Good morning, and welcome to Cadeler's H1 2025 Earnings Presentation. Presenting today are Mikkel Gleerup, Chief Executive Officer; and Peter Brogaard, Chief Financial Officer. Please be reminded that the presenters' remarks today will include forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those contemplated. The risks and uncertainties that could cause Cadeler's results to differ materially from today's forward- looking statements include those detailed in Cadeler's annual report on Form 20-F on file with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Any forward-looking statements made this morning are based on assumptions as of today, and Cadeler undertakes no obligation to update these statements as a result of new information or future events. This morning's presentation includes both IFRS and certain non-IFRS financial measures. A reconciliation of non-IFRS financial measures to the nearest IFRS equivalent is provided in Cadeler's annual report. The annual report and today's earnings presentation are available on Cadeler's website at cadeler.com/investor. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded today. If you have any objections, please disconnect at this time. Mikkel Gleerup, you may begin.

Thank you very much, and good morning and good afternoon and good evening to the people that have dialed into this presentation. Happy to present our half year results together with Peter. And what we can say around the first half year result in 2025, our financial performance is above our expectations with the full year guidance increased in July 2025. We maintain that guidance in this half year report. Wind Keeper delivered a long-term contract with Vestas was secured, I think a process that we entered into earlier during the year, where this opportunity became possible for us and where we also had a discussion with our client to come to the point where we are now. Upgrades are waiting for Keeper before we will put her into commercial operation in Q1 2026. Seven vessels are on hire around the world, including 2 in Taiwan and 2 in North America. Strong and increasing demand for O&M services, especially for the larger turbines is reinforcing our decision to establish Nexra, our service concept, where we also have seen now the first real evidence of that coming to the market with the Wind Keeper. Our backlog continued to strengthen even with the removal of the Hornsea 4 after delay from Orsted on that project, and we currently stand at EUR 2.5 billion. Commercial highlights in the first half of '25. The Wind Keeper is certainly a commercial highlight. It's a vessel that we negotiated, acquired and took delivery of all ahead of schedule. It's the newest addition, and we have secured a long-term contract with Vestas, a 3-year period with additional 2.5 years of options with the same client. The contract, as I said, commences in the early part of 2026. And we believe that the Wind Keeper will be a…

Yes. Thank you very much, Mikkel. For Q2 the 3 months ending, we had a revenue of EUR 233.1 million. That is, of course, impacted by the termination fees from the postponement of the Hornsea 4. However, if you adjust for that, then it's still a substantial growth as compared to last year. Equity ratio is still at around 50%, i.e., a very solid balance sheet going forward. Utilization -- adjusted utilization for the 3 months in Q2 was 94.1%, which is very, very solid as well, and we are pleased to see that we are above 90% for the quarter. Market cap, EUR 1.7 billion, EBITDA also substantially up against last year, again, of course, impacted by the termination fees on Q4. We adjusted our outlook for '25 early July. So we took the range up with EUR 103 million indicative of this termination fee. But adjusting for that, it is still a substantial growth that we are showing. Cash flow from operating activities also up EUR 50 million in the quarter. Backlog stands, as Mikkel said, at EUR 2.5 billion and 3 months daily average turnover on the stock exchange is EUR 4.9 million. If we look at the P&L for Q2 '25 -- and still bearing in mind, of course, this termination fee, which inflated the numbers. We see very, very solid growth in Q2. Of course, now we have 8 vessels on water as compared to 4 last year when people coming in very late in the quarter and not operational yet. However, we see that our operational model is functioning very well. Cost of sales is following the increase of vessels. OpEx also even a little bit lower than compared to last year and SG&A, which is a number that we have talked a little…

Yes. Just a slide on sustainability update as well. We believe that, that is important to update you guys as well on what is being done. I think we can say that the team has been expanded both in terms of competencies, but also raw muscle to develop what we need to develop. We have had several investors over the years asking us to be vetted and certified under different schemes, and that is something that our sustainability team is also working on to make sure that we are where we need to be in terms of that. But also in terms of really [ raw ] decarbonization on what we do. We have our own targets, and we are trying to be ambitious. And the road map has been defined also with the larger fleet that is coming in. And the gaps that are needed to be bridged, so to speak, they are being modeled and what to do for -- to reach our targets. We also have ongoing shore power upgrades for the O-class vessels with Wind Osprey being finalized in Q1. In terms of equipment efficiency upgrades, we're also looking at that on the O-class vessels after the energy order we did there, and we are execution, we are planning the execution for the end of Q3. In terms of biofuel, this is also a strategy we're looking at. The legacy vessels will not be able to sail on the new fuel types and the biofuel can play a role. And we are -- we have been testing with blending biofuels into the fuel mix to also have that as an asset on the sustainability radar for us and something that we can work with our clients to procure and to deliver on projects as well. And…

[Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from James Franklin with Jefferies.

