Thank you, Oystein. I think we can hand over to the summary of the operational figures for the fourth quarter and for the full year. If you look at operating days in the second quarter, we had 77 days of hire related to the dry docking. And then we had, in the first three quarters, 19 days of technical off-hire. In the fourth quarter, we had 100% technical uptime. And that results in a technical uptime and commercial availability for the year of 99.6%. That's a strong testament to our onshore technical and operations team and also for our crew members on board, keeping the propeller running. If we look at the time charter equivalent per day in the fourth quarter, we had $81,100. And then for the full year, $79,500, which is at par with our guiding. OpEx for the fourth quarter is somewhat higher. That was guided on the Q3 presentation, another was mainly related to scheduled maintenance of our auxiliary engines. But however, as we guided on the total OpEx for the year, we end up at $14,400 versus the guidance of $14,500. For 2024, we guide an OpEx of $14,900 and that is mainly an increase in crew wages and some technical. That results in revenues of $97 million for the quarter and $371 million for the full year, which is also as guided. An EBITDA of $76 million for the quarter and $290 million for the full year. That resulted in adjusted net income of $38 million for the quarter or $137 million for the year. And in the adjusted numbers, we adjust out unrealized gains and losses from our derivative portfolio. And then, as you may recall from closing of our balance sheet optimization program in the first quarter, we also strip out the…

Yes. Thank you for the questions that you have sent in. And I think we start off again with Omar Nokta. And there's a number of questions regarding the Red Sea and also Panama Canal. So from Omar, these restrictions, are they enough to offset the new building deliveries and lead to a tighter market? Øystein Kalleklev: I think for the Red Sea, it's mostly affect Qatar. Qatar they might get a bit short on shipping and need to relet in some ships in order to have sufficient capacity to move the Qatar volumes to Europe. So I think it depends a bit more on the trading pattern, who is going to be the major pool of cargoes this year. Is Europe going to be desperate to be the buyer of first and last resort or are Europe going to stay a bit more back now and leave some more room for the Asian countries that will affect the market more. Panama. It's never been that important for LNG. A lot of the LNG ships, the route we are -- Cape of Good Hope anyway. So we've been frank about the fact that this year, we see a bit more ships than molecules. But on the other hand, we also do expect that finally, we will have scrapping. Usually, people don't scrap their ships in a good market. We have had very good markets, '21, '22, '23. It doesn't give a lot of incentives to scrap our ship, but Keep in mind, when these ships are getting older, and they're already a bit outdated on the technology. Are you then willing to commit a lot of money to drydock those ships? And typically, you have to replace a lot of these older systems. So I think that will be a bit more important. I think also the price curve of gas will be important because if you have a contango structure in the price curve of gas or LNG, you will have floating storage, which typically any year can take out 40, 50 ships of the fleet in kind of this contango trades. So that I think is probably a more important driver.

And following up on the Red Sea, the insurance rates have increased if you're trading in that area. And also there may be other costs associated with being there. How is that affecting Flex? Øystein Kalleklev: Yes. Right now, it's not a single LNG ship in the Red Sea. But before everything blew up. We also had ships going through that area as the situation at that time was considered to be moderate risk for ships without a link to Israel. So -- but that drove up the price of the insurance. So typically, you need a war risk insurance in order to go through that area the biggest provider of war risk is the Norwegian war risk fund. And the price we saw on the pricing of getting insurance to go through that area went up 10 times today, it's probably a lot more, but we haven't asked for a quote because we haven't had any instruction to go to that area. However, in our time charter, it's basically -- we are a private driver. So we show up with our ship and the crew and under the time charter, it's the charter who is responsible for the routing and the instruction to the ships, where to trade. That also means that a charter is responsible for taking the cost associated with that trade. So if the charter elect to go to Suez, there will be a Suez tariff to pay, which they will have to pocket and they will also have to cover the war risk associated with that. So that is something they will put into account when instructing the ship. The same goes with Panama if they go to Panama and they pay $3 million in order to skip the queue, we are not paying that.…

