Hello, and welcome to today's webcast with Minesto. With us presenting today, we have the CEO, Martin Edlund, and CFO, Alexander Jancke, who will be presenting a Q3 report for 2026. After the presentation, there will be a Q&A, so if you have any questions, please feel free to use the form located to the right. With that said, please go ahead with your presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. So hi, everyone. I am the CEO of Minesto, Martin Edlund, and most of you have probably seen me before in this context among the existing shareholders. We would like to go through a little bit of the status in the tidal sector and Minesto's positioning and our way moving forward here. I have been around for quite a while, and I would like to just start by giving a little bit of a background. The tidal sector is, as a part of the ocean renewable industry, quite unknown and not, let us say, well followed in Sweden at all. But if you look at energy, it is clear that the energy sector is growing. Wherever we go with our project inquiries and work around the, I think we are around 20 markets, the data center need and the industrialization, the electrification of transport, we need more and more electricity. That is good for us as a tidal sector, obviously, that wants to contribute. Second in this, we also begin to see, and we see clearly that there are challenges with the incumbent and mature renewables, when it comes to pushing towards large share of renewables in the energy systems. We would like to comment a little bit on how our tidal solutions can help in this energy transition and bring value already at an early stage of the evolution. Obviously, the conflicts around the world and the price of fossils is putting even further pressure on build-out of renewables with security supply and costs. The really big picture is really to the advantage of new generation technologies, particularly renewable ones. With this, let us say, positive, really high-level view of the sector, then one can really ask why is it so that the mature actors aren't thriving? Why don't we see the ocean renewable sector with tidal really being built out and deployed? I think it is a question where Minesto has, well, for many years, since we actually put Minesto on the stock market, we have been having our explanation and our reasoning around why this sector has been stuck historically. We believe that it has very much to do with actually the stakeholders, the energy sector betting on the wrong horse, and that is the horizontal axis seabed-mounted turbine. We are doing something differently from that, in many ways. It's a little bit ironic because the Minesto technology actually contains horizontal axis turbines. If you look at the number of grid-connected horizontal axis turbines in the world, if you see our power take-off system on board, you can actually claim that we are also the ones that have built and deployed the most horizontal axis turbines because it's a component in our system at another scale and with a different operating condition, obviously. Okay, so why aren't the industry thriving? The cost structure and the competitiveness of those technologies are not there, and we've been saying this for years. The interesting thing is, if you look at this now in what is happening in the sector, there has been, since we put the Dragon Class technology around five years ago in the waters of Vestmanna in the Faroes, we've seen a dramatic consolidation in this sector. There has been a lot of actors. We've had around 15 to 20 more or less mature horizontal axis developers with systems generating in the water. They've been backed by companies such as Voith and Schottel in Germany, Rolls-Royce, GE in the U.K., Kawasaki, Toshiba in Japan, Naval Energies in France, Andritz in Austria. All those multi-billion Euro companies in turnover, all of them have stopped or abandoned their technologies, and they have all betted on technologies that are seabed-mounted horizontal axis turbines. Except for one or one and a half of these actors, are now left in the industry. You can imagine what a dramatic shift for the sector this has been. It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation also why Minesto has not been able to access project funding at the speed and at the level that we have hoped for and wanted and thrived for, because of the backing of heavy industry machines in the water. This has shifted, and I think that what we see now with this sector is that we are completely different positioned. Before we go into that, let's just then ask an additional question here. Okay, so if all those big actors are abandoning technologies, isn't this bad for Minesto? Isn't it bad for the sector? Yeah, obviously, if this would've been spearheading and pushing ahead, that would've been another scenario that we could take advantage of. If you look at it is not at all a matter of abandoning ocean energy just because these early technologies are stuck. Because if you look at EU, and we're invited to the EU Commission now in Ireland in a week from now to represent this sector and talk about it. Tidal energy is a strategic technology area for EU, and is heavily backing this sector with new programs. I also believe that I must say finally, Minesto was awarded a substantial project development subsidy or grant the other week as we announced, with a EUR 20 million platform funding for a serious 10 MW array in Irish EU waters. This is