So then it's three. Welcome all to this group presentation of SalMar. We have full management team up and running here. So, they will start with the presentation. We have the meeting for 45 minutes. Hard stop after that. And we'll be open for questions after a brief presentation from management. So, then I'll give the word over to you guys. Yes, thank you. My name is Frode Arntsen. I'm the CEO of SalMar, and with me today we have our CFO, Ulrik Steinvik, Chief Strategy Officer Runar Sivertsen, and Head of HR, Håkon Husby. I will briefly take you to a short summary of the quarter presentation, and then we'll open for questions after that. Total from Norway, we harvested 44,100 tons to a margin of 33.2 NOK per kilo, with an operational EBIT of NOK 1,466 million in the quarter. Including Icelandic Salmon and SalMar Ocean, we harvested 48,800 tons, with an operational EBIT of NOK 1,393 million, to a margin of 31.1 NOK per kilo. The results for Norway in the second quarter continued to be impacted by low price realization due to challenges that began at the end of 2023 with jellyfish, and continued through the winter and spring with issues related to winter sore. Though, there has been an improvement in biological conditions throughout the quarter. If we look into small details, farming Central Norway harvested 27,100 tons in the quarter, and the operational EBIT of 1,110 million NOK, with an EBIT per kilo of 41. This is a satisfactory result, despite the challenges we've faced, which have led to somewhat lower price realization, particularly at the beginning of the quarter. The volume guidance for 2024 remains unchanged at 146,000 tons. In the farming in Northern Norway, we harvested 17,000 tons, with an operational EBIT of NOK 508 million, with an EBIT per kilo of 29.9 NOK. Northern Norway delivered a weak result due to the challenges we faced with string jellyfish and winter sore issues. With the high spot prices experienced at the beginning of the second quarter, the effects of downgraded fish were significant, exceeding the traditional 5-6 NOK per kilo impact. The volume guidance for 2024 remains unchanged at 91,000 tons. Sales and Industry segment, operational EBIT of NOK -90 million. As typical for the first half of the year, we experienced lower capacity utilization across all facilities in the value chain, especially in the harvesting facilities. Worth to mention also, the contract share was as expected at 46% in the second quarter. Given the high spot prices, the contracts overall had a negative impact. However, the same contract and review portfolio has contributed positively in the third quarter so far. We expect for the rest of the year and the year as a whole, about 35% contract share. Icelandic Salmon harvested only 700 tons in the quarter, with an operational EBIT of -43 million NOK and an EBIT per kilo of -61.6. Sadly, this is a weak result, influenced by the low harvest volume and the biological challenges we have faced at sea, which have led to high cost base for the fish we have harvested. Also in the period, we encountered an issue at the sea side stage on this due to HSMI, and there was a write-down at the site, Laugardalur, which was affected by lice issues last fall. This resulted in a one-time cost of 3.9 million EUR, or approximately 63 NOK per kilo in the quarter. The expected volume for 2024 will decrease from 15,000 tons down to 13,000 tons due to MAB optimization. As some of you may have noticed, we were awarded new licenses in Iceland for 10,000 tons of MAB. This will be realized due to the stereo technology in the years to come. SalMar Aker Ocean, not very much to comment on. No harvesting, but we have now put new smolt in the Ocean Farm 1, and Arctic Offshore Farming will also get new smolt in the third quarter. All of this fish will be planned to be harvested in 2025. unchanged guidance volume of 7,000 tons. Scottish Sea Farms, 12,200 tons harvested with an operational EBIT of 234 million NOK, with an EBIT of 19.1. And as we mentioned in the previous quarter, we have seen a significant improvement in the biological situation in Scotland across all regions in 2024, and this is very good news for us all. Looking ahead, unchanged guidance of 37,000 tons. That was... In the end, we can also say that we threw out the traffic light system. We acquired 3,027 tons with new MAB licenses. In the Northern Norway, production areas 10 to 13, which is approximately an increase of 2% in our total MAB capacity. That was a short summary, and we are ready for your questions. Thank you so much. Then I think we can open for questions from the rest of you. If not, I'll start off with some. Okay. So just to start off, biggest question for me here is really temperatures and lice levels. We've seen in especially the last couple of weeks, last month, that you've hit record levels in temperatures, both in Region Mid and in Northern Norway. And I wanted to ask you how you see the cost risk, both in Region Mid and in Region North? So, it's correct, as you