So firstly, I've got to ask on Revolution Wind. So I know, obviously, it's only a very small part of your backlog now, but just wanted to get a bit of color on what the potential impact could be to Cadeler if this project remains halted, for example, if it stays halted for a month or what would ultimately happen if the contract is canceled. So do you have any contractual protection in place, firstly, on Revolution Wind? And then secondly, on Sunrise Wind, please?

Yes. I think what we can say is that contractually, we are as well protected as you can be. And that has been discussed before because the fact that the market here is difficult at the moment is not a surprise, I guess, for anybody. So the contract we have on both Sunrise and Revolution are contracts where I would say there's a lot of protection in them. At the moment, what we can say about Revolution Wind is that we are in dialogue with our clients. The only reference point we have is Empire that was halted for around about a month or so, and then it was restarted again. The question is, will the same happen here? Nobody knows at the moment. So I think that we are here and we have said to our client that we are looking to support them to the degree we can with the installation of the project. That's the only logical outcome of this. This is that Revolution is completed and providing clean energy to the citizens of the U.S. And -- but I think that nobody really knows today what is happening. So we have been told that we should stop working on Revolution Wind and comply with the stop order and that we will hear more. That is what we know today.

Okay. Got it. That's helpful. And then secondly, I just wanted to talk about Wind Keeper. So you gave a bit of commentary on your CapEx in the first half of the year, which included various construction payments for the newbuilds. But talking about 2Q specifically, is it fair to assume that the majority of that CapEx related to Wind Keeper and there's no sort of other major construction payments? And then second part on Wind Keeper is if you can just give us a bit of color on the upgrades that you're expecting to make on the vessels, so not just in terms of the value, but if you can give us a sort of picture of what the physical upgrades are likely to be?

Let me -- thank you, Jamie. Let me answer the first part of the question and then Mikkel can answer the second part of the question. Yes, it's fair to assume that Q2 CapEx is [ Wind Keeper ], there's no unplanned CapEx in Q2 or first half. It is really the installments that is in the contracts with the yards. And then Wind Keeper, of course, came in with a big number in Q2. So your assumption is correct.

And in terms of the upgrades, the upgrades we are doing on Keeper is upgrades that will enable the Wind Keeper to work in European waters like what we see on other vessels. So the Wind Keeper has been built by a company in China that had an ambition of working in Chinese water and also in international waters. But there are things that they have done in the design that we would have done differently if we had started the design, so to speak. And we are trying to rectify some of those. I cannot give you all the details, but some of the things that we are doing is that we are, for example, putting a new auxiliary crane on the vessel because the current auxiliary crane is in the way of the way we do a deck layout for efficient O&M, but also for potentially installation work. We're also adding a new bow cluster to improve the [ DP ] for North Sea operation, and we are also working on the leg guides to get more capacity out of the very nicely long legs that this vessel has that enables her to work on very, very deep water depth and very complicated soil conditions. We're also recertifying the main crane under an international classification society, which means that we can do a better lifting curve with the crane and then a general accommodation upgrade that will make her similar to our other vessel standards and also to what our clients can fairly expect from a Cadeler vessel. So in highlight, those are the upgrades we are looking at.

That's great. And then final question then with regards to Wind Keeper, were you actually sort of actively looking for an O&M vessel? Or was this basically just an opportunity that came up at a good price and you went for it? And have you seen sort of other similar vessels in the market in Asia?