a very important and interesting signal because it is the first time that the EU is betting on something else than the horizontal axis turbine, the old concept for this sector. So it's a huge breakthrough and bigger than just EUR 20 million in many perspectives. The EU is there. What you also see, what is interesting is that there are now recycling of concepts that has been tried over many years. The number of actors in the sector is actually growing with model scales, concepts. There is a lot of activity going on in trying to find solutions that circumvent that horizontal axis turbine. Thirdly, as perhaps the most clear signal that there is momentum and an obvious opportunity is that the number of invitations to tender and public tenders, it's now larger than it's ever been. We see technology procurements in Japan, where we are. We're heavily involved in Indonesia with the Indonesian government. Also the Swedish government partly involved with procurement projects. Canada is trying to restart the Bay of Fundy stuff with larger arrays and also with smaller solutions. We still have more lace on the CfD contracts in the U.K. that are highly alive. France will announce, according to plans, a 30 MW-40 MW build out and up to 200 MW of procurement, in that context. There is really an interesting opportunity for the sector moving forward. If we move to, I could show you a picture of, I think you know what I mean by those systems here that what you see is the horizontal axis, 10 x the weight of what we have. You can imagine there are billions that have been invested in building those full-scale demonstrators, backed by heavy industry. This is basically all gone now. One or two of these are still, or three maybe, and then several more are no longer around. If we then look at where we are, Minesto, we have now two serious project investment opportunities with the Faroe Islands, with Hestfjord, and the Euro Dragon Farm with this extremely important platform investment in Irish waters. There are clear synergies in between the two. It's the same approach to site development, same type of project investment cases, and obviously synergies on hardware and system levels. The third opportunity where we're working is what's related to the ETRIC and the microgrid projects in the Faroe Islands, where we see that for many of those markets that I just mentioned, there will be some really interesting opportunities, and for us with iteration, to build smaller, integrated solutions. This is the commercial side of it. Where are we then technology-wise? I think that the evidence required from us has been quite demanding over the years and where we are. With this summer's progress, when it comes to continuous smooth, robust electricity production from the Dragon 4 scale, we are showing the numbers. We're not just able to prove them, let's say from a technical perspective. This means a lot to us. There has been limitations in the setup, I think that is what you should call it, that has made it difficult for us to generate through the tidal cycles. We're doing that now. The latest results we published here will be followed, I'm convinced, by even further progress also within the current configurations that we have with the systems. This is world-class energy conversion for the tidal sector. It is putting the tidal kites and tidal Dragons surely up front in moving this sector forward. If we also then move into the connection to the overall energy transition in the sector, we have done our homework. We are working together with utilities in a few markets to look into what does it really mean to add a plannable baseload type of renewable to an energy mix. By looking into massive amounts of data broken down per hour and per 15 minutes intervals, comparing our solutions to, for example, wind solutions in this market, you will see that the yellow is the aggregate generation from three tidal sites, and the black line is the aggregate from three wind sites. In order to depend on those energy sources, you will get completely different scenarios for investments in complementary and supporting technologies. This is something that we could in-depth talk about, but I will keep it on a high level. Obviously, to be able to generate over time is highly important in this. When you then, year by year, ask a linear optimization model whether they prefer more wind or if they want to go for the slightly more expensive tidal, more expensive per megawatt installed, at least for the early cost structure that we have, then the answer from the optimization modeling is very clear. You want tidal to be as large as the wind installation for this market when you are moving towards 100% renewable energy system, and you will deliver cheaper electricity to the consumers. The yellow line here is the cost when we are building towards 100% renewable energy system in a growing market, I should say also. It is a significant difference. Even if you do a sensitivity analysis and talk about changing service intervals or CapEx 10%-20% here and there, we are still the best alternative for the consumers. But obviously it takes the cost levels and the type of operation that Minesto tidal is offering that is really, really important here. In order to reach a situation where you really benefit from no overcapacity from storage and from more generation capacity of wind than you need to a cost-effective scenario, you need competitive tidal technologies such as