say, we have seen a increased sea lice pressure due to the sea water temperatures. In Central Norway, it's as plus three degrees higher than we are, call it a normal summer temperature. So it's very high temperature these days. And when in terms of cost, this is sea lice in Central Norway is the main risk factors we see. So it depends on development going forward. Of course, in the prediction, when we do the cost guidance, where we looked at same level we said in Central Norway, we have some included there as well. But also, of course, we will see how this will propagate going into September now as well. In Northern Norway, we see it as a less cost risk issue, especially for Q3, as the... We guided the cost up there in Q3, and that's the reason of the sites we will harvest from, where we will basically finish some of the sites we have had some challenges with. So with a little bit lower volume as well, because we are building biomass and expect a decrease going into Q4 there. But, one of the main risk factors now is the sea lice pressure. It's fair to say we also have a strategy in SalMar to be early out, to do the sea lice interventions at an earlier stage in order to prevent that we get a too high sea lice level. That is important for us. So we feel we have very good capacity in terms of vessels and everything we need. And we also, so we feel we are on top of the situation, but of course, there is many treatments at the moment. Great. And, so then for Northern Norway, not a major risk on necessarily sea lice as you see it now. It's mainly ISA that is impacting and, of course, average weights. It's guidance for Northern Norway in Q3, do you expect that to be the end of it, or do you still see an ISA risk in Northern Norway? We will take off the ISA-affected sites in Northern Norway in Q3, and the reason for the cost increase is that they have a higher cost base, and there is some additional cost when it comes to harvesting and wellboat when we do ISA harvesting. Today, we see that the cost levels we expect on the other sites we are planning to harvest in Q4 is decreasing. But of course, we will get back to you in November when we have the next presentation. Great. Then we have a question from Adolf. Yes, hello. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes, thank you. Just to come back on the Wilhelm point on the extra cost for the Northern region. You said something like more than 5-6 NOK per kilo. Why so high level for treatment? Is it something normal for the region, or can you just elaborate a bit more on this point? We have not stated the 5-6 NOK level, cost per kilo increase in Northern Norway. We expect a higher cost there, but we are talking a little bit lower than the levels you referred to, and the other is that this is not due to sea lice in Northern Norway, it's due to ISA. Okay. Yeah, I think if you mentioned the five to six, but, Frode was saying that on downgraded fish, which is not of superior quality, traditionally, where you are at, call it, the price levels we are at today, you see a typical five to six NOK per kilo lower price realization of the fish. Okay. That's the risk in Northern Norway in Q3, comparing, for instance, to Central Norway, where the superior share is higher. Okay, good. Got it. Thank you. I have one more question from Sharda. Yeah, hi. So, my question is on the demand side. Like, how is the demand in the key regions? Has, like, the weaker spot price indicating there's a softening? So, if you can comment on some key regions' demand. In terms of demand, in general, we see actually still a strong demand across the, but of course, this varies a little between the regions. We have seen some somewhat softer demand in retail Europe for the last year or so, but also we have seen very strong signals from, especially the Asian countries, in terms of demand growth, and also there has been some people saying that's a bit softer in the U.S. We guided today, we increased our contract share a little bit. That was actually for our U.S. retail customer and also Asian one. And, the price levels and the volume they wanted to have on that contract, which is a key customer for us, and was higher volume what we had before on the contract, and it was at the price level we are very happy with, and it's very strong price level. So we are quite content when it comes to the demand situation. You have to bear in mind, it's typical that the supply growth from Norway increases quite, dramatically, going from compared to April to where we are now in August, which is the main factor behind this. Other question on the outlook for the cost. What is your outlook in Q4 and into 2025? Are you getting any tailwind from, like, the lower feed costs? Regarding the feed cost or the feed price, we see a stable feed price in Q3 versus Q2. So but, but, I see that the fish oil price from Peru is getting down, but this oil will come to Europe in September and maybe affect the Q4 price. But that will affect the cost of the stock in late 2025. Mm-hmm. Thanks. And