And while we are at cost, there's a question here on demand for crew with the big new order book and deliveries of new building in the coming years? How do you see demand for crew and the situation for Flex? Øystein Kalleklev: It's a very relevant question because top of my head, that was about 1.6 million seafarers in the world. A lot of this used to be Russian crew, which these days, there are certain restrictions on those and a lot of that crew base where LNG offices so that means it's -- you need to replace, in some instances, that crew because you might not be able to pay them. So that has also created some issues. We have Ukrainians, which is also a maritime nation, where a lot of Ukrainians have elected to rather stay at home and fight the war rather than being at sea. So yes, it's not that easy. However, LNG business is maybe the most technical, sophisticated part of the shipping industry, maybe together with container ships. So that means you will typically always be able to attract talent for this business, which means basically, we need to poach people, the best people from the tanker space or the LPG space. So basically, you're passing on the problems. And at the bottom of the sector, you typically have small [ by bulk ]. So the -- you're cascading the problem down and yes, it's getting harder to get people. LNG will always be able to find people, but these are sophisticated ships. You cannot let everybody just run these ships because there's a lot of technology in these ships. So it's getting harder. We are able to do it. We try to retain our crew. We try to be a good employer so that people want to sail with Flex LNG.

And we have questions from BTIG and it's related to Flex Constellation and the rechartering options and alternatives and what your preference? Øystein Kalleklev: This is Greg?

It's Greg. Øystein Kalleklev: Good to see you, Greg. Regarding chartering opportunities, let's see. We need to get a kind of firm redelivery date and -- but our plan is to -- once we get that back to docker and marketer, we already been around talking to people. We -- if we have a contract, we would, of course, announce that. So given the nature of this business and the name of the company, we are flexible, we are open to do shorter, longer, medium term. We really need to see what is the economics? And then if it makes sense, we are open to fixed loan. But if we don't get the numbers we want, we are happy to trade the ship back again in the spot market. We've been out of it for some time now. And we -- I have to say, we miss action. But that we are super comfortable with that. We're 94% coverage for this year. So we can afford to have our ship in the spot market. If we deem that to be more attractive than finding a term deal.

Then there's a number of questions on EU ETS. How are we prepared? How is that -- is there any cost for us? Øystein Kalleklev: Yes. I think I've already covered it, it's part of the time charter logic. So the charter instructing the ship -- if they're instructing the ship to go into EU, that is associated with cost of trade, which is the EU ETS. So we have amended a time charter to where kind of we will typically -- either they will buy the carbon quota and surrender them to us, and we will surrender them to hear or we buy them for the charter and send them a bill for those carbon emissions and then surrender to EU. For us, it's not a cost, it's a pass on to the charters. And of course, in the end, they need to pass that cost to somebody, and that is miss the consumer. So there's no tax without any cost. So in the end of the day, it's the consumer paying this tax, not us.

Then we're segueing over to business development and capital allocation. So maybe we'll start with the growth questions, how do you plan to grow Flex LNG beyond the 13 vessels? Øystein Kalleklev: We had this question now for some time. We're looking at the market, but we are stewards of the shareholders' capital, if we contract the ship today, if we're super lucky, maybe we get a ship in '27. But the slots availability are now getting into '28. So that means that we are spending, let's say, $262 million today to get a ship in '28. So we are not seeing that money for four years. It's not the price, it's not $262 million because we need to have supervision we might need to draw a loan, a building loan with a bank which needs an interest rate. Interest rate is 4%. They might want a margin, 2%, so that's 6%. So once you're taking that into account, the cost of that ship is not $262 million, it's maybe $285 million or so. That means -- is that a better use of our cash than paying dividends? So far, we haven't been convinced that it's better to spend that much money on new ships. So we're rather focused on the ships we have. We have one ship now, we are open in Q2, we have Flex Ranger fully open in '27, we might have some ships open in '28, '29. So why not focus on the ships we have open '27, '28 rather than splashing out all this money on new ships. So we are not there to pursue growth because Knut and I can be happy with having a bigger fleet. Our #1, #2 and #3 focus is return on equity, return of that money to shareholders through dividends, and we're not going to pursue growth just to be big. We'd rather be big on dividends.