Minesto's. Would we put the cost level of the first generation solutions in, they will not be able to deliver these numbers. This is where we have the explanation why this sector has stalled from the first generation and why Minesto now has moved up as the clear industry leader and as the alternative globally to deliver this sector. Because we are on the right level where you can start deploying with commercial value, not asking for astronomical subsidies over time, but put it into a commercial context significantly quicker than anyone else. I think with that, I could just comment on the recently announced rights issue where my colleague Alexander, our CFO, will give you more details. We are obviously doing this because to do business, you need a balance sheet, especially in a sector like this one. Also to keep momentum, so we can move at full throttle where we are right now. I think this is the funding round where we have the largest participation of the Minesto management team ever. The whole team is backing this rights issue. We are also fortunate to have our largest owner, Corespring, with us, that is also represented in the board with insights in the company. I think with that, I will hand over to you, Alexander, to go through some of the relevant aspects of the financials and the rights issue that is suggested by the board. We obviously need the general assembly to make a decision on it. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. There will be questions afterwards also. There will be questions. Yes. Thank you. I will continue with the Q3 financials, and then as Martin said, I will give some more light and details regarding the rights issue that the general assembly needs to decide on. Starting with the income statement for the first nine months of 2026, the benefits of the measures taken over the past year continue to come through in the financial performance. Operating income amounted to SEK 60.3 million, broadly in line with SEK 17 million over the corresponding period last year. Operating cost decreased to SEK 39.6 million from SEK 45.2 million, a reduction of approximately 12%. The lower cost base improved operating result by SEK 4.8 million from a loss of SEK 28.2 million to a loss of SEK 23.3 million. The net loss improved by SEK 7.3 million. Financial items also contributed positively by SEK 0.5 million, compared with a negative SEK 2.0 million in the prior year period. Overall, the first nine months show that sustained cost discipline is translating into a narrower loss and stronger underlying financial performance. Turning to the next slide and to the cash flow, cash used into operating activities before changes in working capital was SEK 22.8 million, compared with SEK 29.9 million in the same period last year. Changes in working capital contributed SEK 5.6 million during the period. The cash flow from investing activities was negative SEK 20.6 million, compared to negative SEK 22.9 million in the prior year period. There was no cash flow from financing activities in the first nine months of 2026, whereas the comparative period included SEK 37.9 million of financing inflows. As a result, total cash flow from the period was SEK 37.8 million. Cash and cash equivalents at the end of September were SEK 29.9 million, compared with SEK 26.4 million at the end of September 2025, and SEK 67.6 million at year-end 2025. The cash flow during the period reinforces the importance of disciplined investment and activity liquidity management as we advance our operational and commercial priorities. We will move forward with some details for the proposed rights issue that was announced on October 21st. The board intends to carry out a rights issue of approximately SEK 130 million before issue cost with preferential rights for existing shareholders. The purpose is to fund the next phase of Minesto's commercial rollout. The transaction is approximately 60% secured. As Martin said, that will come from SEK 10 million from Corespring, the major owner, and approximately SEK 0.5 million from the shareholding members of the management. In addition, Vator Securities has provided a bottom guarantee commitment of approximately SEK 67.5 million. Together, this corresponds to approximately SEK 78 million. Regarding the subscription price, that will be set at an approximately 30% discount to TERP based on the 10 days volume weighted average price preceding the board's former resolution. First, the extraordinary general meeting is scheduled for 23rd November, with final terms expected on 25th November. That would then mean that the subscription period is planned for 7th to 21st of December, and the trading in subscription rights would then be 7th to 16th of December. The proceeds then are intended to move the first commercial arrays towards investment decisions. Hestfjord in the Faroe Islands and the Euro Dragon Farm in Ireland as the lead candidates. The funding will also support additional market entry projects based on Faroese microgrid, scale-up of the Dragon technology for commercial deliveries, partner-led and grant-supported projects, and finally, general working capital. For the existing shareholders, the key practical point is to be registered as a shareholder on the record date to receive subscription rights, and then either exercise or sell those rights within the applicable period. Overall, the proposed financing is designed to connect Minesto's current technology and project position