Good morning and welcome to TGS Q1 2025 results presentation. My name is Bård Stenberg, Vice President of Investor Relations and Business Intelligence in TGS. Today's presentation will be given by CEO Kristian Johansen and CFO Sven Børre Larsen. Before we start, I would like to give some practical information. For those of you on the webcast, you can type in your questions during the presentation, and we will address those after management's concluding remarks. For those of you in Oslo, there is no need for a microphone, so the sound feeds automatically into the system. I would also like to draw your attention to the forward-looking statement showing on the screen and available in today's earnings release and presentation. Please study that carefully. With that, it's my pleasure to give the word to you, Kristian. Thank you, Bård. Let's hit the Q1 highlights right away. We had total revenues of about $451 million. That compares to $433 million in the same quarter of last year. Those numbers are obviously pro forma for PGS and TGS. EBITDA of $258 million compared to $239 million in Q1 of 2024. These numbers are driven by strong multi-client performance. We had particularly strong sales and high interest for data in frontier areas, which is great to see that our clients are finally coming back to frontier areas in their exploration efforts. Significant year-over-year improvement in asset utilization also helped on the numbers, which means that we had a net cash flow of $78 million in the quarter, which means that our net debt is now down to a level of about $450 million. Again, a solid balance sheet, which allows for stable dividends of $0.155 per share. I'll give you a brief business update and look at the acquisition activity in Q1 of 2025 as well. I think this map shows the diversity of our activities and our businesses based on some of the strategic actions we've made over the past few years. Starting with OBN, we had three OBN operations, all in the U.S. Gulf of America. Two of these were 4D surveys for contract clients, and then one was a contract with a multi-client player doing exploration seismic. In terms of NES operations, so new energy solutions operations, you see one dot in California. We had a LiDAR campaign for offshore wind in California. We had another one in Germany, and then we had a site characterization project in the U.K. that started very late in the quarter. So we hardly had any revenues recognized from that in Q1. Going further down the line, we have onshore projects. We had an onshore project in the Lower 48 in the U.S., and then we had MC, so multi-client vessel operations, two in Brazil, in the equatorial margin of Brazil. We had one in Angola as well, and then we had a third-party vessel working for us on a multi-client project in Argentina, as you see from the map. Finally, on the contract vessel operations, we had one vessel in Brazil in the quarter. We had one vessel in Namibia and one in India. So a very busy quarter. I think the map really makes a good job in showing where most of our activity is these days in terms of the South Atlantic area that you see with Africa and Latin America dominated by Brazil, Gulf of America, of course, Europe, and then some activity in Asia as well. If we move on to the different business units, we had a very strong quarter for our multi-client business. It's driven by high client commitment to ongoing service. As I said, strong sales of vintage library in frontier areas, which is, of course, very positive in terms of the outlook for the market. We see some of our clients are finally going back to frontier exploration and realize that they haven't really filled up their data needs over the past few years. As a result, there's a little bit of a catch-up there. We had multi-client investments of about $130 million in the quarter. As you see, the last 12 months' sales-to-investment is about 2.2, which is higher than the average for TGS going 30 years back. 2.2 is a very, very strong figure and compares really well with last year's last 12 months, which was about 1.6, as you see from the table below the picture. In terms of key projects, we have announced a new multi-client project in the Barents Sea. Barents Sea is obviously seeing a little bit of an upswing based on the need for or increased need for gas in Europe. This is scheduled to start early August. I already touched on the Palma phase I project in the equatorial margin of Brazil, where we actually had two vessels. We switched vessels during the course of the survey. We had the Malvinas phase III survey offshore Argentina, where we now have a data library of about 25,000 sq km in the Malvinas Basin. This was a project where we actually used a third-party vessel, as I said previously. Talking about the strong performance in multi-client, this one shows our performance over time in terms of sales to investment, and it also shows the market share that we have in the multi-client market. Starting with the market share, about 63% of all the global investment since 2018 has been carried out by TGS. Obviously, this is a pro forma number, so it includes TGS, PGS, Spectrum, ION. I may have forgotten someone, but definitely a very, very strong market share in multi-client. I can't say how much of a strategic