Good afternoon and welcome to Shearwater's Q3 presentation. We appreciate that you join us this Friday afternoon. My name is Irene Waage Basili, and I'm the CEO of Shearwater. Joining me, as usual today, is our CFO, Andreas Aubert. Here's today's agenda, where I will start off with the main takeaways of the quarter before going into the operations. Andreas will then go through the financial update before I return to the outlook and a brief summary. And as we usually do after the presentation, we will open up for questions in a Q&A session, where we take the call-in participants first and then the submitted written questions thereafter. As always, please note the disclaimer. Let us start with the key takeaways this quarter. As expected, we experienced a muted contract market with low acquisition activity, much in line with what we saw in the second quarter. This impacted the financial performance, with EBITDA coming in at around $5 million. We delivered a fleet utilization of 68%, reflecting fewer contracts awarded for the 2025 summer season. However, this is up from 61% in the same period last year. On the OBN side, we maintained a good activity level with two active crews throughout the period, and we'll get back to that in more detail later. Late in the quarter and into Q4, we prepared the third season of multi-client acquisition in Pelotas Basin in Brazil, with the Shearwater Empress steaming over from West Africa to Brazil in late October, and marine acquisition is expected to start in a few days. This is one of the most promising exploration regions in the world, and we are systematically expanding our multi-client library here with solid industry funding together with our partner, Searcher. India being a key market to us, I'm also pleased that in September, we were awarded a large combined 2D and 3D streamer contract by Oil India. At quarter end, the backlog stood at $413 million. Please note that we've started to include committed multi-client projects in the backlog, and we have not adjusted historical figures for that. Yesterday, some of you may have seen that we announced a two-month 4D OBN contract for a Shell-operated field off the Sabah west coast. The contract was included in our backlog since Q2 of 2025, but it will be executed in early 2026 using the Shearwater Tasman for single-vessel operations, meaning that it's covering both the node deployment and the seismic source work with one vessel. After this project, Shearwater Tasman will have completed over two years of consecutive projects, a fact which we are quite proud about. Overall, despite a strong track record for the Shearwater Tasman, year-to-date order intake for the fleet remains muted, and we continue to experience low visibility. Despite several leads and tender processes pending, we see a cautious stance in investing from our clients, and this results in a timing risk, which we also need to account for in the period ahead. We would like to reiterate that we expect a sideways market to continue, as we've seen over the past years, but with quarterly variations also to continue. Therefore, we remain focused on optimizing operations and financial performance through strategic measures to increase efficiency, right-sizing the organization, reduce costs, and free up liquidity in response to the expected activity levels in the coming periods, while maintaining our scalable ability to grow when needed. We are well underway aligning the organization to the expected activity levels, and we already see the effects of the cost reset program that we have initiated. This is in line with Shearwater's strategy from the outset of being designed to absorb the inherent short-term volatility of the seismic industry in which we've seen over many years. We communicated in Q2 an expectation for significant multi-client revenue in the second half of 2025, but also with uncertainty regarding the timing on quarterly distribution between Q3 and Q4. Revenue for Q3 was delayed to Q4, and we ended Q3 with a leverage ratio above the bank covenant threshold. The bank's syndicate has provided a waiver for this. Based on multi-client revenue recognized to date in Q4 and potential further sales, we expect to meet the threshold at year-end. Andreas will give more details on this on the financials later in the presentation. Then, moving to the operational update. Overall activity was, as communicated, low, reflecting few contracts awarded for the northern hemisphere summer season. We operated an average of 7.8 active vessels, which is relatively flat from 8.1 active vessels in the previous quarter. Streamer activity was focused on Brazil for Petrobras and West Africa for TotalEnergies under the long-term capacity agreement, which some of you may recall we announced earlier this year. In the North Sea, the Conqueror conducted a one-month 4D survey for Equinor. The vessel was reactivated for the survey, which offered attractive returns, and also to ensure availability for the IsoMetrix technology for future demand, which we see in a number of pending tenders that we are processing as we speak. And we are hopeful that we will have the vessel on a new contract for further work in not too long. We also acquired multi-client 2D data off West Africa. In the OBN segment, we had two active crews, one on the 4D survey for ExxonMobil in Guyana and one on the Tasman Pearl platform working on consecutive contracts in West Africa. In a softer and competitive contract streamer market, we remain consistent and disciplined in our