uncertainty about what I said and what you said. I think the key point is, if you today look at the price for chemical feedstock, that price is below the price for fuel. What we see is that probably going forward, maybe not short term, but going forward, the price for chemical feedstock will be below the price for fuel. We get the payment, as I said before, for the plastic waste. We assume that the overall profitability between supplying to fuel, no payment upfront, but higher price, or into chemical recycling, into plastics or other materials, lower price, but upfront payment, will in the end remain the same. That's why we are working with the figures that Kristian just mentioned. I just thought it helps if I try to explain this. The same person is also asking about, do we see any differences in CapEx and OpEx going forward based on what we have learned in Skive? If I take that myself, if we were to build Skive again, it would be at a lower price or lower cost. I think the key learnings from Skive are continuously brought into our engineering organization, and of course, we base every new project on these learnings. The focus in Quantafuel now is to do it right the first time. Skive is built kind of couple of times. What we do in Skive now is not more expensive than if we will do it the right first time. If we do it the right first time, we wouldn't need to go through the intermediate steps. That is the reason why we also have to increase the cost, that we have to add equipment, replacing existing equipment, which of course, is a cost factor. Going forward, I wouldn't say that this Skive experience is driving the CapEx nor the OpEx upwards, but make us able to do it right first time. On a general basis, there is a constraint in the market and an increase in steel prices, for instance. What we see today is that the prices are at a higher level than they were, let's say, six months ago. That's not driven by our experiences, but more driven by the general market condition. That could go down again. We never know. That is out of our control. Just also to add to that, we also increased guiding already in the previous quarters. That has already been communicated as well. Yeah. In terms of Kristiansund, when do you expect the first production and the revenue? Kristiansund is an existing plant, where we have a mechanical line. This line is now being expanded to increase both capacity and capability, and this line is already generating revenue. With respect to the chemical pilot, we are producing oil. We still have to ship the first container to Germany, but that's not a significant volume. The significant volume will be when we have concluded the pilot testing and are building the permanent plant, where we are aiming for a capacity of around 10,000 tons per year of plastic input. Yeah, same person is asking also about partnership in Esbjerg. Is it industrial or financial or value chain? I think that is very close to your slide, Chris, so you should grab that one. Okay, elaborate, I don't want to do that much at the moment, I will say that as we are still entering new fields, if you look at the waste landscape, recycling landscape, I shouldn't say waste, I should say recycling, it's a very complicated setup with a lot of players and a lot of different streams that you look at. I would be happy and am discussing with players who have experience in the industry, I would hope that any outcome will also include a financial investment, because if both parties have a financial stake in the investment, I think both are really committed. I think that is a fair way. Anything you'd like to add, Kristian? No, just supporting that we are kind of carefully and selectively pursuing partnership opportunities for Esbjerg, both industrial and financial. We have done that for the past many months, I would say. I'll try to keep up with the questions here. This is kind of a online exercise, so I try to concentrate on two things at the same time. Can you please elaborate around the timeline for proof of concept and the timeline for stable production? As I tried to explain, after this turnaround, mid Q4, we have installed new equipment. We have stated that we expect to be in a state where we get long-term stable production, which will then enable this proof of concept. We have written in our report that we expect it to take place around end of the year. We cannot totally, let's say, disregard the possibility of the proof of concept happening even before, but the likelihood is not very high. After the upgrade, after the turnaround, we will be in a position to do it. Of course, when you install new equipment, you will always need some time to tune it, to stabilize the production, to stabilize the whole process. We aim for end of the year. It might slip into next quarter, but of course, the target is to do it as quickly as possible after the turnaround. With respect to stable production, we will gradually ramp up the production in Skive. This is not about switching on the power, then you are running on four lines of 100% production. This is about taking in one line by the other and gradually ramp up the production so that the run rate at the end of the year will be at the plateau production or the full production. From the turnaround and during 2022, we will gradually