one just final question on your the medium-term outlook, which the volume guidance which you have given, how confident you are that you will reach that, and any timeline on that? You are referring to the- The CMD target. Yes, the CMD target. We are still confident to reach that. In Norway, we are increasing the smolt transfer quite significantly this year. We are talking double-digit growth, and this is in line with our plan in order to take out that potential in the years to come. Thanks. Thank you. Great. Then we have Alex Jones. Great, thank you. I think maybe one back on cost. First of all, I think on the Q1 call, you talked about cost being lower in the second half, and clearly Q3, that's not true for various reasons. But for the second half overall, are you still happy with what you said on the Q1 call, or is that changed? Yeah, I'll start there. I think it's, we are not far off. We see quite stable costs from Central Norway for the second half, and then we see a little bit an increase now in Q3 for Northern Norway, and a decrease, quite a substantial decrease in Q4. So, and if you compare that with what Ulrik just mentioned in terms of the feed price outlook on input factors, it also, it looks more promising going forward. But of course, as I mentioned, in Northern Norway, the ISA was not taken into account, of course, when we talked in Q1. Yeah. Understood. And on the price achievement side, you mentioned sort of risks in North Norway and ISA. Could you just be a bit more detailed about that? Should we expect price achievement mostly to return to normal levels as we go through the second half, maybe with a few issues in Q3 in the North? Or is there anything else, that we should be aware of on that side? Thank you. This is linked to downgrade with the winter sore, actually, in which there we see an improvement in Northern Norway, but we are still not at the level we were, normal level, to call it like that. That takes some time, but we see an improvement, so there will be some effects going into Q3 as well. When it comes to, and that's because of the downgrades, which is ripple effects from the issues we have had from string jellyfish and then the winter sore during the winter period. In Central Norway, we are back more to the normal level. Great. Just a follow-up question on that. Of course, the winter sore seemed to be a much greater issue this year. Just how prepared are you for next winter? And how do you see the risk of downgrades next winter? Due to the winter sore, we are better prepared for next winter than the previous winter. And the reason is that all the smolt that we have put into the sea this year are having the new vaccine against the winter sore bacteria. Of course, there are some fish that have been put in the sea earlier that don't have this vaccine, but a lot of the fish that we should harvest in at least from sometime Q2, and the rest of the year will have the new vaccine. Yeah. In Northern Norway. In Northern Norway, yeah. In addition, I think it's fair to mention that we have also increased our value-added production capabilities, both in Northern Norway, in Central Norway, and in Vikenco, in Aukra. Meaning that we will be able, if there are to come, still are to come some downgraded fish, we are able to handle that internally with our own capabilities, meaning that hopefully we should not be forced to sell that fish at a discount, but be able to use that in our internal production and create healthy value in that fish as well. So both with the respect of the vaccine and increased value-added capabilities, well-done measures. I think it's also fair to mention that due to a big X, which is the jellyfish. Yeah there is still no full value treatment or big knowledge of either when is the jellyfish coming, if it's coming, and how should we protect ourselves? That is still we don't have the right tools to handle it yet, and the knowledge is still so limited, so we really need to hope and cross our fingers that the jellyfish are not coming back next winter. On that, of course, seen some notes on research projects and so on, on jellyfish, since it's such a new occurrence. Are you seeing any points that, yeah, you see that you don't have any tools now? Do you expect some, do you have any projects, or do you expect some projects to close within this so towards next winter, that would reduce the risk there? It's too early to conclude before the winter. Yeah. Of course, we are willing to participate in such projects. Yeah. And there are some projects, and we are supporting some projects. Yeah but, I don't think there will be a sufficient 100% good solution before the next winter. Nothing is leaning against that direction. Yeah, just to underline again, the big uncertainty that is with the spring jellyfish. It was 20 years since we had it last time. Now, it was here. We don't know if it will come next year or if it will be another 20 years, but of course, we can't just rely on that it will be 20 years until we see it next time, so we have to