fleet management. This is shown in the chart to the right, which illustrates clearly Shearwater's active high-end 3D streamer vessels in the contract market compared to the rest of the industry. As you can see, we have reduced the fleet allocated to the streamer contract market since Q1 2024, and you will also see the same trend in the absolute figures from Q3 2024 for our reported active fleet, which includes vessels allocated to multi-client and OBN as well. Margins in our backlog peaked in the summer of 2024 and have since then been under pressure in varying degrees. As a response, we've utilized our flexible operational model and proactively scaled down our active fleet overall to match the capacity with demand visibility. And as previously communicated, we are doing this even more assertively now than in prior years. This approach ensures that we remain flexible, utilizing our versatile fleet while protecting margins in an increasingly competitive environment. Just to update on the current quarter, we continue to work with the two OBN crews, and I'm pleased to see that our proprietary Tasman platform executing the first deep-water OBN project offshore Ghana for Tullow. The contract was awarded in August, and we commenced the project execution in early Q4. As mentioned in the key takeaways, yesterday we announced a two-month 4D OBN contract for a Shell-operated field utilizing the Shearwater Tasman for a single-vessel project execution, extending our streak of consecutive work for the Shearwater Tasman over two years, which is truly unique for the industry. I would like to point out here we've worked for Aker BP, ONGC, CSR, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Tullow, Tullow, and Shell upcoming in this consecutive two-year period, which is quite impressive. This affirms our leadership and ability to deliver value in a competitive OBN market. We're also underway with the large India survey that I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, in November, we experienced a streamer incident on the Shearwater Bly while conducting the 3D part of the survey. Operational implications were limited as the Shearwater Bly continues with its 2D scope, and together with the clients, we have agreed on revising the sequence of the 3D and the 2D scope. Leveraging our versatile fleet again and our good streamer pool, we are able to rapidly mobilize another vessel to do the 3D part later and minimize the impact on the overall project execution, much to the benefit of our client as well. The financial implication of some lost uptime, equipment loss, and mobilizing another vessel is expected to be largely offset by the insurance settlement. The net impact should be in the single digits, and we see some timing uncertainties on the quarterly distributions from this. In the multi-client segment, disciplined multi-client investments has positioned Shearwater as a fully integrated marine seismic provider. Currently, the Shearwater Empress is mobilizing for data acquisition in the third Pelotas Basin season with solid industry backing. Data collection is expected to continue into early Q2 next year. We also continue the industry-supported 2D multi-client survey off the west coast of Africa in Q4. I then hand over the word to Andreas for the financial part of the update. Thank you, Irene. Revenue was $146 million in Q3, which is down 18% from the same quarter last year, which is on the back of lower activity with fewer vessels in operation. This also impacted the quarterly EBITDA, which ended just over $5 million, equaling an EBITDA margin of 4%. EBITDA will fluctuate in line with varying activity, vessel utilization, and project mix. We go to the segments. Marine acquisition reflected the slow market with a marginally negative EBITDA contribution. This is a material decrease compared to Q3 of last year. As referred to by Irene, our margins in our backlog peaked in mid-2024 and have since been under pressure. We have been disciplined, and we scaled down our active fleet, and this has hit us relatively hard in a quarter with low activity, as we have seen in Q3 of 2025. We had $12 million in contribution from multi-client, and this segment EBITDA will increase significantly in the fourth quarter as revenues are recognized with data being delivered to clients. The software processing and imaging business continue to deliver positive EBITDA, and this is an important part of our offering, even though contributions are small in figures. In the other segment, we have SG&A and R&D costs, which were halved from Q3 of 2024. There are several things that contribute to this, but our ongoing initiatives to optimize costs play its part. Moving over to the cash flow. To the left, you see the development in our cash position from the end of Q2 2025 to the end of Q3. As covered on the previous slide, EBITDA contribution was short of $5 million. Then we had CapEx in the quarter of $2 million, and this compares to $11 million that we invested in Q3 2024, and it reflects our reduced non-critical investments, which is in line with our focus on conserving capital in the current market environment. Multi-client investments were of $5 million. They were mainly related to the 2D project off West Africa. We reduced the working capital by $23 million in the quarter, and net cash inflow from financing was $13 million. This was mainly reflected by the drawdown on the revolving credit facility, which was partly offset by interest costs. Also, as previously communicated, we have agreed