advantage it is to have such a big multi-client library, because it means that in all these areas where we have acquired data since 2018, obviously we still have the underlying data, which is a great advantage in terms of understanding the geology. You already have built-in relationships with your clients because they're already there. Last but not least, you have a phenomenal position with the governments. Back in the days when you acquired the first survey, you obviously had a permit to do that. Whenever you're going to come back, whether you're going to shoot an OBN or you're going to shoot streamer seismic, whether it's multi-client or it's contract, you're very likely to get the permit before anyone else. It is a fantastic advantage that I think a lot of people underestimate with TGS. Sixty-three percent of all the multi-client data shot globally since 2018 is TGS. Moving on to contract, we had a significant uptick in utilization, solid OBN activity in a seasonally low quarter. I mean, usually Q1 is the worst quarter for our OBN business, but we had a good quarter with $90 million in contract revenues from OBN versus $70 million in Q1 of 2024. We had about 51% of our active vessel time used for streamer contract acquisition. It means that we had revenues in the streamer contract side of $130 million, and that is slightly down from $158 million in Q1 of 2024. Gross revenues pretty much at the same level as we had in 2024. You see our EBITDA margin stays or remains relatively strong. Margins are still slightly higher for the streamer business than the OBN business. This is mainly driven by more competition or what I would call slightly unhealthy competition on the OBN side. In terms of contract awards, we had a 4D campaign offshore Norway announced. We have been actually awarded seven 4D contracts for the summer of 2025, which is record high in terms of 4D activity on the Norwegian continental shelf. These projects have a duration of about 280 acquisition days. In addition to that, we also announced an OBN contract award offshore Trinidad. This is scheduled to commence in early Q3. This has a duration of 80 days. It is a relatively sizable contract in Trinidad. On the new energy solutions side, we had a significant drop in contract revenues. I touched on this. We had a site characterization project that we started very late in Q1. Except for that, we did not have any site characterization, so no vessel activity related to our new energy business. You are going to continue to see that this business is going to be very volatile in terms of revenue development quarter by quarter. This is due to these projects being quite big. When you do them, they are going to have a significant impact on revenue. When you have quarters where you have no acquisition activity, then all we have is a LiDAR activity, which you will see under multi-client. Obviously, our intelligence revenues are reported under the company 4C. Overall, the business is going well. 4C is developing as planned. According to the business case, it has been a good acquisition for TGS. The CCS business is slowly growing, but it is still going to take some time before that business gets sizable. Obviously, offshore wind in the US has seen a bit of headwind lately. As a result, we're putting less effort and less money into that. We've even scaled down that business since April 2nd. We move on to imaging and technology. We've seen very healthy growth in terms of external imaging revenues. You see that from the table. They grow from $9 million in Q1 of last year to $14 million in Q1 of 2025. If you multiply 14 by four, you get close to $60 million for the year. I would say the ambition is significantly higher than that based on the very strong backlog we have in imaging right now. Not only that, but we've been able to turn a negative profit margin into a very strong EBITDA margin of 26% this quarter. I am very positive to the development on the imaging side now, where we have seen a combination of strong growth and better profitability. We also see a strong inflow of people. This is a people business. It is really about having the right people. We have seen a lot of competitors and people from competitors knocking on our doors, applying for positions with TGS. This is a business where you will see continuous growth in the future. Talked about a couple of the new contracts or projects adding to the backlog. We have announced a mega 3D reprocessing project in India, as you see. This is about 17,000 sq km. We have completed the reprocessing of a multi-client 3D GeoStreamer data offshore the Lower Congo Basin. Our activities range all over the world and from processing centers in the U.K., Norway, Houston, and Cairo. Again, I'm very optimistic about the future of this business. With that, I'm going to hand it over to Sven Børre, who's going to go through the financials, and then I will come back and talk about the outlook. Thank you very much. Thanks, Kristian, and good morning to you all. Since Kristian has already talked a little bit about the different segments, I'll go fairly quickly through the headline numbers. Net revenues for the quarter were $451 million. That was made up by $268 million of multi-client revenues and $183 million of contract revenue. This $451 million, as you can see, compares to $433 million in the same quarter of last year. A little bit of growth compared to last year as well. These are pro forma numbers that we are comparing with here, of course. Net operating expenses were $193 million. This was based on a gross operating cost, total gross operating cost of $252 million. Of course, we capitalize a bit of that cost, mostly to our multi-client library. As Kristian will talk more about later, we have reduced our guidance for the full year gross cost down to $1 billion. As such, we were pretty much spot on the average you should expect for the remaining three quarters in Q1. To depreciation and amortization. Depreciation amounted to $57 million in this quarter. As you can see, that number is reasonably stable, goes a little bit up and down. This includes, of course, also the, yeah, it depends a little bit on the investments that we do in each of the quarters. On amortization, we came in at $134 million. This number will vary a little bit from quarter to quarter. The straight line amortization part is fairly stable, whereas the accelerated amortization part, which is more linked to the investment levels and the activity we have on new multi-client projects, is a bit higher in this quarter than you've seen in some of the preceding quarters. We ended up with an EBIT of $67 million, which corresponds to an EBIT margin of 15% in the quarter. This compares to $62 million in the same quarter of last year. We had an EBIT margin of 14%, as you can see from the chart. Looking at the profit and loss accounts, as I said, we had $268 million of multi-client revenues, $183 million of contract revenues, $451 million in total. Subtracting the different cost elements, we ended up with $258 million of EBITDA. You can see the split here on straight line amortization and accelerated amortization. Straight-line amortization, as I said, is reasonably stable, and accelerated amortization will vary a little bit. This gave us this operating profit of $67 million. Cash flow was quite decent in the quarter. Things to note here is that the pay tax is a bit on the high side. That has to do with withholding tax, both withholding tax generated by the relatively high library sales that we had in Q4. As you know, Q4 is high season for library sales from our multi-client library. Depending on the geographical mix, that will also come with some withholding taxes. Also, we had some withholding taxes related to sales in this quarter. Again, depending a little bit on the geographical mix, it varies a bit from the different places where we operate, what kind of tax regimes they run. A little bit high in this quarter compared to what you normally should expect. We got $31 million of help from changes in balance sheet item, mostly working capital elements. If you look at the revenues we had in Q4, that was $492 million. Compare it to the revenues we had in Q1, which was $451 million. It means that we had a difference of $40 million roughly. Here we are collecting, say, $31 million of that difference in Q1. All in all, we had cash flow from operations of $261 million. We subtract the investments. You can see the split between the booked or capitalized multi-client investments and how much of that is non-cash capitalizations and how much that was paid in other quarters, which means that we ended up with a paid multi-client investments of $119 million in this quarter. We subtract CapEx and add interest received. We ended up with cash flow from investment activities of $145 million negative in this quarter. We had paid $32 million of lease cost in the quarter related to the leased vessels we have in our OBN activity mostly. We also settled the last part of the refinancing that we did in Q4. We paid down the export credit facility in this quarter and replaced it with a $45 million term loan that had a net negative effect on financing cash of $8 million, which is also included in that number. We paid interest of $6 million, which is fairly low compared to the interest charge in the P&L. That has to do with the fact that we pay interest semi-annually on the bond loan. You should expect to see significantly higher interest payments later in the year. We had dividend payments of $30 million, which gave us cash flow from financing activities negative by $77 million. All in all, this meant that we had $39 million of an increase in the cash balance in the quarter. On the balance sheet, these are IFRS numbers, by the way. You should note that the right of use assets have gone significantly up because we have extended a couple of the charters on these vessels that we use for our OBN activity. You will also see that the lease liability has gone up by a similar amount. Our balance sheet, of course, remains very strong. We have $622 million of gross debt in the quarter, and this includes accrued revenues on the bond loan. We had net debt of $453 million at the end of the quarter compared to roughly $500 million at the end of the previous quarter. This means that we can continue to pay the dividend of $0.155 per share. Due to the fairly significant drop in the share price lately, it means that the yields go up, and we are far above the historical average at 7.4% now in a dividend yield. With that, I will