ramp up the production. The important thing is that we will very early prove that we have the capability to run it at a high level, but we will not produce at 100% from day one. I think everybody who has worked with a chemical plant, and you can probably elaborate more on that, Chris, has that knowledge that it takes time to introduce this new equipment than to tune a factory. Anything you want to add, Chris? I think you've said it very well. Thank you. Thank you. The follow-up question on the turnaround, what kind of modification work will be performed during Q4? As I said, we have one remaining obstacle, which is preventing us from reaching this stable production at a high load. We have concluded on the equipment we need to create that stable condition. We have ordered it, and we are following that closely up. In previous presentation and discussion with investors, we have always stated that we are reluctant to dig into the details because it's a high shareholder value, what we have, let's say, found out in Skive. When we have concluded now that we need to take out something to put something else in, that is a part of our IP, and it's a part of the shareholder value. If we disclose all the details, which we of course could do, that will help potential competitors to do it quicker and at a lower cost. That's the reason why we don't want to go into details. You have to trust me. There is today one known obstacle preventing us to reach this long-term stable production at high load. We have concluded with our partners on the right equipment to solve it. We have ordered it, and we will install it in Q4. Next question is about when it's reasonable to reach full capacity. I believe I have already elaborated on that one. I mentioned that Skive has managed to reach high load for three to five days at a time. Does that mean 90%-100% utilization on the line? Would you like to take that, Chris? That I can take some water. Okay. Of course, we have said that we have reached 100% utilization on the line. We have shown that the lines can reach full utilization. On a longer term, we talk about three to five days, it will not be 100%, it will probably be on average around 90% or below. If you do the calculation on the figures we have communicated in this discussion. It is 1,400 hours and roughly 350 tons that we have consumed overall, including startup and shutdown, and that figure calculates to about 40% average utilization over that time span, including the ramp-up and shutdown. You can say that if we are running stably, then it will be around about that utilization. Have I disclosed too much? No. Nothing that somebody with a calculator couldn't have done. I guess that quite a few of our listeners, they are very clever with the calculator, so yeah. Next one, what is the energy consumption per kilogram product produced? I would like to try to install if your technology will be competitive with other PtL in the market. This one is important. If you look at Skive and you do this pyrolysis of plastic, you will always have a certain percentage of the production, which is converted into very light gases, which are the typical methane, ethane, propane. These gases, they are not fluid at ambient pressure or temperature. If you want to use them to something, you either have to burn them and create electricity, or you could cool them down and you can have that as a barbecue gas, or as we do in Skive, we use them in the burners to heat the process. What we have disclosed earlier is that approximately 10% of the plastic put into the process is converted into these non-condensable gases, which we are then using to heat the process. When you talk about consumed energy, you can think about the 10%, and other kind of external energies is very limited if you look at the process. I would like to jump on this. You would like to calculate whether our technology can be competitive with other technology. I can talk a long time about this, but there are two parts to our CO2 footprint that are significant. One is logistics of supplying the plastics to our plant and then taking away the products. The other one is the heat energy needed to generate the oil. It is much more important that you use the right kind of energy and take the right kind of application for what you produce than what kind of thing you do. Like in Norway, Kristiansund, all the electricity is CO2 neutral, and it's cheap, so an electrically driven reactor makes sense. In other regions, electricity is generated from burning coal and also very expensive, so it doesn't make sense to do an electrically run reactor there versus using the gas you produce. Sometimes maybe you have a good use for the gas, so you want to do something else. I think this kind of thinking is much more important for your competitiveness than what is the specific consumption per kilogram of plastic waste pyrolyzed. Yep. Thank you. Here is one on finance, Kristian. Do you have a financial partner for the project in Esbjerg, and will it be 50/50 ownership? We partly answered that together with Chris previously, but currently, no, but we are doing and finalizing a number of discussions, both early stage and partly also late-stage discussions, industrial and financial. There is a question also about if we can explain the development of the stock