with our banks to postpone two 2025 installments to January 2027. That means that we have no installments in Q3 and Q4 of this year, which would have been $12.5 million each. Cash position was $81 million at the end of Q3, which is up $34 million from the previous quarter. The credit facility was fully drawn at quarter end, which means that free liquidity equals the period ending cash holding, and that remains well above our bond covenant. On free cash flow, this ended at positive $20 million for the quarter. Free cash flow also naturally fluctuates in line with varying activity and working capital changes as vessels and equipment mobilize and execute projects. Turning to our balance sheet, we start off with a leverage ratio in the top left, which is calculated as net debt over EBITDA in the last 12 months. As mentioned by Irene, in Q3, we were impacted by expected multi-client sales being delayed to Q4. Therefore, the leverage ratio increased to 6.1 at the end of the quarter, which is up from 4.1 three months earlier, and it's above the threshold in our bank facility agreement. We maintain a close dialogue with our banks, and the delayed multi-client sales are purely a timing effect, and they have provided a covenant waiver for the end of Q3. To follow up on that, to date, in Q4, and in line with expectations, we have recognized more than $30 million of multi-client revenue, primarily related to the Pelotas data library. This is anticipated to ease the leverage ratio at the end of the year. Further, we may complete additional multi-client data deliveries to clients, which may add to the revenue and EBITDA in Q4. The net interest-bearing debt is calculated, as you see in the bottom right, and stood at $541 million at the end of Q3. This also gave an equity ratio of 38% at the end of Q3, slightly down from three months earlier. If we look quickly at our debt structure on the top right, as just covered on the previous slide, we have agreed with our banks to postpone the two H2 2025 installments to January of 2027. This means that we have no installments in Q3 and Q4 this year. When we get into 2026, installments will be as originally scheduled, and that will also be the case in 2027, when we also will pay the two deferred installments in Q1 of 2027, and then in 2028 and 2029, it is back to the original schedule. Also, to be clear, with the waived leverage ratio threshold, Shearwater complied with all other financial covenants at the end of Q3 2025. In July, we announced a number of measures to reduce cost and CapEx, which will conserve capital and improve free liquidity. These measures reflect our view that the overall market will move sideways into next year. We have started to realize cost reductions, and we have scaled back on non-essential investments, and to add to this, we've introduced further improvement measures to optimize the organization. That includes the right sizing of Shearwater to prepare for the future. Through this program, we're not just reacting to the market conditions, we're actively reshaping how we're structured and how we work to align for the years ahead. We expect that these new measures will further enhance free liquidity on an annual basis of approximately $20 million, and this brings the total targeted cost-based reductions towards $40 million annually, which adds to the earlier communicated changes in the bank agreement and the lower CapEx, and other initiatives, such as potential vessel sales, are progressing and will support fleet optimization and ensure resilience while maintaining scalability for when demand for our services increases again. That marks the end of the financial update, and I hand the word back to you, Irene. Thank you, Andreas. For the fourth quarter, we expect marine acquisition activity to remain broadly in line with Q3, and we continue to exercise discipline in both tendering and fleet management. On the multi-client side, we've seen strong contributions this quarter as processed data is delivered to clients. So far, we've recognized over $30 million in Q4 and expect that there is good potential for additional sales before the year-end. In Pelotas Basin, the third acquisition season is underway with the Shearwater Empress mobilizing as we speak, and this is fully aligned with our focused multi-client strategy, where we maintain strict return requirements and are increasing activity gradually and responsibly. Our backlog at the end of November sits around $393 million. This includes, as I've said before, multi-client commitments as well as the minimum guaranteed vessel months from the TotalEnergies capacity agreement. We're also strengthening our position in OBN, leveraging proven Tasman and Pearl solution with a wide range of clients that you will recall I mentioned earlier, which delivers operational efficiencies and superior data quality. Dialogues with clients, including several super majors, are progressing well, and we're seeing more multi-client interest from the latter category in particular. While this isn't yet reflected in the backlog, these are indeed very positive signals going forward. Looking beyond the near-term headwinds and the current market conditions expected to continue into 2026, the long-term outlook is positive. Several industry majors are signaling the clear need for more exploration, which is only logical given the need to replenish reserves and secure future production to support energy needs in the future. To conclude, Q3 reflected decreased streamer activity as anticipated. The