Welcome to the conference call. (Operator Instructions) At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to your host today, Mr. Bjorn Sjaastad.

Welcome all of you to this presentation of Frontline’s results for the fourth quarter of 2007, and for the full year results of 2007. If you look at the agenda item on the presentation that has already been posted on our website on Page 3, we have the agenda, where first of all I will go through the main highlights of the 2007, and then our CFO, Inger Klemp, will go through the financial review. We then turn to the market update and then outlook, and then we open up for questions and comments. So if you then turn to the next Slide 4, financial highlights, we are happy to present to you our figures for Q4, which were better than Q3. Our net income came in at $202 million after gain on sale of assets being shares and ships of $144 million giving us a net income excluding gain of $58 million for that particular quarter. The earnings per share came in at $2.70, and the dividend that we paid in that particular quarter was $3.25. For the full year 2007 our net income came in at US$574 million including then a gain on sale of shares and asset of $323, giving a net income from operations only of $251. So total earnings per share for 2007 came at $7.67 and the dividend that we actually paid in 2007, came was $11.09. That includes the dividend of the Ship Finance shares that we did in the early part of 2007. And the Board has declared a dividend pertaining to the fourth quarter result to be paid in the first quarter of $2 per share. And we are particularly happy since the negative trends in Q3 were turnaround by the hike in the market for tankers that came in the…

I will go through the preliminary fourth quarter and financial year 2007 results. Frontline reports significant income of $202 million and earnings per share over $2.70 in the fourth quarter 2007. That includes gain on sale of the assets and securities in total amount of $144 million. This gain relates to gain on sale of vessels in an amount of $53.4 million reported then gain from sale of assets that’s representing $37 million in connection with the delivery of the second converted heavy lift vessel to Dockwise and then $16.4 million in connection with termination of the lease of Front Birch. Further a gain on sale of shares in Dockwise in an amount of $48.7 million and a gain on sale of shares in Imarex in an amount of $41.9 million we just reported in other financial items in the fourth quarter of 2007. Net income then excluding these gains was $58 million in the fourth quarter, compared to $19 million in the third quarter. The main reason for the improved result is a stronger stock market, which has resulted in an increase in results from early on time charter basis. And as a result of the stronger market we have also recorded a profit share expense to Ship Finance of $16.1 million in the fourth quarter, which is the $10.7 million higher than in the third quarter. Total operating expenses in the fourth quarter compared to the third quarter had decreased and that’s mainly as a consequence of a reduction in ship operating expenses, as a consequence of a reduced fleet due to the sale of vessels, which we have been talking about and fewer vessels drydocking in the fourth quarter than in the third quarter. The company recorded interest expense in the quarter of the $67.5 million of…

We will focus on the markets. On Slide 15, we are showing the earnings according to Clarksons both for the VLCCs and for the Suezmaxes and you can see that the dramatic increase in rates that happened at the end of November and corresponding reduction that we saw in January into February. Then it’s been going up again and it’s moving a little bit sideways right for the time being. Still, the present level is at a healthy level compared to previous periods. There are no particular external factors behind the spike or the decline. It really demonstrates that there is a pretty tight balance of ships and it’s a function of the supply and demand for tonnage. And we think that there are many reasons why it went up, we thought that the market should improve earlier than it did because we saw that the oil stocks were going down. Another factor is also the pricing from the Saudi oil reducing the price to the US, incentivizing the Americans to buy oil. Another aspect is that quite a few ships were slow steaming in Q3 due to the high bunker cost and that also took away capacity from the market. For the future, well very much depends upon the OPEC production, will they keep it at present level? Will they increase? Or will they reduce? Its also function of the stock levels going forward, but we expect in a way that it will follow at least the seasonality. We have conversions that will take out quite a lot of capacity also in the first half of this year. I just mentioned previously then the skimmer that collided with a barge of Korea spilling quite a lot of oil and that has led the world market or the choppers to…

(Operator Instructions) We will now take the first question from Doug Mavrinac - Jefferies.

First, when looking at how well your VLCC fleet performed during the quarter, we know how strong rates were towards the end of the quarter, but you really outperformed many of your competitors, and outperformed some of the estimates that many brokers put out there for charter rates during the quarter. What do you attribute such an outstanding performance to during the quarter? Did you have many days open towards the backend or how would you describe your chartering activity during the fourth quarter?

I think we had no more shifts at the end of quarter then some of our competitors. I think the difference whether we somewhat sold the possible rise in the market and held back, and accepted some strategic rating in order to cut the height to the market.

And also since the last earnings call, we did see the oil spill in South Korea. How has that changed your thinking, as far as how rigidly enforce the upcoming high amortize deadline is likely to be?

We think that it will have an impact, particular the Koreans. They have stated that they have brought forward the ban in single-hull tonnage, and they will reduce the number of ships in Korean waters. But, of course, it will be influenced by the market as well. The best of the market, the less reluctant they will be, but definitely it will have an impact.