do our utmost to be as prepared as we can be. Yeah. Okay, then, and I think we'll follow on a little bit on Iceland here. Of course, results weren't greatest, and it seems like there's still an ongoing risk of diseases and sort of external impacts. Could you elaborate a bit on when we should expect a more normalized cost level or production in Iceland? Yeah. As we guided, we expect still a high cost base going into the second half, actually, because we will harvest still some of that, for instance, a lower quality fish, the fish that was affected by the lice issues last fall, that will have an effect. So but also the diseased fish, fish that through the season which has had some HSMI, which has led to some extraordinary mortality, that this fish we just planned to be harvested in 2025, at the end of 2025, or the second half at least. So that will have some effect on there, but if you look at some other sites we have in operation, and the smolt transfer we had so far this year has been going really well. That 26,000-ton target, which we have set on the CMD, we are confident to reach in a few years. Our only problem with Iceland is that if this has happened in Norway, we would have just absorbed it in the amount of volume we have. In Iceland, where there is very limited volume, it becomes very visible in the cost base. To sort of the reason for this happening as well, do you see sort of smolt being the key difference to reducing the risk in the region, or do you see any other actions that could mitigate the risk? So smolt is definitely one of the most important here. Of course, when we look into the lice issues, last one is something different, but when we look into the HSMI incident to stay on this note there, we can trace it back to smolt quality. And we have two main smolt facilities there in Iceland, Gileyri and Ísþór. We see that the transfer we had from Gileyri has been really good. Fish is performing well. As we mentioned in Q1, we had an incident in Ísþór. We see that the fish from Ísþór has been performing not so well, but we are doing measures there to prevent this happening in the future. A good thing about these incidents, that we can pinpoint it down to concrete actions where we can do something, and especially on the smolt quality side, actually, and this has been a key focus for Iceland for many years in order to improve this, and we in SalMar from Norway are supporting Icelandic Salmon as well in this, where we are transferring competence. People are staying there for some time and everything in order for them to get on speed and get the best production on there, so we are confident to reach the targets we have set. We are confident that they can be profitable again in the future, but sadly, this year has not been good for Iceland. Regarding the cost, to say that we are talking about Laugardalur and Steinanes, but between those two sites, which also can be compared to generations. They have another two sites, Hringsdalur and Haganes that are performing well and will bring the cost level, the cost released from stock, substantially down. That they are performing well. Steinanes is the autumn 2023. That end of 2025 issue that we will start harvesting from the spring 2023, Haganes early this year, and Hringsdalur will also come in some volume that have normal cost level. Just to understand the challenges that have come from Ísþór, do you see that as just production method? Is it an older facility, or what do you see as sort of bringing competence level up and having a more standardized approach on smolt production there? We have brought some competence to the Ísþór facility as well, and measures have been done. It was disappointing that they get the box this year, but some new measures are taken, and we believe that has ended the chapter, and we can see forward to get a better smolt quality from us, also from Ísþór. Great. And then, following on with Scotland. From now, it seems like things are pretty much back to normal. The last few years have definitely been challenging for all in the region, but the last updates on mortality as well seem really good. Do you expect this summer to be all back to normal and forget the past two years, or how do you see that? I think we expect Scotland to be back on a good path and a good track. Keep in mind that some of the problems in Scotland were also issued by the micro jellyfish. And there have been taken several measures also there due to first and foremost the smolt quality, the smolt size, and also the structure of the locations that we have closed down some repeatedly bad locations and focused on better locations and bigger locations. So we both think and we hope, and we see that Scotland is back on track, and we have no other information than that that should be the case also for the coming quarters. My understanding from earlier there is that it has been quite challenging to get some speed in governmental processes there, but has it been, have you been able to expand size based on applications there, or