exchange and why our share price has had a negative development. Of course, we are not happy to see what we have delivered. We are not happy to see the performance of the share price. We are here to create shareholder value to all investors, and we are very focused on this in our everyday business. It is important for us to underscore that we understand the frustration. We also feel the same. We are also invested, both directly and indirectly. We do everything we can on technology, projects, and operation, as earlier stated, and then the market will decide on the price going forward. A person is asking how certain we are in percent that we will reach a proof of concept without further obstacles than those already identified. It is very hard to talk about what you do not know, what you need to believe is that we have disclosed everything we know. We have one known obstacle. We have the solution, and we are confident that that will solve it. To speculate about what we do not know, I think I can leave out for the dinner chat tonight. We have disclosed everything we know, and there is nothing hidden in Skive today, which we are not attacking and solving in the Q4 turnaround. One person is asking about is there any interest in the market about the licensee parties with our technology? Yes, indeed, we have. The reply is that at this point in time, because it is not just about building the plant, it is also about how we sort the waste, how we set the whole thing up, what we do with the product. We don't think it is the right time to talk about licensing our technology at this point in time. Yeah. We have some questions about Skive again. First one is the conversion rate, how much plastic we need to make 1 ton of offtake. Maybe we can turn it around and say, if you take 1 ton of plastic, the offtake is 800 kg of product. That is still our target and what we are aiming for. Of course, during the startup, when we have been tuning the factory, let's say the yield has been lower, but what we see is that when we get up to the right load and we are running at high load, the yield is where it should be. During testing, it has been partially lower. When we get to the high load, the yield is where it should be. I think that's a fair statement. Same person is asking, there have been adjustments of CapEx at Skive almost every quarter. Why has there been so difficult for you to forecast CapEx, and is this the final CapEx forecast? As I said, we have taken into consideration everything we know, and based on that, we have adjusted the CapEx, both because we need new equipment and that we prolong the time for the project team to work on Skive. Based on what we know today, there will be no further adjustment to CapEx in Skive. Why it has been so difficult to be stable on CapEx? As I said, this is about creating a new industry. Of course, if you have built Skive right the first time, the CapEx has been different. We have to adjust as we learn, and with these learnings, there are some adjustments. The project is prolonged, and that has driven the CapEx up. Last quarter, we didn't adjust the CapEx, and we were proud of that. This quarter, we had to do it, and I really hope that this is the last one, the last quarter we need to adjust the CapEx. The person is talking about when we are operational, what will be the regularity of the lines. It is right to assume that there will be almost never be four lines operational at the same time due to maintenance coupled with a few future issues. I think it's fair to say that every plant where I've worked, there is a planned turnaround every year for doing main maintenance tasks. We are planning with a very high degree of uptime. Most of the year, all four lines will work in parallel. That is also part of the concept that we are using the NCG, also the non-condensable gases from the lines to feed back to the burners to heat the line. We rely on stable production, and we rely on stable production from four lines, and most of the year, they are supposed to work in parallel. You have to expect the turnaround once a year for maintenance. That's fair, I think. I would like to turn that question around and say, if we had the assumption that almost never we'd have four lines running at the same time, then we would not have set the benchmark for proof of concept as high as we have done. We are expecting a very high reliability of these lines when the plant is operational. I think that's a fair statement. Yeah. There's a question about FID in Esbjerg and when. Sorry, we cannot comment on that. As soon as we have concluded, we will let everybody know at the same time, of course. There is a question about the BASF. Is BASF still fully committed and involved in details and development? The first part, you have to ask somebody else. I can talk about my feeling. I am working-s orry, I just covered the microphone. My feeling is that we are working together very closely. We are fully open. BASF have all the details and development. They are closely involved. They have people on site, both in Kristiansund and Skive this month. From our point of view, I say yes. I judge the fact that they are now the biggest shareholder as a statement from their side that they see this the same way. That's, I think, all I can say about that. A person is asking, why