I think also the IMO regulation will be enforced, but some countries will be ahead of that. Today, Venezuela announced that no more single-hull tonnage will be allowed to call any of their terminals, which in practice doesn’t change very much from the last few years, but it’s a quite strong signal effect.

Bjorn, you mentioned in your commentary about the number of vessels on order at Greenfield yards within the tanker sector, a lot of discussions has been had about that impacted these orders that you also don’t exist yet in the dry dock sector could have to that particular sector. But have you quantified how many vessels within the tanker market could be impacted by the fact that there are unordered yards that don’t exist yet?

No. We haven’t quantified that. That’s more what we hear around, so it’s more to have an economy for that might be happening.

You and Navig8, would you say that indicates an increased level of interest on Frontline’s part in the product tanker sector? And do you foresee ever there being a possibility of Frontline ever investing directly in product tanker vessels?

Which is exactly yes, definitely we could do that. The fact that we now invested, yes, it is a financial investment and it’s a rather insignificant investment compared to the total balance sheet and the total rich profile of Frontline, but still that reflected into that market, yes.

Your next question comes from Omar Nokta - Dahlman Rose.

Last quarter you talked about you had one of the Suezmax vessels under KG fleet. They had a purchase option on, and that you might be exercising that in December or are you planning on doing that this year?

It hasn’t been done because it paid us a lot to wait another year because purchase options and the price of the values.

So you’ll just wait till maybe the end of this year.

Yes.

Last quarter you talked about basically first quarter would be the last quarter where you pay basically, as much as possible out of cash flows, and then you’d revert to EPS? Is that still the plan going forward or are you going to go back to paying out dividends out of cash flow?

No. I think that the dividend policy of Frontline is stable and that is to stay that everything that we make and that we basically don’t need for running the company with this present opportunities and obligations, we will pay out to dividend. So I think it was more to say that there were some transactions, structural transactions that were done, and that also impacted dividend capacity significantly last time. But later on we have also sold single-hull ships and we have also sold the Imarex shares. So that will also be impacted, but long term it’s basically what we make that we will pay out.

Basically with all the cash brought in, and then you’re going to be taking roughly 80% out of your credit out of debt, so everything else that sort of that is paid out as dividends for most part?

Yes. Well, we paid already about $100 million on the new building program. And there is another $100 million to pay before we have reached 20% down payment for all those ships, and that’s our plan. And after that basically we will cover the remaining 80% of the new building installments by bank borrowings.

Are you able to give guidance on what your VLCC have averaged thus far into the first quarter?

No, no. We have not been giving that, and we think that’s very difficult in such a volatile market. And, now we are already approaching at this mid-February and time is flying, and we are presenting figures every three months. So, I think that should be okay.

Your next question comes from John Kartsonas - Citigroup.

On ITC, can you give us some figures maybe year-end numbers, net income, maybe free cash flow from ITC?

The year-end net income was about approximately $10 million, year-end.

And on free cash flow, do you have a number there? Or is there any free cash flow in the structure?

I don’t have that in my hand.

But, when you said free cash flow, that’s one of the things that we have advised before that with the present financial structure there is limited free cash flow for the time being in ITC to be dividend without this to shareholders, and that’s what something that we are working on. So basically, the ITC the way we handle that now it’s a kind of two-step. First of all, we dividend now from 20% and we have a separate listing on the OTC enabling kind of trading of the shares. But second, we are working on winding some of the structures in order to get liquidity out sooner or rather than later. But, this is presently limited by the bond structure of the financing of the company.

So the listing is going to be of the entities, it’s going to be obvious, right. The $10 million of net income and of the cash flow, and they are existing their structure

Yes. Initially, yes.

Inger, can you give us some numbers on CapEx meaning you said about $93 million in Q1 for the new buildings, is there anything else remaining from the conversions?

You mean the heavy lift conversions?

Yes.

Yes, there is some remaining there as well.

How much is that for 2008?

In fiscal 2008, it’s approximately $48 million.

And probably that’s going to be all with that or you are going to use any equity on that?

No, that’s something we will do by financing by equity. At the same time we will, of course, receive rest payment from Dockwise in connection the conversion of these heavy lift vessels. As you might know we didn’t receive the full payment upfront. We will receive the remaining $80 million at the end of when we deliver the last vessel.

And also can you for ‘07 for VLCC, Suezmaxes, and OBOs, what was approximately OpEx per day? You gave the combined number, but just, or where the industries today maybe have a general number?

Well, you saw what we had presented within our figures. The figure of 9006, I think there was about 1,000 in differential between the VLCC and Suezmaxes. But that’s also related to the kind of edge profile of the ships. So definitely when you look at the total figures for Frontline, it’s some of the single-hull ships that have been drydocked is driving cost up.

But where will you say that market is today for VLCC, is it around 8,000, 9,000?