with the capital required for commercial execution. With that done, I think it is time to open the floor for questions. Sounds good, Alexander. Just to underline that those are planned dates. It is not formally set yet, so we need to, in due course, give you the exact decisions as they are made. Yeah. That is good. That is exactly how it is, Martin. Okay. Thank you both for that presentation. Like you just said, let us open up the Q&A section. If you have any questions, please use the form located to the right. We will start with the first question. How do you plan to secure Minesto's share of the funding around 40% for the EU-backed project? Well, it's project finance as one opportunity with the Irish partners and the work that we started a year ago with Irish stakeholders. That's one source of collaboration and funding, obviously. There are also a range of other types of soft funding, EU funding, grant-based funding that can be matched with this funding. The option here for us is either to put this project in a separate SPV in Ireland or to do some of the development work in the early phase within Minesto AB structure. There are a few alternatives around that. But obviously the main source of capital for this will be the private sector, given that the CapEx level for this now is so significantly reduced since this is grant-based funding. So private equity will have an extremely attractive business case to consider when this platform funding at about 60% is in place. It should also be noted that we have some of this funding is used pre-financial closure for us to be able to put ample resources into work with this case, in maturing it in terms of consenting and site measurements and so on, which is a highly valuable activity for us because it will further strengthen our ability to build projects, and then particularly the Irish project, of course. So that's the plan. Thank you, Martin, for that answer. What are you doing to rebuild shareholder confidence and reduce uncertainty around future financing, but also dilution? Well, I think we're holding webinars like this and try to share as much as we can of the progress, the step-by-step progress we have. The plan moving forward is also to present a little bit more analysis around the technology. Keep communicating as sort of the direct contact with the shareholders. But obviously to deliver on the commercial dialogues that we have ongoing, that is what everyone is expecting and that is what we're expecting ourselves. So I think that is definitely an ongoing activity. I think that it should really be realized that accessing EUR 20 million for our tidal technology via Innovation Fund is in itself the most significant commercial milestone that we have reached. This is not about working with EU bureaucrats. We have had serious industry expert consultants in turning every rock and stone around this project, sponsored by EIB over almost a year of work. We believe that we with self-confidence can say that we know how to present and develop project investment cases for our tidal technology. What message would you say does the board's level of participation send to long-term retail shareholders? Well, the board primarily, we have two board members from the Granitor and Corespring Sphere. I think the Corespring part of it is the important side. We have not included the new board members and the chairman in the discussions on the commitments. I think that the management commitment in this is a very strong message to the stock market that we that have the closest insights into what we are doing here, together with the main owner that has followed us since this company was listed. I think that's the most important take here. Thank you. How many power plants can your own workshop produce each year? Tens, I would say. The plan would not be, I guess, if we are building 10, 20, 30 units for the EU market, we have large subsystems that will be integrated into the wing structure. There is a detailed plan on how to do system integration with material flows and with factory acceptance testing and the logistics from quayside system integration directly to installation. The interesting thing for us is that we can separate infrastructure installation from actual power plant installation. The power plant installation is a one-step operation done within an hour from the floating method we have. We can keep those apart. It also means that we can take the power plant directly from the manufacturing quayside to the production site. We do not need to keep it in between anywhere. It will be OEM at quayside together with partners for the larger volumes. If we are talking up to 10 units, I think that it will be clever, and especially if we talk about smaller microgrid units, we will definitely build them in Gothenburg. The manufacturing is, we get questions about this often, but this is really not one of the big risk areas or challenges. There are a lot of highly capable actors that can do this system integration together with the Minesto tech team. It is a huge advantage that we built several of these units now over the years with the same team. That is something we are looking forward to and not scared of. Thank you, Martin. If we are staying within the workshop, how much tether can your workshop produce each year? The workshop is not producing tethers. They are made with suppliers, and you can do system integration at quayside outdoor when it comes to putting the