hand the word back to Kristian, who will take you through the outlook. Thank you, Sven. I will start with a slide that is quite familiar to all of you, and it talks about the declining reserve life and the triple Rs among our clients. This is well known to everyone. The reserve life has dropped to a level that may not be, going forward, this may not be a great situation. As a result, you will see that all companies will eventually have to increase their spending on exploration. The reason why we showed it this time is that we actually have seen a bit of traction this quarter. We've actually had at least one company come back to us and say that we really need to renew our reserves. We really need to target exploration spending in frontier areas. As a result, we need to buy a significant part of your database in frontier areas. I mean, we see some traction, and that's been obviously a positive trend that we see. If we move forward and look at the 3D streamer contract tenders, we also show this on a quarterly basis. What you see here is a big drop towards the end of the year. That drop is caused by mainly contract awards. We had some big contract awards for the industry in India, for example. After these contract awards, which made the line drop down to a level quite similar to the average, you've seen a little bit of a rebound. Overall, there is a positive trend line there. I think the contract market for 3D streamer is relatively healthy. In terms of pricing, I think it's fair to say that pricing is stable, and it's been stable for the past 24 months or so. It also is important to say that TGS remains very disciplined in this market. We have the advantage that we can switch capacity going from contract to multi-client, and we will use that very actively going forward. I think it's fair to say that whenever we see contracts that are below the return on capital requirement that we have internally, we would rather look for heavily funded multi-client projects and carry out those projects with the same vessels. Again, we're not interested in going into some kind of a price war here that we've seen in our industry for many, many times, which is not sustainable for the future, of course. Being able to switch and being able to switch when you see that the market is unhealthy, that's a great advantage that TGS has. As a result, you will see that some of our capacity will switch between multi-client and contract, sort of dependent on how the market plays out. Obviously, then some people would say, are you then just putting vessels on multi-client contracts to avoid the cost or to capitalize the cost? I think you've seen from our multi-client numbers that that's clearly not the case. When you've seen that historically in this industry, you've typically seen multi-client players who have not delivered results that are even close to what TGS has. The combination of a very strong pre-funding and obviously healthy late sales proves that TGS has been disciplined over time, and we're going to continue to do that. Again, we're going to stay very disciplined in terms of how we price our assets because they have a significant capital cost, and they need to have a return that covers that cost. That goes with OBN as well. If you look at the OBN market, and we've also shown this on a quarterly basis for the past few quarters, but it's shown very healthy growth from 2020 to 2024. At the start of the year, we expected 2025 to be approximately the same as 2024. We're saying that the industry in general, or the market in general, is going to be flattish. I think some of the work has been pushed out to 2026. As a result, you'll probably see a 2025 for the industry that is slightly lower than 2024. TGS has the same OBN capacity in 2024 or in 2025 as we had in the previous two years. What you will see is, based on what I said previously, you will see some of this capacity that we have go into multi-client programs rather than competing for contracts that have very unhealthy margins. The good thing is that we're in the driver's seat to influence that ourselves. We have a massive data library in the U.S. Gulf of America, and there are still a lot of OBN surveys to be done to cover that library with better data. You've seen over the past few years that we haven't used our own technologies and capacity to do that. We've actually used third party to do that, partly because Magseis has been sold out and partly because we've not been in the driver's seat in the partnership to make the decision that we're going to use our own technologies. Now we are in that driver's seat for quite a few projects, and we're going to take advantage of that driver's seat position to make sure that we use our own technologies. This is not only the OBN technologies. It's also related to the low-frequency source with Gemini, which is a leading low-frequency source technology that we bought from ION as part of that acquisition a couple of years back. Again, the fact that the market will drop slightly down in terms of overall revenue is not really a big issue for TGS because we have plenty of backlog and we have plenty of projects in the pipeline for multi-client where we can take advantage of the strong technologies and assets that we have. Touching on the OBN market, this one is showing the commercial OBN bid values. This is public information from Brazil where all the tenders are basically made public. What you see here is that the sum of low bids of three recent OBN contracts in Brazil versus the sum of the high bids, they have a variance of about 133 percentage points. What that means is that this is a very, what should I say, early stage, immature, not very sophisticated pricing industry. You hardly ever see this in mature industries that there is such a big gap. Further to that bar chart, if you also account for the fact that about 60%-70% of this cost is actually external cost where we all deal with the same suppliers, and you can probably assume that the range in price or cost there is within 10 percentage points, you see that this is not sustainable. The reason why I want to show this is that we've seen this many times before in our sector. We've seen this with companies that have been taken over by TGS, companies like Polarcus, where we acquired the data library, Dolphin that went bankrupt, and we acquired the data library, Seabird, we acquired the data library when they went into financial distress. ION is the most recent one. We have long experience of seeing this and witnessing this. We've been very disciplined in terms of how we operate in this market. We're going to continue to do that. We are going to take advantage of opportunities that arise from this because this is clearly not sustainable for the long term. It remains to be said, of course, that TGS is obviously part of some high bids together with one other competitor. If we move on, we have witnessed a quite significant change overall in the macro over the past few weeks or since April 2nd, starting with tariffs and the fear for a recession. On top of that, you have OPEC that has announced an increased production quite recently. Obviously not a great match. We can't be naive. We got to look back on history and see how has that hit the seismic sector historically and how can we be prepared if that were to happen. Saying that, I think it's fair to say that we haven't really seen anything yet. If you look at the public statements from our clients, I think E&I is the only one who's been out there communicating that they're cutting CapEx. You obviously have a lot of onshore players in the U.S. who said the same thing. For onshore, of course, this is going to have an impact. There is no question about that. We have very, very low exposure to that, less than 5% of our revenues. I think for offshore, it remains to be seen. Again, we have not really seen anything in terms of our sales during the month of April or what we hear from our clients. We basically hear the same as you would hear in terms of public statements that, yes, they may be a bit more cautious, but there are no significant CapEx cuts. What we are doing is that we are trying to stay ahead. We are trying to make sure that we have plans in place if it were to happen and if there is a weakness to be seen in the markets. These plans are covering everything from increased sales and more initiatives related to sales and obviously concrete cost initiatives on top of that. Without going through the entire list, we are planning to strengthen our sales force. We are introducing global account management. We are hiring people and strengthening overall sales across the business. On the CapEx side, we're introducing a very high scrutiny for all capital expenditures and defer all non-critical investments. As a result of that, you will see that we're taking down our CapEx guidance by about 10% already. In terms of asset utilization, I mean, there is a big, big difference on the cost of having a vessel sit idle versus operating. Again, I touched on the point about multi-client, but we have this great advantage that we already have projects lined up with pre-funding to do good multi-client projects that could replace some of the contracts that are either unhealthy priced or they may not even be there if the market gets tougher. Good control of that situation. Last but not least, R&D and technology. We're a technology company. We need to stay ahead in terms of technology developments. For a company like this, it is also extremely important to be picky and prioritize in terms of where you spend your cash. We have introduced kind of a business case validation for all the projects and making sure that we prioritize the projects in terms of what is the payback time, what is the criticality of the project. As a result, you will also see lower spending on R&D and technology for the time being. As a result of that, we see multi-client investments unchanged. Typically, you would see TGS, or historically, you would see TGS reduce multi-client investments in periods of high uncertainty. I think it is fair to say that our multi-client investments are so heavily pre-funded these days that it would not really make much of a difference if we cut $100 million of our multi-client investments. The cash impact of that would perhaps be $10 million. That is why you will see that obviously we are going to look at this. We are going to make sure that we keep that healthy pre-funding. Overall, you should not expect to see a significant reduction in multi-client investments, even in a slightly lower