Last question first. We don't see similar vessels. And I think the Wind Keeper is pretty unique in terms of how it's been built. It's been built with a lot of international components. So there's a lot of, let's say, read across to other spare parts in the Cadeler fleet, for example, on the [ Husbank ] crane and so on and so forth. So we have looked at other Chinese assets, but mainly due to the fact that we got the questions from investors a lot, what if these Chinese vessels are coming to Europe suddenly starting to compete. That actually made us look into all these vessels, what is out there? How can it be done? How would it look if they came and what would need to happen to them if they had to be upgraded? And the conclusion was clear it's very, very hard to upgrade the vessels that have been built, particularly for the domestic market in China because they have been built for a different installation methodology that almost would make it easier just to build a new vessel rather than to try to retrofit to Europe with one of these assets. The exception was Keeper, but it has been offered to us for a long while, more than 2 years, but the price started in a different area. I think that our interest in Keeper started really when we were contacted by the lenders of the vessel. And we could see that we could acquire the vessel at a price point where we believe that we could also build an O&M business case on the vessel. And at the same time, we had a dialogue with a couple of clients that were in need of that O&M supply already starting next year. And hence, since there's very, very limited availability this year and next year in the market, we had a dialogue with some of these clients and said this could be an option. Is that something you would go for? And if you wanted to go for it, how would you do it? And that is what led to the decision. So that is very transparently sharing how the decision was made. Can we stop the presentation so we can see the speaker, please?

Our next question will come from Roald Hartvigsen with Clarkson.

Congratulations on another strong quarter. So first, just to follow a bit up on the first question that came in on Revolution and Scylla. And I know it's still early, so probably no firm plans yet, as you alluded to, but do you see the potential for alternative work scopes for the vessel amid the stop order? And I guess, more specifically, Sunrise Wind is in the same area still progressing. Do you think there is a scenario where Scylla moves over to help out with work there while awaiting clarity on the stop order? Or are there roadblocks making that prohibitively challenging?

I think, first and foremost, our clients don't wish that. So the vessel is mobilized for the installation of Revolution and Sunrise. And hence, if we work on something else, we have to demobilize from these projects because we are working with a Jones Act compliant [ box ] that is landing the equipment on the jack-up and then we install from the jack-up. So it is not so easy to just go and work somewhere else. So I think it's fair to say that our clients don't wish us to go and work somewhere else now. But that is certainly something we would have considered if it was possible also to minimize the impact for our client. I can say that after this news came out on Friday, we have been caught up by some clients that is interested to hear whether that vessel then becomes available because there is, at the moment today, a shortage in the market on capacity in projects also in Europe that is already in installation. And hence, I believe that if the vessel comes free, which I don't believe or hope today, I would like to make that clear, then I think that it could be repurposed to another project.

Furthermore, we have, over the last year or so seen a number of contract terminations for turbine installation vessels where the turbine installation vessel operator have benefited significantly from large termination fees. And I guess many would also place you in that category. My question is, in that context, do you see more pushback from developers to sort of lower termination fees on the contracts being signed and negotiated now and in the time ahead? Or are you still of the impression that the levels for termination fees in the contracts remain fairly stable from the contracts that were signed 1, 2, 3 years ago? And yes.

I don't see that at the moment, but I would also say that the backdrop is very short still. So if it's coming, it's probably we have not seen it yet. But I don't -- I think that the flip side to that coin is also that for us as a vessel provider to lock in the vessel and not being able to do anything else with the vessel, it comes with a cost. It's an option and an option has a price [ right ]. So it's something that you can calculate the value of an option. And I think that, that is how we are looking at it as well because we can also say to our clients that projects have been delayed and hence, we need to protect ourselves if that happens. We cannot just sit with nothing if it happens because then we've become the losers in the grand of play, so to speak. So I think that we are -- we still have very fruitful dialogues on this, but -- and it's a 2-sided sword almost you can say, because one thing is, of course, to have the protection and the termination fee. The other side to that is also to try to really bet on the projects you believe on as well. And so there is work on our side to be rightly placed for the right projects. And then, of course, also to not always look for the last dollar, but also look for the right conditions and the contracts, I would say. And I think that, that's something that is still working fairly well for all parties in the industry. And I would like to say that termination fees as a contractor, you are happy they are there, but you really don't want to have them. You would like to do the project instead. The same goes for Hornsea 4. We would have loved to do Hornsea 4. We will still love to do Hornsea 4 when it comes back.

Yes, makes sense.

We have no further questions at this time. Thank you for your participation. I will now hand the floor back to Mikkel Gleerup for any closing remarks.

Just thank you for everybody listening in. Good to speak to you again and reach out to us separately, Alexander, Peter and myself, if there's any additional questions. I'm sorry, we cannot give more detail on Revolution, but I think everybody can understand that it's very new for everyone and that we are working with our clients as much as we can in this sad situation that our client is currently in. So we will update you as soon as we know something that we can share. But thanks for listening in now, and have a good day ahead.