fairings, the flaps on them, for example. The challenges with the tether has been the bending radius of it that has improved significantly over the years. You could more easily transport them by putting them on a large drum. The raw materials, the process of the manufacturing cables and ropes is by no means any limiting aspect of this. The good thing is also if we need to alter the length of the tether, it is just about cutting the cables and the ropes to the right lengths. Quite some flexibility on that side of manufacturing. Thank you for clarifying that. Would you say that you have enough production capacity to meet the upcoming orders? Yes, we have. Our suppliers definitely have. When you are looking into SKF, cable manufacturers, and generator manufacturers, we believe that is not a limit here. That does not say that we have to be humble as a tech development company. We need to have the right expertise on board. We need to carefully select complementary partners to the ones we already have. This is obviously something we take seriously, but not an area where we believe that the risks reside moving forward. Thank you. If we are changing the focus to Dragon 4 and Dragon 12, what are the current lead times for both of them? The hardware lead time is for most sites shorter than the consenting process, at least if we are talking about building up to 10 units. I would say that from design freeze, if we customize the unit for a certain array for Hestfjord, we will talk about 12-18 months until you can have a complete system integrated offshore. There are factors that can increase that lead time and other factors that can decrease it. For example, if we are doing two sites in parallel or just back to back with Ireland and Hestfjord, there will be significant synergies, and preparation for manufacturing could be ready for a certain scale and version. Then you can shorten that lead time. Thank you. How will you scale up production and servicing internationally? I think I've already commented on that answer to some extent. The flexibility of moving subsystems, pods, drivetrains, control systems, even tether components is quite high. So the most sophisticated components, they will be made with current suppliers in Europe. It could be a great advantage to, for example, manufacture the wing locally and then do the system integration at the wing manufacturer site. So this concept with a quayside system integration where the parts come to the wing, and then the wing will be transferred from just a wing to a fully equipped system, and then to site. That model of manufacturing will work fine, also at the global scale. Obviously we're looking into partnerships and dialogues on who could manufacture those wings to the standards that we need. I think this is really important also to acknowledge that our systems, the scale that our systems have, makes it. This is not a shipyard manufacturing or a shipyard build we're talking about. All the other systems that I showed you in the beginning of the presentation, they are built one by one, basically, in a shipyard, with need for dry docks and enormous quaysides and ability to lift hundreds of tons. We could if we want. We could easily transport wings on vessels if we also want for other markets. So it's a huge flexibility that the systems aren't bigger than they are, and not heavier than they are. Thank you. Are you currently planning to develop a larger kite? We are working on pushing the boundaries in basically all aspects of this technology. It is about larger rated capacity for individual units. It is about flexibility of installation, water depths, and pushing towards the lucrative, really low-flow markets, and obviously ocean currents. This is something that has been on our radar, and it is not just something we plan. We are doing it, I should say. Thank you. Why is the planned tidal array in Ireland 10 MW compared with the 200 MW across the Faroe Islands? Well, the Faroe Island roadmap is 200 MW. As we speak now, we are building the roadmap for Ireland to see how many hundreds of megawatts that market will take. We have an approach, and this also relates to the question on how you secure funding. One of the most important activities that we are involved in and have been involved in for the last year now is to really understand and be able to explain and verify the total potential for Ireland and do the same exercise on the grid value of tidal for Ireland. A scenario with 500 MW or with a gigawatt of tidal in Ireland, that will be the end game for the Irish market. Obviously, that will have an impact on the likelihood of success for the first 10 MW. It is simply the scope of what the European Commission, the Innovation Fund, is backing the 10 MW. It is highly likely that the first area we are talking about will be an area good for significantly more than 10 MW. But this is the first phase where this funding and capital is targeting. Thank you. Which of your recent announced partnerships will you prioritize first? Now I have to bite my tongue here because I need to recall what it is that we've actually signed and what we still have in the pipeline. I think that the ones we've announced now is what we're doing in Chile and what we're doing in the Maldives are the two recent ones. I think that our approach is not to try to value them. The Chilean market is a huge market. The partner in the Maldives is very closely connected to the government and serious funding