expected multi-client revenue is coming in now in Q4, and we continue to expand our data set in the Pelotas Basin, further building our position in this segment with solid industry support. Our efficiency improvement and cost reset program is progressing to plan with additional measures to free up liquidity. This includes right-sizing the organization and focusing also the organization on increased efficiency and scalability. Longer term, we are getting positive signals in our various client dialogues from the E&P industry and expect demand for marine seismic to increase. This supports our firm view that it's not a question of if, but rather a question of when, going back to the risk that we've seen on the timeline rather than whether the increased demand will come. So, with everything we do now to build resilience to cater for the timing uncertainty, we're doing it in a way where we proactively aim to capitalize on capturing the growth in the market when it comes. Then we are ready for the Q&A, and I hand over the word to the operator. We'll take our first question from Øyvind Hagen. Arctic, your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. If I could start just to understand what you're saying about multi-client sales in Q4, does all of this revenue have a cash impact in Q4 as well, or is there some of this revenue that has already been collected in the form of cash, or that will be significantly deferred? Yeah. So, the revenue we expect on the multi-client in Q4, most of that will also have a cash impact. But, of course, it depends on the agreement, and the timing of cash in doesn't always reflect the timing of revenue recognition. And I think that there will be some cash that's already been collected and revenues that will come later. And there will sometimes be the opposite, where you take a revenue, but the actual cash doesn't come in until a bit later. But I would say that, by and large, it's not a huge difference between the two for this particular upcoming quarter, at least if I factor in the fact that some of the invoices going out in Q4 will probably be collected in Q1. Okay. I understand. And then on other working capital related to ordinary streamer contracts that you are carrying out now in Q3, do you expect a working capital release from that activity as well next quarter? As I've said before, working capital is, of course, related to activity, but it's also quite a lot related to some, yeah, very short-term timing effects, whether a client with a large invoice based on the last day of one quarter or the first day of next quarter, that will have a huge impact on working capital. But if you sort of look aside from that, I actually hope that working capital will increase, that we will tie up more working capital towards the end of the year because that will be as a result of increased activity, which we definitely hope will be the case. Excellent. And then one final question going into 2026. It looks like liquidity now for Q3 was around $80 million. Sounds like that could potentially improve dependent on streamer working capital in delta in Q4. How do you see liquidity developing through 2026 given this sideways market that you are preparing for? Yeah. Of course, it's difficult to be certain and precise around how liquidity will develop because it will, of course, be heavily dependent on the activity level that we have and the contract that we are able to secure. But we are, as you say, preparing for a sideways market. And when we are looking at the sideways market, we are doing everything that we can in order to improve liquidity for what's within our control. The activity level that we have and how much our clients are shooting off seismic is really not within our control. So, of course, we have done the changes to the loan agreement that we communicated earlier this year, both with the postponed installments that's helping us this year, not so much next year, the change in the covenant that is a permanent change, the reduced CapEx that we have seen, the reduced cost that we have talked about also in the presentation with once we have all those effects into play, hoping to come up towards $40 million in the reduced cost base. And also, I expect that will be a question from someone later related to vessel sales. That's something that we are also continuing to work with that will hopefully improve. And that is sort of what we're doing within the scenario that we are looking at for next year with a flat or flattish activity level going into the new year. Perfect. Thank you very much. That's all from me. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad now. We'll pause for a quick moment to allow everyone an opportunity to signal for questions. We will take our next question from Steffen Evjen, DNB Carnegie. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I have three questions, if I may. The first one is for the upcoming summer season in Norway in 2026. I guess this was one of the few bright spots in 2025 for the industry. What are your expectations for anywhere up there, and how much do we think about pricing, given your comment on the competitive landscape? And my second question is on the multi-client side. Could you provide any indication of what kind of CapEx levels you expect on multi-client annually going forward, and also what kind of sales to investment ratios are you targeting from this business, I guess, over time when it becomes more mature? And a general question relating to Irene's comment in the report regarding more competitive streamer contract market. Is it fair to assume that day rates on contract work in 2026 will generally be lower than what was for 2025? Yeah, that's the questions I have. Thank you, Steffen. Then I'll take two of the questions and pass it back to Andreas for one of the questions. So, starting with the North Sea season, I think it's fair to say that the sort of historical pattern that we've seen, that the North Sea summer season has been a home for a fair amount of the seismic capacity, those days are kind of over. You will see certain seasons when you have more activity than others. You will see certain seasons when you have one or the other player stringing together sort of what could be seen as a somewhat sensible overall season with decent utilization. And I think you see that in the political environment also in Norway, as well as in the U.K., is that the overall activity level is more sporadic and varied than what we have been used to see in historical years. On the other hand, you have other southern markets being so really where that's replacing the North Sea, where you have more activity, where you typically didn't have activity before. So, to some extent, you can see that these things are evening out. But similarly to what we had, if you go back 10 years or so when the Gulf of Mexico or Gulf of America, whatever one chooses to call it these days, that market no longer absorbs a lot of streamer capacity either. There you've seen that nodes are taking over, and you can say, to some extent, you could say that there's a bit more node in the North Sea as well. But in general, the North Sea is a less active market than what we've seen before. Over to your question on the competitive pricing. Unfortunately, what we've seen, and it's a bit odd in some ways, given that we have a very concentrated supply side, but we have seen a continued downward pressure on margins. We focus on the margins rather than the day rates because we live from our margins, not from our turnover. We've seen a downward pressure on the margins basically since Q1 of 2024. That's when they peaked. The pressure has been sort of varied in varying degrees depending on what quarter. We've seen that it has continued throughout this year, despite the fact that we thought it would flatten out earlier in the year. Our response to that has been to take capacity out of the market. So, if you look at Q3 last year, we had 11.1 active vessels, whereas this year we have 7.8 active vessels overall, which is a total reduction of 30% of what we have active capacity out there. So, of course, what you need to do in a concentrated market is you have the ability to, and you should control your supply side. But we do continue to see that there is downward pressure on particularly the streamer space. I don't know if that covered what you needed to do. If I'll hand it over to Andreas then. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. And the question on multi-client, we don't really have a target in terms of what we want to see invested in multi-client. As we've said previously, our multi-client strategy is not about building a large library to compete with the traditional multi-client players, but to look at each and every project by itself and go for the ones where we see a good risk-reward profile. And that could be a low-risk project where we have, yeah, more or less contract-type margins because it's basically fully pre-funded. Or it could be projects where you are willing to take on more risk because you see a higher potential reward. And I would say that overall, we will probably be on the cautious side, but I think the exact level of what we end up with as the sort of reported multi-client investments next year will heavily depend on the different projects that we have in front of us and which ones we decide to go for and which ones we don't. But I think it's important to note that not all of our multi-client, probably a relatively low portion of our multi-client investments over time will be heavily risky type projects. And that also sort of leads into your question around what type of sales-to-investment ratio you can expect because if there is a project where you have all the funding from one client and you don't really expect any late sales and you therefore don't take any risk, you can't expect the same kind of return as a project where you start without any pre-funding at all and you have a long list of potential buyers of that data. So I think it's very difficult to say we don't have a specific target. We have a target to take the projects where we feel that risk and reward is correct without having a set target on what that overall sales-to-investment ratio will end up being. Okay. That's perfect. Thanks. Thanks, guys. I'll wrap it back. There are no audio questions, so I will now hand you back over to the floor for written questions. Thank you. We have received a question regarding the announced contract by Shell in Malaysia. If we could elaborate on time and transportation costs from Ghana, how are these costs compensated by this short contract? And furthermore, what is the plan for this vessel beyond the term of this contract? Additionally, noting that prior projects for Tasman included another vessel alongside, what are the benefits and downsides of running one vessel on the Shell-Malaysia contract? And what's the overall impact on profitability? Okay. I can start. I would say that as in any project, when we bid a project, we will take into consideration