market activity. On the CapEx side, you see that we are down from $150 million, which we guided for the full year. We are down to $135 million. We have cut about 10% of that. On the gross operating cost, as Sven Børre mentioned, we target now about $1 billion, and this is down from about $1.5 billion. Obviously, there are a lot of different initiatives going behind that. That number may obviously vary a little bit depending on the activity level too. Utilization, we continue to see improved utilization of our 3D streamer fleet. Again, on the OBN side, as I said, the market as such is probably a bit more down or slightly more negative than we expected about three months ago. As I said, we have four crews, and we feel pretty certain that we're going to have four crews operating for most of the time. They're probably going to operate more on the multi-client side than contract side for parts of the year. In terms of order backlog and inflow, you see we had healthy order inflow of about $300 million in Q1 of 2025. You also see that Q1 is typically a low point in terms of order inflow if you look back on history. There is some seasonality in that number. You see as a result, and also as a result of very strong revenues, you see the total backlog is dropping slightly, but in our opinion, no reason for any concerns. You see the regular pie chart there, which shows the expected timing of contract backlog revenue recognition. Expectations are still that we're going to have a normalized OBN crew count of between two and a half and three as an average for the year. Again, we're not concrete in terms of how much is going to be used for multi-client and how much is going to be used for contract, but we have that ability to switch. On the streamer side, the 3D fleet utilization is going to be in line with Q1 of 2025 for Q2, and then multi-client investments of about $100 million. That leaves me with a summary slides. Again, very satisfied with strong Q1 2025 results. Really want to thank the team across the world in terms of phenomenal work and making sure that we can not take the eye off the ball in terms of generating revenues and business in times when we are very busy, obviously, with integration efforts as well. Healthy multi-client performance driven by high interest in frontier areas. Significant year-over-year improvement in asset utilization. We are reducing our CapEx, as I said, and gross operating cost as well. The solid balance sheet allows for a stable dividend in line with previous quarters. With that, I want to ask Sven to come up here and then we and Bård as well. Then we're going to go through some of your questions. Thank you. Yeah, we can start from the people here in Oslo. I think that John was raising his hand first. Thank you for taking my question. Kristian, you say there's no signs of slowdown as of yet. I just registered that the number of contract awards has been very, very bad since early February. You announced once more than one mid-size contract over the last three months. The competitor, Shearwater, hasn't announced anything. Looks like Shearwater has a pretty bad poor backlog, at least judging from the announced orders. I just wonder, isn't that just a coincidence? Or is that one sign of weakness? It's hard to say. When I talk about signs of weakness, we typically look at late sales and we look at multi-client library sales and that kind of stuff because it's usually a very good indicator. I think in terms of contract sales, I mean, it varies a lot. There is a little bit of seasonality. Of course, it varies between the quarters. If you go back another couple of months from your observation, we had really strong inflow, right? We are kind of filled up now for the summer season. It has been a healthy backup or building of backlog for a while. You are right, it has been relatively quiet. We announced the contract yesterday, which is fairly good. It is going to vary. It is definitely too early to say that the reason why it has been relatively quiet lately is due to the market. I also think it is fair to say we have not seen anything being pulled back yet. There has not been any tender process or active tender process where the client says that we want to pull back from that. Again, in terms of sales, I mean, April is usually not a great month for us. It was not great this year either. There is no data there indicating that it is worse than what it typically is. June is always going to be the strongest month in terms of our late sales and library sales. It is probably going to be the same this year. I definitely do not rule it out. There is a reason why we start these initiatives that we have done. We do not have any clear evidence. I may just wonder a little bit about the contract outlook, which could be an indication of everything since you reported Q1. When you report, sorry, Q4, when you report Q4, you said you are more or less sold out for the first three quarters of the year. We now see that the current backlog is very, very limited for execution in Q4. It means that, but I guess that's pretty normal as well. You normally start booking for the winter now, from now on, I guess. It's just the backlog, when you compare the backlog this year compared to last year, it looks like it's up 20%. Just