just using existing sites and approvals? There have been some expansion. Expansion. Expansions, yes, and due to processes with the governments, and maybe it was a small change with the new Minister of Fisheries. She has been several times also visiting Norway and SalMar at Frøya, and with her own eyes both the sea and got well explained the advantages with to have good locations, and also that location, good locations are able to handle bigger volumes. So we have shown her both 160-meter cages, 200-meter cages, and also the Ocean Farm 1. Mm. Show her locations with 12-14 thousand tons with fish. I think both she and several other staff were quite convinced over what we have been doing in the central part of Norway in SalMar. Yeah, and I will just like to add that I feel that there is a very constructive dialogue with the Scottish authorities. They are very eager to see what we have done here in Norway, see how they could look at their location base and say, "Okay, perhaps there could be something closing down small, inefficient sites and increasing capabilities on good sites." And also looking into how they can expand into offshore fish farming as well. So I, the dialogue has been really good over the last period of time. Yeah, and that's a very relevant bridge there to offshore farming. Because, yeah, you've talked a little bit about before as well, that might not be with some political risk in Norway, might not be possible to proceed there. But how long do you think it will take to be able to set up a similar kind of a framework in Scotland, if that was the place you would follow through with? Yeah. I will not give you an exact timeline, Bill, but I will say this, that they are looking into how they could potentially facilitate one ocean farm, right? And then you perhaps could have a pilot opportunity. Of course, Scotland is attractive for us because there we already have a value chain. We think that is really important. If you are to establish offshore farming, you need to have your smolt production, you need to have your harvesting capabilities, you need to have your value-added capabilities. And if you get, for example, a pilot issued, you can in parallel work with a more fixed framework for offshore farming. So it's been a good and a healthy dialogue, and also, of course, also an important dialogue for us. After the recent tax discussions in Norway has shown that you can't place all your, all your eggs in one basket, and you consistently need to look at other opportunities to expand that part of our industry as well. Yeah, and it's not, of course, that much to say on results from the semi-offshore farms this quarter, but it's how would you describe the biological development there? Is it still looking promising at this point, or? Yeah. We have had very good results over all the four production cycles in the Ocean Farm 1. As a total in all of these four production cycles, we have had two sea lice treatments, one in the third generations and one in the fourth, compared to perhaps seven and eight in commercial farms in the same areas. We have had very strong on growth, very strong survival rates, and also very good quality of the harvested fish that's out there. All of this giving us proof that this is a direction that we want to continue to explore, and also gives us fuel in the pursuit of other areas where we can make this endeavor, if not, even if we are not to succeed here in Norway. Yeah. And on the downstream operations, of course, been quite an expansion story the last couple of years, with InnovaNord. How do you see operation and sort of operational results when you strip away the effects from contracts? Do you see an improvement there, or ahead, or are we at a quite stabilized level now? Now we see, and, of course, now we have a healthy competition between InnovaMar and InnovaNord internally. So we see, they are performing operationally well, and we have done some minor alterations on InnovaMar this year, which is classic maintenance upgrades, and which is performing well now. But we see they are working efficiently. They are able to handle large volumes at the time when we want them to handle that, so that is working good for us. And also in terms of processing, as mentioned earlier, we are expanding a little bit the processing capacity on all of our facilities in order so to make the facilities even more flexible in producing the right product at the right time. So we are very happy with the facilities we have. And, as you say, if you strip away the contract effects in the first half, they would have delivered a positive result. And also, if you talk about the contracts in so far in this third quarter, they have delivered positive. Great. Just with the expansion you're talking about there, are these sort of major CapEx investments, or is it just on the regular maintenance CapEx levels? If you take InnovaMar and InnovaNord first, there we are just adding a little bit more line. We had the idle line at InnovaMar we are taking into use, and on InnovaNord