can you say you are 100% confident that your technology works as assumed? Isn't there a certain possibility that it will run for some days, and that you will then need to stop and clean the system before starting again? This is what we do today. We are running for some days, we are cooling down a line, we open it, inspect it, and clean when necessary, reassemble it, inspecting, heating, and running. The whole thing with this equipment we are installing is that we remove this obstacle, which is preventing us from the long-term stability, which also means that we don't need to stop it and clean it. Based on what we know, we are confident that that will work, and that we don't need to stop it, inspect it, and clean it with the high frequency we need to do today. That's the whole thing with the new equipment, that we do not need to do that. Another question about the details about the technology we will plan to install in the Q4 turnaround. As I said, we think it's the right thing for our shareholders that we don't disclose the details, because it's a part of what we have learned and the part of our IP. Sorry, but we will not do that. There is a question for you, Chris. What is the quality of the product as output, and does BASF need to refine the product afterwards? I think that is a somewhat confidential question, also a difficult one, because as I said, the quality of the product is variable according to the way the plant is running and the feedstock we are putting in. We are working very closely with BASF to align the quality of the product that we have to their needs. I said before, I think as the volumes increase, we expect the specifications will be more strict. Beyond that, I do not want to go into any details today. Same reason. Sorry, I think this is really IP within Quantafuel and BASF in this case. I combine two questions here about revenue in Skive and shipment of products. The question is, are we booking revenue in the same quarter as we are shipping the products? No. We have also produced for, I would say, inventories. In addition to one large holding tanks, we also have three storage tanks for products. It goes back also to the relationship with BASF, maybe. They are paying us, and we have a very good relationship with our partners, both upstream and downstream. Yeah. There's a question about when we expect to issue new shares for finance future projects. I think this the same, that the day, if we decide to do that, of course, we have to inform everybody at the same time. We will inform as soon as we have taken such a decision, if taken. That is nothing we can disclose here. We will do it according with the governance, let's say rules of the stock exchange. We have multiple avenues as we partly have indicated as well. A question about the future selling price in dollar per ton from the output from Skive. I guess that was already covered. One thing I usually say that I haven't said today is I would assume that it will always be based on a benchmark, be it fuel or be it chemical recycling. Naphtha benchmark plus a sustainability premium, minus a quality penalty. The quality penalty depends on the way the plant is run, and the sustainability premium depends on the availability of recycled feedstock. Anybody can play with models based on that, I think. Here, Kristian, is a question you cannot answer, but I will still ask you. Yeah. Any projection on when we will move from Euronext Growth to Oslo Stock Exchange? Yeah. We are very happy with our current listing on the Euronext Growth. Of course, we have also communicated that on the long term, we have an ambition and a plan to go for the full listing on the main board. Currently, we are happy with the current listing, and there's no current plans or anything on that, and that would be decision by the board in due course. Do you expect firm commitment during 2021 from an investment partner to start build a new factory? Or would it be reasonable to expect such commitment after Skive has been running full capacity? I can say that we have a portfolio of projects. Chris talked about some of them today. Of course, behind that portfolio, there is a lot of prospects. There are a lot of companies, persons interested in developing projects together with ourselves. When we get to the stage where we have passed a final investment decision with our board, we will, of course, inform everybody. We cannot talk today about when we believe that will happen. We will always inform you when it has happened. Okay. I struggle to see the new questions here coming up. Either we have run out of questions, I think so. You are nodding. The support team is nodding that we have gone through most of the questions. Together with Kristian and Chris, I would like to thank you for participating. Thank you for a lot of good questions. We have done our best to present the status and the outlook to answer your questions. We are transparent. We disclose what we can disclose. We are happy that so many persons are interested in Quantafuel, in our technology, what we do now to act, and we are really acting now. We trust that this interest will keep on, and we will do our very best to not disappoint you on what we have presented today. Thank you very much and have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you.