for the record, last year doesn't include, it's not pro forma with PGS, is it? Not the one we showed. Not the one that you showed. Not the one we showed here. If I do pro forma, it looks like it's down 20% if I include pro forma for last year. It makes me a little bit worried about the outlook for the Western market and lack of contracts. The fact that, as you say, utilization will be in line in Q2 with Q1. Normally, utilization is better in the summer than in the winter. Is it too early to say something about utilization for Q3? Also, if you could elaborate a little bit on the outlook now, what do you expect for Q4? Should we expect a lot of contracts over the next few months so that you just start getting visibility for Q4? If you could discuss a little bit about this. We're talking vessels and streamer seismic. I think you can probably expect to see quite a lot of work in Brazil in Q4. Without being too specific, there is no secret that TGS is in a very good position in Brazil. We have major projects that have either been kicked off or they will be kicked off with healthy pre-funding. I would definitely say that Brazil is going to make up two to three vessels, I guess, in Q4. Then we have, usually you will see strong activity in the Mediterranean in any given Q3 and Q4. Norway is obviously going to dominate Q3, but it is going to be less so in Q4. I think, as it looks right now, I think we feel pretty good, but it is going to be a majority of multi-client work towards the end of the year rather than contracts. Bear in mind that the lead time on multi-client projects is quite often shorter than for contract work. Also, permitting is playing a role here. We may have commitments or be close to having deals with customers, both on the multi-client side and on the contract side, where we're waiting for permits, essentially, which also may shrink the lead time from when we announce a project to start up of that project. Two more quick questions for me. On the OBN side, you said you expect the lower market to be low in terms of revenues, but it's not a problem for TGS because you have backlog. Does that mean we should expect flattish OBN revenues year on year in 2025 versus 2024 for you guys? I don't think we're prepared to guide for that. I think you need to look at the gross versus net here too, because if we do it on multi-client, you will see that as lower. You will see that as lower revenues, but EBITDA would be the same, right? That's probably what you need to adjust for. My final question on transfer fees. Is it possible to say, what's the highest transfer fee you ever received in history? Triple digit? No, I mean, I'm definitely not going to give you a number on that, but I mean, we're talking somewhere between $50 million and $100 million. $50 million and $100 million. For TGS standalone. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wonder if, you know, there's talk in the market that Shell is looking at BP and potential models as well. If one of the other majors acquired BP, would that be an all-time high transfer fee? It would probably be up there for sure. It all depends on whether this company that eventually would acquire that other company has the data from before. There is a lot of factors playing there. It would definitely be a big one for sure. Do you hope? There is another one that has been announced, which still has not been closed, which is also a big one, of course, if it is going to happen. Yeah. Are these good? Are these M&A among your clients? Is it good or bad for you in a five-year perspective? Short-term gain, long-term pain. I mean, that is what we like to say. It is not great for the long term, for sure. For short term, it is really good, of course. Thank you. You would also, sometimes what you see in the cycles is that you see a lot of M&A activity, but that also drives new players into the market. You have not really seen that over the past five, six years. Normally, you would see that. Thanks. Okay, Lucas. Yeah, I was just wondering on your comment on the OBN, where you see it maybe tilting a little bit more towards multi-client going forward. That's a bit of a change, I would say, compared to a couple of years back. What is driving it and how do you think sort of is going to play out in terms of who is doing it? Is it going to be a converted job? What are the main regions? I mean, the way it works with OBN is that pretty much 90% of what we do is what we call 4D. 4D is by definition a contract. Then as OBN gets cheaper and more efficient, and as you combine OBN with existing streamer data and you merge it too, there will also be a usage of OBN for exploration purposes. The only market where you've seen that to a great extent yet is the U.S. Gulf of America. TGS obviously has a big data library there. We've been working with a partner for the past few projects. That partner had other preferences in terms of whose technology to use. As a result, Magseis were busy elsewhere. Now we're in the driving seat ourselves in terms of acquiring data over the existing TGS data, and we can make that decision ourselves. Together with our customers, we have decided that TGS should be providing that technology as well. You will see slightly more OBN activity on our own multi-client activity