both the time that we expect to execute the actual project, but we will also take the transit cost to that project into consideration when we bid a price. That's something that we have done here as well. We know where the vessel would come from, and we have taken the cost of getting the vessel to the survey area outside of Malaysia into consideration. And since we have typically seen most of the work lately for Tasman in the Africa region, we've also taken into consideration that it's probably that we want to steam the vessel back towards that region afterwards. So it's not really something that is part of a contract one-for-one, but it's part of our bid estimate. And we are satisfied with the total revenues that we get on this project compared to the total cost that we have in this project. And that includes the transit. Hope that answered the question. And then the other one was around the benefits or what the effect is of not having the Magellan, as you correctly say. In a lot of OBN projects, you will put down a substantial amount of nodes. And to have an efficient survey, you will then have a source vessel that starts to acquire or do the source effort as you are laying down the nodes. And then you are sort of moving the nodes if that's needed, and then you have two vessels working continuously together. For this specific project, the node count isn't very large. And as already pointed out, it's a long steam. So this is exactly where you get the full benefits of the Tasman Pearl platform, where you can utilize the fact that Tasman is the only vessel in the world currently that can both lay the nodes and do the source work afterwards. So you can actually transit one large vessel from West Africa over to Malaysia and then maybe back rather than two. So that takes down our costs and hopefully makes us more competitive so that we can achieve better margins than competition at the same rates for that specific project. As for the Gallien, I would say that it's not yet decided whether she will stay active or not. It will depend on the visibility and outlook that we have for her once the current project is over. Thank you. Another question here. Have you been in discussion with your shareholders regarding a capital increase? I think that sort of points back to the question earlier around liquidity. And I talked about the various things that we have done to improve our liquidity. And we are definitely working on a scenario where everything that we are doing and everything that is within our control is key focus and what we're mostly focused on. But of course, we have said in the past that we continue to have close dialogue with key stakeholders, and that is banks, naturally. And it's also the majority shareholder, naturally. And the majority shareholder, they've invested quite significantly into Shearwater over a decade soon because they believe in the business case, and they still believe in the business case. And of course, in those discussions, we've also talked about what potential solutions there could be if any of the other scenarios where we will require more capital or liquidity is actually what is materializing. But as I said, our focus is on the scenario that we think we have ahead of us, which is something that we are doing everything that is within our control to handle without the need for any further capital. Thank you. With regards to your comment about the streamer contract market becoming more competitive, how do you view this market against the OBN market now? I think the supply side on these, and when you're in an asset-heavy business, you always need to watch the supply side. That's the most important. The demand will vary, but the supply is what you can actually do something about or not. What we've said in previous quarters, in fact, previous years, is that the OBN market continues to be immature, and it's quite fragmented on the supplier side with a number of, I wouldn't say subscale is the right definition, but with a number of providers that have different business models, many of them containing sort of leased components, be it leased source vessels, leased ROV vessels, leased nodes, and leased crews, or a combination of those factors. That remains the fact. When you look at the streamer market, it's entirely different. I think I alluded to it in the previous question. It is very concentrated and depending on how you count, but you're actually looking at a market where somewhere around 80% plus of the supply side is controlled by two players. So the supply side is very, very different. And yeah, so I think what we're seeing now is that although I wouldn't say it is as erratic as we have at times seen in the OBN space, but that despite the concentrated supply side, you also have downward pressure on the margins on the streamer side. Thank you. How do you plan to build your multi-client organization? Will you have more multi-client investments in 2026 versus 2025? And could you consider doing projects on your own, or will it continue to be in partnerships? Yeah, and I think Andreas commented on the anticipated investments in 2026, so I guess that's covered. But when we're talking about our multi-client organization, we've grown into this market organically, which is also quite unusual. Most companies come into this market by buying already existing libraries. We've chosen a strategy based on partnerships and based on sort of scrutiny on the particular projects that we have decided to enter into together with partners. We see also that