I think it is about 8,000 before drydocking shares.

And about 1,000 differential for the Suezmaxes?

Maybe it is, but it’s currently difficult to say right now because it’s been quite escalating cost for running ships and particularly crew person gone up dramatically over the last year, and it’s very much depends upon the vintage of the ships and the repair and maintenance costs of it.

On your profit sharing just remind us this is settled on a quarterly basis on a calendar, here, right. Or is it on a voyage basis? Meaning like for the fourth quarter was it like until the end of December that the profit sharing was calculated or?

You are talking about the Ship finance that which we’ve announced.

No that’s the single-hulls with the Chinese.

That’s on a monthly basis.

So, for example for the month of December, did you get benefit of the spike in rates you did?

Yes.

Your next question comes from Justine Fisher - Goldman Sachs.

My first question is just about conversions. Look at few you pieces of that in the market, it’s a fact that the price of VLCC is still very high as per the chart that you showed in your presentation, and in fact the price of VLCC is probably $20 to $30 million higher than the capesize right now. And it seems though one way to determine the price of a tanker is to just take a discounted cash flow of the cash flows you think you’re going to earned on that vessel. So it’s interesting to me that the VLCCs are still higher than the capes. And then in addition to that, the current rates are about even for the two, and then the capesize order book is huge, and it’s much bigger at least that the VLCC order books. So, what do you think if people’s incentive to convert now given all those factors?

I think the conversion is more a question. The size, first of all the difference in construction cost is not what you said. I think it’s a more $50 million than it’s for $20 million. But for the conversions so that you’re carrying capacity of that, for VLOC converted from the VLCC is much bigger than from a cape ship. And it also has to do with the timing and where you can get it because the curve is very steep, the market is much higher short-term than long-term for capes. Yes, and this was of course a single-hull ships, but not new double-hull ships that are being sold for conversion. Its old single-hull ships that basically the owners as we’ve said that are trying to find an alternative home for.

Do you know what the difference between the regular capesize, where would it be and then what the VLOC would earn?

I couldn’t say, you have to look at it in the dollar per ton basis, but I couldn’t say that, probably there’s a discount on the per ton basis on the VLOC.

The spread between the VLCC and the Suezmax rates, it’s pretty wide right now versus what it’s been at least through 2007. It was pretty same to 2007, and I know that when rates go up generally the VLCC rates are more volatile and so you’ll see that spread widen. But I was wondering if you would think that there are any other factors that could explain that like Arabian Gulf versus non-Arabian Gulf production, etc.

I think you’re right, when the market goes up, VL spend most again, the height of the Q4, the VLCC spot rates peak to $260,000 - $270,000 a day whereas the Suezmaxes went up to $100,000 - $110,000 a day.

Are there any other production related factors or is it just the trajectory of rates. Is there anything else going on the market that would account for a wider spread that we saw in ‘07? Or is it just that?

I don’t think there is any other reason there.

The next question is from Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan. Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan: Bjorn, a couple of questions on strategy you mentioned in your prepared remarks about the big order book going forward, as well as some concerns about the impact the US economy may have an oil demand. With 39% time charter coverage this year, and 30% next year, do you feel comfortable with those levels or may you increase your time charter coverage a little bit to kind of hedge for some economic concerns going forward.

I think when you look at the contract of coverage of 39% for this year that includes the OBO carriers, and it includes our single-hull tonnage. Most of the single-hull VLCCs are in fixed also for ‘09, so that’s basically covered with the same profits with arrangement. And for the OBO carriers, that’s one of the reasons why we are reducing contract coverage that’s because some of the OBOs are going out for existing charters. I’ll expect that during this year, let’s say the first half, we will have also fixed the OBO so that we will approach the 40% also for 2009 for that reason. If you ask about our willingness to do a time charter for on a double-hull fleet, let’s say today for $50,000 a day for one or two years, and also maybe two, three years, right now we’d rather like to trade out in this book market. Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan: And on that eight non-double hull ships that you still have in the fleet. Do you plan on selling those assets to the time charters that you currently have in those and may you want to keep them as they generate to stable cash flows? Or do you think that you may want a cash in on the good asset prices right now on the non-double-hulls?

Well, that all depends upon the opportunities. If we see that we can get out of the charters and sell at good prices, yes, we might look for that. Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan: What’s your best guess as to would you be selling some of the ships could you get out of the charters or do you think at current market price is right now, you probably keep those ships with the charters?

We might, but of course that depends upon the dry cargo market coming again. Because, that was very strong and if the same strength that we have at last autumn then, definitely I would have said yes, there is a possibility that people would be keen to buy further thing in-house for conversion. And we think that and at least some of our colleagues in the sister companies, they believe that it will improve also on the dry cargo market. So there is a fair chance that that will happen for a few ships, but lot of things need to happen and also since these ships are committed on time charter. Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan: Inger, you gave a pretty good breakout of the drydocking off-hire days in ‘06 and ