Thank you for standing by, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Dynagas LNG Partners Conference Call on the Second Quarter 2015 Financial Results. We have with us Mr. Tony Lauritzen, Chief Executive Officer; and Mr. Michael Gregos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I must advise you that this conference is being recorded today. At this time, I would like to read the Safe Harbor statement. This conference call and slide presentation of the webcast contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Safe Harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, which may affect Dynagas LNG Partners’ business prospects and results of operations. Such risks are more fully disclosed in Dynagas LNG Partners filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And now I’ll pass the floor to Mr. Lauritzen. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us in our second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2015 earnings conference call. I am joined today by our CFO, Michael Gregos. Yesterday, we issued a press release announcing our second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2015 results. Certain non-GAAP measures will be discussed on this call. We have provided a description of those measures as well as the discussion of why we believe this information to be useful in our press release. We are pleased to report the partnership’s earnings for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2015, which are in line with our expectations. In particular, we are focused on the performance of our fleet from a safety, operational, and technical point of view, and we're glad to report that during the said periods, our fleet did not experience any unscheduled downtime, which we believe is reflective of the quality of our fleet and our manager's operational ability. The partnership itself showed a significant improvement compared to the same periods in 2014. This increase was primarily attributable to the growth of our fleet in line with our strategy. Our fleet income is produced from multiyear time charter contracts with international energy companies, who pay a fixed daily rate for the chartered vessels. As the charterers also pay the majority of variable costs, such as fuel and terminal cost, the partnership enjoys a steady and visible cash flow that are not tied to oil or gas prices. With our fleet fully contracted through 2016 and 80% contracted through 2017, we intend to continue to focus our attention on further fleet growth potential, contract coverage and safe and efficient operations. The fleet of five LNG carriers currently owned by our sponsor, which we have the…

Thank you, Tony. Turning to Slide 4 of the presentation, I'll review some recent financial highlights. For the second quarter, the whole fleet has operated according to contract without any incident. We're pleased that the Amur River commences 13-year charter to Gazprom. Given that we operate under long-term fixed rate contracts without any exposure to commodity prices, volume or exposure to any specific project or cash flows, our cash flows are not impacted by the volatility and the commodity and financial markets. As a result, it was another stable quarter in which we continued to deliver positive results. Q2 2015 adjusted EBITDA amounted to $27.6 million, an increase of 62% from the same period in 2014. For the second quarter, average daily hire gross of commissions amounted to about $78,800 per vessel and our average daily OpEx amounted to $13,150 per vessel. Adjusted net income which is net income adjusted for time charter high amortization for the second quarter amounted to $14.6 million or $0.41 per common unit. For the six month period ended June 30, utilization was 99% across the whole fleet. On Slide 5 you can see the second quarter 2015 results versus the same period of 2014. The growth in revenues and adjusted EBITDA is driven by the acquisition of two vessels in 2014, all of which are in long term contracts as well as our strong underlying operating performance. Moving on to Slide 6, the distributable cash flow, cash available for distribution is $17.4 million for the second quarter of 2014 as compared to $12.6 million for the second quarter of 2014. For the second quarter, we distributed $15.1 million of cash per common subordinated and GP units, emanating from the quarterly per unit cash distribution of $0.4225. This gives us the coverage ratio of 1.16…

Thank you, Michael. Let’s move on to Slide 9 to summarize the partnership's profile. The partnerships fleet currently counts five high specifications in versatile LNG carriers with an average age of about 5.7 years in an industry where expected useful economic life time is 35 years. Our vessels have unique features that enable them to navigate as conventional LNG carriers and to operate in ice bound areas that are restricted for conventional vessels. We have a strong customer base with leading energy companies namely Gazprom and Statoil. These charters are leaders in their fields and only work with top performing service providers. Our contract backlog is about $596.3 million and our average remaining charter period is about 4.5 years. Moving on to Slide 10, our fleet currently consistent of five LNG carriers of which four have Ice Class 1A notation. Our fleet is fully contracted in 2015 and 2016 and 80% for 2017 at the time we expect the LNG shipping markets to be very strong due to the current ongoing construction of new LNG production plan measured against a perceived relatively insufficient order book combined with an existing fleet that contains a large number of undersized vessels. We have a unique fleet. It can handle conventional LNG shipping as well as trading ice bound and sub-zero areas. This means that we’re able to pursue business opportunities in two different markets namely conventional shipping and a unique market for ice bound trade. The drivers behind several of our current charters were the Ice Class features of our fleet as well as the operational track record in such conditions. As an extension of the ability to operate in ice bound areas, we're the only company in the world with a current capability and experience in transiting the Northern Sea routes, which…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question today comes from the line of Ben Nolan from Stifel. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I have several questions. The first relates to something I think you said, Michael, when thinking about your available capital for drop-downs, and certainly in keeping with your growth strategy, it would seem as though one would be coming relatively soon. But how do you think about the availability of capital for that? Obviously, you've done the preferred, which accounts for what I would imagine a portion of the equity; and then I assume there would be some debt financing. But do you think there would need to be some element of additional capital over and above the traditional bank finance in the preferred? And is it possible to maybe utilize the credit facility from the sponsor as sort of a bridge loan until the equity markets are a little bit more cooperative?

Yes, hi Ben. I think for our next drop, obviously we issued the preferred, which is as you said it was going to fund the equity portion of our next drop. I think we should expect that the balance of the purchase price under normal circumstances will be debt financed, that’s the expectation yes.

Okay. So you don't -- wouldn't anticipate adding any more equity at all for the next drop. Is that…

No we don’t -- we’re not going to need any equity for the next drop, no. Given the environment where we are now in fundamentals are being overlooked, we feel it’s prudent to refrain from issuing any equity as a funding source.

Okay; that's very helpful and good to hear. My next question relates to something that has been out in the market a while that the sponsor had won a contract for Russian LNG Ice Class icebreaker vessels. I was curious if you have any commentary on that, or if there is anything that you could say to that with respect to -- well, anything that you might be able to say in relation to that.

Yes thank you, Ben. So we are aware that there has been some speculation and some press on it. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to comment on this transaction at time being, but we expect to be so in a couple of weeks from now.

Okay. That's helpful. And then lastly for me, just -- I know that, Tony, you'd talked about how you expect there to be a growing need for Ice Class vessels, and obviously you guys are the leader in that category, and certainly when looking at the vessels at the sponsor level in particular that have yet to be chartered. Are you currently seeing an appetite for long-term charters for those as a function of their Ice Class capability? And is that something that you would expect, despite the current soft spot market, you could -- maybe able to soon lock up, in terms of long-term employment on those? Either as a function of just regular trading or as a function of their Ice Class capabilities.

Yes, thank you, Ben. So as you know the great advantage with our fleet, both the existing fleet that we have on the partnership and also the optional vessel is that they have this versatility and being able to sail as a conventional LNG carrier, and to trade in ice bound areas. We do see a general need for term employment going forward against the expected production volumes coming, but that being said, we see in particular need for ice classed and winterized vessels going forward, and as you know that's a completely different supply and demand picture that we're looking out there.

Okay. So when you say that, are you talking about some sort of a future event? Or is there immediate demand for Ice Class vessels that is somehow or another -- as you say, the supply and demand is somehow or another different than that of the regular vessels, and maybe not quite as subject to the current oversupply that we see in the traditional market?

Yes exactly, and we see the general requirements with a little bit forward commencement, which we also would be sensible. I don't think that when you have available vessels. At this moment, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to commit them right now on long term projects. It seems more sensible to do that a little bit more forward in time.

Okay. All right. Very good that does it for my questions. Thanks guys.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Our next question today comes from the line of Fotis Giannakoulis from Morgan Stanley.

Yes, hi guys, hi Tony. I want also to ask about your alternatives for the growth for the additional rebound. I understand the first dropdown will be without any equity, are there any other ways that you can try to facilitate dropdowns? Any other forms of capital and have there been any thoughts of potentially getting some assistance from your sponsor in different classes of shares or even sellers credits?

Hi Fotis, it's Michael. Hi, that's a great question. Beyond our next drop, which we're not going to, we know we're not going to issue an equity, we definitely will examine various alternatives such that the ones that you mentioned as among other things our sponsors are willing to facilitate the financing of dropdowns through as you say sellers credit or receiving units. So all these alternatives will be considered, and the market should not underestimate the possibility of the sponsor support in some form or another if the market, the present market anomaly persists. However, I personally do not believe the market anomalies last forever, but we do have tools and how to grow in case it does last longer than we anticipate.

And given this intention or support, how do you view the timing of the dropdowns? How has this changed compared to six months ago when the stock price was much higher?

Well, as I told then, we did issue the preferred with a view to doing a drop down as soon as practically possible. Nothing material has changed in our targets. Our targets still remains unchanged in terms of the number of the drops per year. We would hope that the next drop will be consummate that as soon as possible and thereafter we'll have to see, but as I said, we are considering the tools in order to fund dropdowns in the event that our unit price remains undervalued.

And regarding the re-chartering risk that you have, there are two of your vessels that they come out of contracts in 2017. I understand that at least for one of them, BG has an extension option; but it seems that it's at a very high level. Have there been any discussions about extending these two charters, similar to what you did with the Clean Force with Gazprom? And what shall we expect in terms of duration of a potential extension and in terms of a rate? Is this something that you can give us some guidance?

Yeah. So -- it is true what you say that the option on the BG charter is quite high compared to the current market. So we don’t see any value in running to push for negotiating that vessel for an extension at this point in time, that’s the Clean Energy. We would rather just like to sit back and wait and see what happens there. That being said for some of the other charters there are let’s say requirements in the market that could potentially well suite some of our openings in the more nearer term although that is probably looking at 2018 onwards.

The reason I'm -- what I'm trying to understand is the ability of a rechartering, especially these steam turbine vessels under the long-term contracts. Obviously the rate is something to be negotiated. But can you tell us where these vessels are being deployed right now, if they are going to be needed even after the expiration of these contracts? Or what are the chances that the charterer might prefer to go for a newbuilding vessel potentially from your sponsor instead of extending the charters for these two ships?

So, presumably we’re talking about three vessels that we have there are turbine driven, and you remember that we were successful in extending the Clean Force that has been renamed Amur River until 2028, that despite that we had other vessels to offer them of other propulsion system. The fact is that, some charters, they really like the 150,000 cubic size and they don’t have such a high need for high speed on the vessels which makes this units perfect. So I would when it comes to the for example, the Ob River which is on charter to Gazprom, its sublet to Sakhalin Energy until 2017, but with an extension option that takes it into 2018. Obviously Sakhalin Energy is not stopping to produce gas in 2018 and its perfect chip for the trade. So why shouldn’t we’ll be able to extend with a party like that. And when it comes to the Clean Energy she has to say potential opening in 2017, if not the extension option is declared and we've seen that that vessel is very good for intra-Pacific trades, is being used quite a lot for loading in Australia and going up to either Japan or China or Korea. So it’s a very -- it's very good vessel for that kind of trade.

All right. Tony, I would like to ask you about the structure of the market and how do you see the market developing the next three to five years -- or even shorter than that, given the fact that we have all this new volume of LNG that is going to come online. You mentioned that most of these projects they have already contracted their volumes. My question is: how much of this volume is contracted to utilities, end-users that need the LNG for transportation? How much is for trading purposes to players like BG, for example? And how -- what are the chances that the LNG market overall will be oversupplied at least for the next two, three years? And any implications both for the spot market of LNG -- we saw that Cheniere has chartered some vessels for its own trading purposes, including one of your sponsor's vessels. And also about the FSRU market, and given that -- if there are any thoughts and even expanding into this sector.

Yes so that was many questions in one. Let me see where I can start. Fotis. First of all it’s very difficult to pinpoint exactly who would be the end user of the gas. The fact is that a substantial part of it has been contracted out already and that gives us confidence and a lot of confidence. LNG is such a commodity that it’s not so easy to reduce production even if you would like to because of a pricing matter. These terminals are quite expensive and they would like to ensure that the terminals are repaid. So even if gas prices has come down and potentially they can stay more direct for some time because of ample gas coming, still that gas needs to be transported. And in the case that it should be difficult to find or source buyers for those cargoes in the case some of it goes to major trading portfolio still the gas needs to sit in a tank and since there is limited storage on the production side well that means that vessels would potentially also have to be used for a longer period of time for storage, which is a good thing because it means that more vessels will be utilized going forward. So that kind of leads us a little bit into the questions about FSRU and a general need for re-gas capacity and I believe you’re right. There will be a need for more re-gas capacity. There is underway construction of re-gas capacity to quite a large extent at the moment, but obviously this is time consuming etcetera and LNG is coming, is coming quickly. So with that in mind, I also do believe that there is good prospect for the FSRU market, although we’re not directly involved in re-gasification…

Thank you, very much Tony. Thank you, Michael.