what our respective partners have as their strategy may be different depending on regions. Those strategies may also be different, whether it's like what you would call traditional multi-client with good late sales potential or more converted contracts where you have limited late sales potential, and it's more sort of the regular margin picture that you would see in the contract space. You still need to have the organization to cater for the multi-client world, even if you're pursuing the converted contract space, where we see that our traditional multi-client partners are not necessarily all that focused on that bit of the market. We have continued to build up our multi-client organization in-house so that we can do our own permitting, just to mention one example, BDMs in all the regions, and pursue this market on our own or with a variety of partners if we choose to do so. But we tend to take a rather careful approach where we grow gradually and sensibly. As to the last part of the question, will we consider doing projects on our own? We will prefer partnerships where that makes sense. That will always be our preferred avenue. But depending on circumstance, there could be, and of course, risk-reward, there could be examples of where we also will do it on our own keel. Thank you. Next question. How is the work going in the Pelotas Basin in southern Brazil, and when will you have all the data collected? We are in the process of mobilizing for the project. We hope to be in production, as we say, in the relatively near-term future, hopefully within, yeah, a few days. In terms of when we expect to conclude, well, based on current estimates, we think that we will continue to acquire data there until early April or thereabouts. Thank you. Next question. Can you explain why you didn't recognize multi-client revenues in the past and are doing it now? And how does this impact your leverage ratio? Okay. So if we go back a few years, we did some multi-client or in partnership with others, we had some projects where we had parts of our upside depending on late sales of those projects. It was not then a strategic area that we were focused on. Therefore, and it was quite small, so we decided to book it as if it was a contract job, meaning that we took the cost of the project when we did the project. We took the revenue of the project as we were able to invoice it to either the collaborating party or the end client. So it was not massive. We started to see that multi-client became a larger part of our business. It's still not a major part of our business, but it became a larger part of our business. And that we felt that we should start to, it was right to start to book it accordingly. That means that when we make a multi-client investment, we will capitalize that cost. And it means that when we deliver data, there will often be different milestones in the various contracts. We can only recognize the revenue at that time, meaning that we typically won't be recognizing a lot of revenue during the period that we are doing the acquisition. Yeah, and hopefully that also answers the question indirectly on the leverage ratio. It means that probably more often than not, over time, all revenue should, of course, hit our books, but probably we are pushing a bit more revenue ahead of us than we have in the past. The investments will come in as an investment rather than an OpEx. Thank you. Could you give some rough estimates of how big Q4 multi-client revenues could be? And second part, how much has been added to backlog versus Q3? And a comparable backlog figure. Yeah. On the question around the backlog figure, we have sort of not and will not show the split between multi-client and contract going forward. I think there are several reasons to that. One of them being that, and we talked about this before, in the multi-client space, you have converted contracts that are very close to, if not fully, contract projects that are coming in the suite of a multi-client project. So it doesn't really make sense to make that differentiation. So that's one reason for it. And we don't think that it makes sense to show that split because, yeah. So in terms of Q3, we won't say what the number is in Q3. The reason why we haven't gone back and changed the numbers historically is because the numbers haven't been very large. So we don't feel that it's really, if you look at our Q2 number, for instance, on backlog, that it's not a large part of that backlog, and therefore not really relevant to go back and restate those historical numbers. And the first part of the question, could you remind me what that was? That was the Q4 revenues. Yeah. Well, we have already recognized more than $30 million, as we mentioned in the presentation. And we haven't gone out with a number of what could potentially come on top of that. It definitely won't double, but we hope that there could be some upside to the above 30 number that we have expressed. But it's quite binary as well. Some of these processes and some of these sales, whether a sale happens in late December or early January or February, it's very binary, but it could have a significant impact on revenue. Therefore, it's very difficult to predict exactly where that will end. Thank you. That was the last of the unanswered questions from the chat. So I hand the word back to the operator. There are no questions over the audio line. Please proceed. Okay. And all that remains is to thank you very much for your attention and to wish you a lovely weekend. Thanks.