we have added some more packing stations, which increases the capacity. The facility was built with scalability in mind, so that was planned from the get-go. And a little bit larger one was actually a week ago, but there we are also expanding more on the harvesting side as well, and have more harvesting capacity, which will come on stream now the second half. So, in total, if you go back to our Q4 presentation, we are still on the levels we guided on there when it comes to CapEx from sales and industry, actually. Actually, from the Q4 presentation, are there any major changes to that? Of course, there are some, talking quite a lot about the lice lasers that you're using in the Region North, in particular. Any major changes to those CapEx levels or plans? The figures we presented are still valid, and the lice lasers were included in that figure. What has been in addition actually was commented in this presentation today. One is the MAB we bought at the traffic light system, which was bought in fixed price and in the auction round. Bear in mind, the auction round will come in Q3 because we paid and got the licenses in July, actually, and then we also announced today that we have bought the remaining owner share in Refneslaks, which is settled in cash, and then the other one was a minor one, which was settled in shares, but that's the main deviation from what we commented on from Q4, actually. Great. And, I think it's a little bit of a final for me. Could you explain a little bit just on the purpose of the Salmon Lab you're talking about? Of course, it's a major investments that would be split on interested parties. Could you... Little bit about the development and what you see the sort of the end result of that investment would be? Yeah. So the Salmon Living Lab comes to fuel our continuous work on the fish health and closing knowledge gap, and aiding our search of the optimal production for the fish. Because what we see is that if you have the best sites, you have optimal fish welfare, you have high survival rates, you also have the best product and the lowest cost. So what we are seeing that we are over the last years, we have had a development that has been going in the wrong directions, and we are not getting our hands around why we are seeing this development. Of course, we know that sea lice is the major contributor to a lot of it, but it's not the full answer. That's why we are saying that we now have a partner with Cargill, to look at nutrition, to look at smolt, to look at facilities, to look at capabilities, to look at ground research and more low-hanging fruits, to see if it can help to aid our knowledge in all of these type of areas, and to speed up how we could take that new knowledge into our production, and by that, also turn the trend that we have seen for some years now in a positive direction. We are very enthusiastic about this Living Lab. We have also seen that the initiative has had a great response out there. We have now had more than 100 participants that are interested that want to participate in the initiative from eleven different countries. And today we also announced that we have hired a CEO for the Salmon Living Lab, Kristine Hartmann, which will help us in this work. And of course, we also see a very enthusiastic partner in Cargill. So hopefully, this will be another tool that is helping our ongoing day-to-day, to help turn the development that we have seen over some time by bringing new know-how, new knowledge into our industry, and by that, again, helping also with our target to produce as healthy and sustainable fish as possible. Great. Yeah, seems like that's yeah, very, very good response from a lot of interested parties there, also political and yeah, sort of public opinion, so really good to see that, so that's really what I have of questions. Any more questions around? Yeah, one more from Sharda. Yeah. Just on the sustainability of the NOK 35 dividend you gave this last year, is this a new baseline or was there any element of one-off in that? You mentioned a dividend of NOK 35 per share? Yeah. Yeah. And so we have stated the dividend policy. If we are between one- we want to be between one and a half and two and a half in debt and leverage ratio. And as you see from the numbers today, we are still within that range, and we are happy with that. And of course, this is dependent on the results we produce and everything, but we are happy with the level we propose now, based on the results we delivered last year in 2023 as well. So we, our dividend policy is unchanged, and remains the same when we will in Q4 next time announce the dividends for 2024. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. So if we don't have any more question, I think we can close it at this point. So, yeah. I think that's it for now. So thank you all for joining, and thank you, SalMar, so much for presenting and answering all the questions. And see you again in not too long. Thank you, all. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.