compared to what you've seen for the past two years. Bear in mind that we've done a lot of OBN or multi-client OBN investments, but we haven't used our own. It could be only 25% plus? 25% plus? Thank you. Erik? Yes, I just have one question on the cost and CapEx. I was just wondering if you could give some more color on what's driving the production. You talked a little bit about CapEx, but also mentioned a little bit on the OpEx side and also how much is that kind of driven by proactive measures in terms of you may be expecting some slightly lower activity due to the oil price? It's not active. I mean, we're planning for the activity level that we were planning for at the beginning of the year. We haven't kind of reduced our ambitions at all in terms of top line. We will see what we are able to deliver at the end of the day. Our ambitions have definitely not been reduced, and we're planning for a high activity level for the remainder of the year. That must be clear. We are constantly challenging ourselves on the cost base and on how efficient are we in terms of using our capital, both for CapEx and for OPEX purposes. How do we allocate our fleet in the most optimal manner? How do we allocate the support vessels in the most optimal manner? How do we move vessels between regions? All of those kinds of things. We have been turning every single stone to find savings and to find efficiency gains. It is a mix of a lot of initiatives that is behind this reduction that we are seeing. Yeah, it definitely should not be seen as a negative that we are putting in place actions to make sure that we are prepared for something that we have not seen yet, but it may still happen, right? I think that's something that every company should do, and it's something that TGS has been really good at doing in the past, and we will continue to do that. Not to forget that if things should get even worse, those have typically been the times that have built TGS and have built TGS the way it is today, by picking up other players and taking advantage of weaknesses in the market. Thank you. Very good. We also have a question from the web. That's for you, Kristian. Can you elaborate on the issue of frontier activity and more exploration? Norway launched its largest ever round today. Are you seeing healthy licensing rounds in other parts of the world as well compared to previous years? Yeah, I think there's been a healthy development. I've seen the news, obviously, about Norway, which is fantastic to see that Norway and the government is supportive to even numbered rounds, which we haven't seen in quite a few years. I think there's a great push now for Africa. Our clients are really looking at frontier areas in Africa, like, I shouldn't say like never before, but definitely picked up interest in that. We're attending a big conference in London next week where there's a record high attendance in terms of understanding Africa and seeing the potential of Africa going forward. Yeah, I think we had some evidence this quarter that some of our clients are returning back to frontier and even admitting that they're too dependent on a few geographical areas and they need to broaden their scope. We don't have any more questions from the web. Any more questions from the audience in Oslo? Yeah, John? Just a follow-up. You mentioned that one company had come back to you and said they now need to start replacing reserves and need to start buying more seismic data. May I just ask, was that one of the majors? I can't tell you. It wasn't an onshore player, I can tell you that for sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I could imagine. On a general note, you know, when things were improving, generally E&P spending was improving and the optimism in the oil market was better, like 2022, 2023, 2024. Especially in 2023, 2024, we didn't see the same uptick for seismic. Could it be that the market has changed, that most of the clients are majors and there are very few mid-sized and smaller players, which would mean that they're spending, they're more disciplined, so the volatility in the seismic spending is less than it's been historically? I.e., the disappointments we had in 2023 and 2024, that we expected it, everybody expected it to see improvements in 2023 and 2024, we didn't see it. Do you think that could potentially lead to that we're not going to see the same disappointments now if oil price stays where it's now compared to what we should have expected historically? Yeah, I think that's a fair point and an interesting point you're bringing up. I definitely don't rule out that you may be right. We had in our board meeting yesterday, we went through 30 clients and feedback that we've been getting from these clients. I think if there's any kind of indication of a drop in spending, it would be those small companies that you've hardly ever heard about. While the big ones, they basically stay at the very steady course. I mean, that definitely supports your argument, but it's still very early days. It's really hard to say. I think it's an interesting point for sure. Yeah, we'll see. We'll do. Thank you very much for your attention and also for the people who follow us on the web. Thank you for attention and your questions, and we'll see you after Q2. Thank you.