and the agenda of protecting the energy transition in those tourist islands. So they have different values and advantages. I would also like to take the opportunity to comment on, okay, we're communicating those MOUs and that we're building those partnerships, and we know that this is not the end game or reason to open too many champagne bottles because we have entered into those close collaborations, committed collaborations. But it is extremely important for our local partners that there is a public and an open backing from our end. The list of investors in Chile is growing by the day because of the open communication around this collaboration. So that's sort of the primary target for those press releases to back those activities. Our go-to-market strategy is very clear. We want to keep the doors open in as many tidal markets as possible, and it is fantastic to see that we need to back with information and experience and communication material and product data. But it is not Minesto's balance sheet that is investing in market progress here. Morteza is doing a fantastic job in the Maldives, and Trayen Power in Chile is an extremely dedicated, experienced energy director that is pushing this forward. So the market development team at Minesto is just a handful of people internally. But if you count the people that are working, but are spending their professional lives on carving out opportunities for us around the world now, I'd say that that team is four times larger, actually, than what we have on our payroll. So we strongly believe in this approach, and it is definitely not a matter of trying to enter every market in parallel from a small tech company. But we know that there will be small differences between success and failure in those markets, and that we need to start with sites that have perfect conditions. To build the global roadmap for tidal is so important to take this sector to real scale. That is the arguments around Minesto announcing very broad and geographically separated market initiatives. Were there any components that showed wear during the inspection? Yes, definitely so. I think that what this person is referring to is one of the latest press releases on the technical side where we had a really good turnaround on service and inspection of the Dragon 4. You can say that we pushed the Dragon 4 tougher over summer than we have ever had before, because we have been able to fly through the strong tides. There are definitely lessons learned for us on how to improve basically several identified components and subsystems in the load chain from the weight of the foundation all the way up to the structural integrity of the kite. This is really important for us because the more lifting force we can take, the more energy theoretically we can generate. But at the same time, we do not want thick, bulky components because that will create more drag. We want the drag to be the turbine. This is where engineering secrets reside with Minesto. We will keep pushing those systems. We believe that there is even more to get out of them given the latest results. Thank you. A follow-up question to that. Will you make any design changes to the Dragon 12 units planned for Hestfjord and Ireland following this inspection? I think that we've already announced, I think it's more than a year ago, we talked about the X- wing, where we will change the hydrodynamic configuration of the wing. I will not go into why we're doing it, but you can obviously understand that it has to do with further improvements of performance and stability in flight. Anyone who's been involved in maturing and iterations with integrated technologies such as ours will realize that when you go through one design cycle of this, you've had the opportunity for years to dismantle, inspect, operate, learn from what is a good solution and what will wear down quicker. In any journey like this, there will be hundreds of small changes, and this is sort of the natural maturing process for technologies to reach the right cost levels and the right levels of robustness. It could be, what type of gearbox oil are we using? What kind of leakage detection systems? How much of the sensoring configurations do we take out of what will then be a commercial machine because we don't need all that information? It can be simple things as just the size of the rudder. Do we reduce the rudder size by 10% in order to decrease the load of the rudders, so we don't have to change rudders as often? Would that influence the flight? You can imagine we have, I don't know, billions of lines of operating data and with force sensors, temperature sensors, RPMs, quality of electricity, losses in different components all over the place. I think this is also the reason why Minesto is pushing this sector forward and take lead. We have from the start said that since we have a unique solution, we need to have in-house world-class engineering to push this forward. This is why we have an internal learning mechanism and a learning process together with our suppliers, such as SKF, for example, that is bringing, as everyone can realize, world-class knowhow on key components into what we do. A lot of learning. We can talk about learning all day around those things. Thank you. Can you go into detail or clarify more what needs to happen before you can make a final investment decision on Hestfjord? Look, it is not Minesto's balance sheet that should fund it. So it is the dialogues we have with local and international partners that needs to be completed. That is what is needed for Hestfjord. Would you say that a commercial installation at Hestfjord in 2027 is still realistic? Yes. The commercial installation is, well, if you by commercial installation mean that we have financial closure, and that we can start building, yes. To have it deployed in 2027 will be somewhat aggressive. At least if you talk arrays. If you talk single units, definitely. If it is a need to start with three machines or whatever it takes in order to get the project going. But the first phase that is announced is up to 10 MW. It depends on who wants to fund what and at what scale. Thank you. It is not fixed that it has to be on a certain level. Understood. Thank you. When do you expect your first significant commercial revenues? Well, we expect them this winter. Okay. Based on the Faroe Islands results, how do you expect your cost per kilowatt hour compared with offshore wind and other renewables? Other renewables. Large scale solar in desert is cheaper than most. That will be difficult for us or anyone else to compete with, I believe, long term. The cost levels of different technologies differs on where you deploy them, distance to shore, the scale they're deployed, and the type of natural resource you're converting. But for the Faroe Islands case, with the conditions they have offshore with water depths and where they are, maybe a need for floating offshore wind is needed. We're definitely a more cost-competitive alternative than the offshore wind at that location. But we are behind offshore wind today cost-wise. But I don't think that the final verdict on a cost structure of offshore wind is at hand yet either. But long term, our estimates, our analysis will tell us that we will be more cost-effective than offshore wind in general. Are you planning to apply for the Horizon Wave and Tidal funding call in March next year? We consider every opportunity to secure grant-based funding or soft loans or whatever it is, and it's not only from the EU perspective, it's with Swedish governments, and it's with local authorities, everything from Asian Development Bank to the U.S. Department of Energy to whatever it might be. We have, let's say, this as a daily activity with Minesto to complement private equity and private investments with these types of funding, depending on what jurisdiction it is and for what purpose. And definitely also if we can access funding to support continued product development and R&D, that would be most helpful to customize and fine-tune the technology, focus on certain supporting subsystems that needs to be in place, preferably then together with partners where we do not have to broaden the Minesto technology scope. That is not something we take lightly. We believe that the scope we have now is where we want to be. From the bottom joint to the functionality in the control station onshore to the wing tip, so to speak. Thank you, Martin. Based on your answer there, it is safe to assume that you are also planning to apply for the Innovation Fund in this December. Is that correct? As I said, we evaluate and consider every opportunity from soft funding. We are not going to get lazy just because we have been recently awarded. Rather the opposite. It is actually so that it is not just that we have been awarded this grant from Innovation Fund. We have also got a stamp of, let us say, that this is high quality. I do not know what it is called. We will communicate that. That gives us closer access to other types of EU funding, this sort of stamp of quality from the Commission. It has to be a strategic energy technology, and you have to have a really advanced high level of ability to present your case and build investment cases. Then you can receive that kind of stamp for whatever it is worth. Okay. Thank you. If we are looking at the partnerships, is TCC still your partner in Taiwan? Yes. Perfect. Thank you. What is the latest on the pre-consented Keelung site? That is a part of the discussions with Taiwan Cement and other complementary partners in Taiwan. There is no news on that one. The only news on Taiwan is that it is a good example of a market where the discussion politically and industry-wise is really intense on how to resolve security of supply and competitive cost structure for electricity. Taiwan is subsidizing electricity to its industry to keep the competitive semiconductor industry alive in the country. But with current price levels of fossils, they are carrying an even heavier burden now than they have done historically. So I would say that the interest for innovative solutions is higher in Taiwan than it has been over the years that we have been working with those guys there. It is a matter of finding a test site that is good for reference installations, for consenting purposes, primarily. That is a hurdle in Taiwan. Can you comment on how the SEV is helping to move the planned expansion forward? SEV is investing together with us and have been over many years now in consenting, in permitting, so that is collaborative in getting those, let us say, agreements in place as assets for the project. But their most important role in both Vestmanna, the build out there with the reference, the test site, but obviously also for Hestfjord is that they have completed a build-out of onshore grid infrastructure that the project can benefit significantly from. So if you compare a