And there's a question related to that on paying dividends versus buying back our own share. How do you look at share buybacks? Øystein Kalleklev: Yes, we have done it in the past. So we did this -- was that end of 2020 into '21? So we bought back about 1 million shares at that time. Of course, we deemed it very attractive and haven't -- have to check the stock price after the webcast and see. So we're open to do that. If we feel the stock is getting too much suffering because of sentiment, we might elect to buy back some shares for sure. So we're open to that could be an alternative, not ruling it out. But for this quarter, we are focused on paying our dividend, and let's see what happens. It really depends on where we see the best use of the company's cash.

And you mentioned growth for newbuildings. Richard Diamond from Castlewood Capital asks, is there any room for industry consolidation? And would you consider a nav-to-nav acquisition? Øystein Kalleklev: Of course, we have said for many, many years, we are certainly open for consolidation. We think there is a lot of consolidation opportunities because it's quite fragmented on the owner side, a lot of -- actually the vast majority of LNG shipping companies are private, very few in the public domain. So we think it could make sense to have a bigger public vehicle, make it more relevant and interesting for especially bigger institutional shareholders. But we don't want to go to bed with strangers, we want to go to bed with people, we share the same values, philosophy, ethics and also the fleet in terms of having a modern efficient fleet. We don't see any value in merging with somebody who has a lot of steam tonnage. So we need to find all those parameters so that we can have a marriage rather than a night stand.

And then a question on reinvestment in the existing fleet and then particularly on air lubrication system. Is it technical possible? Is it economically sensible to do that? Øystein Kalleklev: Yes. Air Lubrication has been something that have been coming up the last couple of years. So just to give you a highlight of what that is. It's basically you are putting a compressor on ship and you're making small holes under the hull and that compressor is taking it and compressing it and it's creating bubbles under the hull. So the theory behind this is these bubbles under the hull is going to reduce the draft when you are going through water. Of course, ships are going through water, it creates a lot of resistance and if you can reduce that drag, you could potentially then either say fuel or reduce or increase speed I think for our ships, they are very modern and efficient. So we looked at it when we contracted, we weren't totally convinced and as far as we understand, we did the right choice because the first generation of air lubrication system has not lived up to the promises. The makers of these systems are saying that the second generation is a lot better. Let's see when we get the data. And a lot of ships today are being built with this system, on our ships because the efficiency of the engine is like 50%, 52% terminal efficiency. That means that on a natural boiler speed, we still had a very high speed of 17.5 to 18 knots. So we don't really need more speed. If you add this, it might go. And then -- but you also need to utilize natural boiler speed. So putting this on and getting like a turbo from going…

I think we'll round off with the last question, and that's more of the tips to retail investors that want to follow the daily development in the LNG spot rates. And the question is if the [ B LNG 2 ] on Baltics quoted on CME. If that is a good proxy for our open positions or other? Øystein Kalleklev: Yes, it's a bit of a problem is that there's very limited data on freight rates for LNG. It's a bit of a niche market. It's a hell of a lot easier to follow the dry bulk in the tanker market because there's a limited. There's very many sources for that kind of spot data. I would say that you can go to the CME, either you get the freight derivatives. You can see the kind of the forward freight market for a couple of different routes. So the Baltic LNG is a good source. You also have Spark, which is a provider. I follow them on Twitter or X. So that's also a good source to get the data on the spot market. [ Fernplus.com by Fernlea ] is also a good source for rates on several of the segments, Rival Tankers, [ VLGC ], LNG, although they only quote on that page as far as I know, spot rates for high fuel ships which are a bit more inefficient than those ship. So I would use all of those and if I come up with some better sources, I'll come back to that, and maybe we could even make a link on a page. But a good source is to follow Sparks on X, they are regularly giving an update on the rates.

And that is for the two stroke? Or is that for? Øystein Kalleklev: They have both for all the tri-fuel ships and the two strokes yes.

That concludes the Q&A. Øystein Kalleklev: Thank you, Knut. I hope you have a good birthday celebration today. And thank you, everybody, for listening in. We will be back in May with the Q1 numbers and give you an update on the company and our results in relation to the guidance provided. And if you are fond of dividends, don't miss out on the [ advanced gas ] Valentine's Q4 presentation, next Wednesday, 14th of February. Okay. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.