Welcome.

[Operator Instructions] The next question today comes from the line of Shawn Collins from Bank of America.

Good morning and good afternoon, Tony and Michael. Hope you are guys are well.

Very well. Thank you.

Good. I wanted to ask kind of an industry question. Congrats on the new commercial LNG carrier pool between yourselves, Golar, and GasLog. I know it's focused on spot and short term business and that's not applicable for Dynagas Partners. Other liquid markets such as product and crude certainly operate commercial pools, but this is fairly normal for LNG carriers, I just wanted to ask about the history of the pool and the context and how this idea came about and then evolved from an idea to an actual commercial pool.

Very well. Thank you very much for that question. So as you stated this is on a sponsor level than I guess LNG partners do not have any vessels in the spot market and is not part of the pool. There is no reason to be part of the pool. The LNG market is evolving along with other markets and I think it could be sometimes beneficial to be able to add scheduling power when owners have a limited number of vessels that are competing in this short term market for a limited period of time. Then you kind of miss out on a few opportunities indicated on how the ability to schedule around all of the charter's requirements. So that was really the basis for the pool was to how can one get together and ensure that one has sufficient scheduling ability to work that against short term requirements. So that was kind of the background for the pool. That being said, it will not affect the partnerships let's say ability to grow. Our group's overall strategy is to fix vessels for the -- for long term ensuring that they will be dropping down vessels in the partnership when it is timely right to do that, but we think the pool mechanism is a great mechanism to carry the sponsor vessels on the shorter term market until they are fixed against longer term employment.

Okay. Great. That's helpful. It sounds like a great idea and also congrats Tony for running the pool in that responsibility. A second question, closer to home, to Dynagas LNG Partners, so the new charter for the Amur River, formerly the Clean Force, for 13 years, I think that implies a rate of about $66,000 per day, I think; if you can confirm that. And that compares to your other charters of approximately $77,000 or $78,000 approximately. Can you just comment on the current market for LNG carrier time charters, and what that tone is, and what the current supply and demand dynamic looks like understanding that a year or two years out that that will be dramatically -- is likely to be dramatically different.

So the -- that charter we're done a few years prior to its commencement and so we were looking at that requirement as a portfolio or approach and obviously we thought it was quite attractive to secure a 13-year charter on a vessel that already had a year to go at the time giving a 14 year cover. So given the portfolio of vessels, we thought although that would be some discount to the shorter charters that we had in our portfolio, it made sense. And also from a strategic point of view, given that, that vessel and that long term charter would be very much exposed to the ice bound trade and sub zero environment etcetera, that was also something that we value to get a footing in the door.

Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. And just my last question, so the Northern Sea route is very efficient from a timing and a voyage standpoint distance standpoint obviously. It also has its risks and it's still a novel trade route. Understanding that the season is fairly short from July to August, can you just comment on whether you have made any voyages yet this season?

Yes, so the season is July to November, December depending on the actual season and it is not up to us to schedule our vessels through the Northern Sea route. We just offer the service and when we perform that service we have all the ability to ensure that that's done in a diligent way. So although we were the first LNG carrier through the Northern Sea route there were many other types of vessels prior to that, bulkers and tankers. So we have not performed any Northern Sea routes this season although the season is far from finished and the reason for that is primarily I guess that while we have a vessel on to Statoil, which is a very -- their production location is basically within the Arctic Circle and they would if you're a trader, you would -- or a producer you would look at where can you get the highest revenue. So although the largest market which is the Far East is a short voyager way from Northern Norway via the Northern Sea route. The South America was for various reasons paying quite okay money for cargo. So I guess that at least early in the season it was more reasonable to send those cargos down to South America, but we've done on our total vessels we've done quite a few of these voyages previously and I think that of course it's great when we perform those voyages and we get some extra revenue for it, that's great, but what is even better is that it puts us in a strategic position for future benefits keeping in mind that a lot of the world's gas resources are located exactly along this route and is being developed for production.

Great. That is very helpful. Thank you Tony and Michael. I appreciate the time and the insight.

You're welcome. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] We have no further questions at this time. Please continue.

Thank you, very much for listening in on our earnings call. We look forward to speaking with you again on our next call. Thank you very much.