U.K. context or most European countries, the willingness to invest in the onshore infrastructure with SEV and the local legislation in the Faroes is absolutely world-class. This is obviously a role that we want to expand with SEV. We want them to be fully on board as owners of the Hestfjord, and that is something that we obviously are working on. Thank you. Would you say that there is still enough time to deliver the expansion needed for the 2030 net zero target? The Faroe Islands and SEV, they have actually pushed their 2030 targets to 2040. Their vision or their agenda is now targeting 2040 instead of 2030, which is actually good news for us because there was an aggressive wind build-out that should have taken them to 2030 primarily. That has been slow, and there are still ambitious plans around that. I think that the research done by SEV and our work on the value of tidal, I think that the timing now for an integrated roadmap and collaboration is better than ever. So 2040 it is. Thank you, Martin. Can you say how close you are to signing your first commercial microgrid contract? Very close. On a serious note, you can be quite certain that when we can announce such a contract, we will do it under the MAR frameworks. The Euro Dragon Farm award, the hands-on production results from this summer, and the positioning of Minesto in the sector now are all factors that increase the likelihood of, let's say, immediate success for microgrids significantly. Thank you. When could that first microgrids contract start generating revenue? That could be rather quickly. The microgrid contract would be sales or an arrangement where we lease units or do a collaborative setup. The main revenue for Minesto in this is obviously to sell the project and the hardware. There are scenarios where we could operate a microgrid and also make money out of diesel savings or produce electricity. Our business model is primarily to provide hardware and technology and services. That is what we want to sell. We are quite good now at prospecting and offering and putting together those microgrid installation and operations projects. There is a whole range of them out there now in dialogues on several markets, tens of markets. Regarding the Euro Dragon Farm in Ireland, has the exact project location now been decided? Can you also outline the planned Dragon configuration, including wingspan, rated power per unit, and the total number of units? We are still in negotiation with the detailed terms and conditions with the Commission to position this as favorably as possible for us. Also with respect in relationship to local stakeholders, consenting regimes, and the local communities, we will not talk about the details around the Irish project yet. Those who are curious, they will have to be patient. Thank you, Martin, for that. Obviously, we have done in-depth analysis and measurements at sites and have a complete design of this. Otherwise, we would never be awarded an investment like this. When are you planning to deploy and test Dragon 12 in its updated configuration? When do you expect to publish verified power generation and performance data so that investors can use to assess the improvements compared with, let's say, Dragon 4? We're still discussing the next step with the Dragon 12. It involves several different scenarios. Whether we will move the generation, it might even be so that for consenting reasons that we might move it to Hestfjord. We might move it within Vestmanna to further improve the flow profile around the microsite, the exact location. There are several factors that influence production here that are not related to the performance of the core technology but related to the specific location where it's installed. For the winter, we are happy with pushing forward with the D4 configurations, some minor upgrades of that configuration to make it suitable and to deliver with the Swedish Energy Agency Project ETRIC where we're integrating the storage with it. The answer to the question is that we do not have any publicly available plans for the D12 next step yet. It is in good shape in Vestmanna and has been thoroughly inspected and analyzed since we run it, and it is in good health and ready to go whenever we decide to. It is obviously also a matter of being cost-effective in our testing and in our development work. What we are doing with the D4s now is much faster and more cost-effective than if we would have done it immediately with the D12. We follow the logic that we have had historically that we work on that half scale, if you may call it so. Much more clever. Thank you, Martin, for that. I will take one final question before wrapping up this Q&A. Assuming the planned SEK 130 million rights issue is completed, how long do you expect to proceed to finance operations, and is the objective to reach a financial close for at least one of the Dragon Farms before Minesto needs to raise additional capital? If we go on now according to plan and raise this capital, we will have a runway for the company moving forward where the commercial deliverables on funding projects, selling a microgrid installation, and prepare for scale-up on manufacturing. That will all be within the financial horizon of this rights issue on the runway, so to speak. That wraps up the Q&A here. Thank you both Martin and Alexander for presenting with us today, and I wish you all a great rest of the day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.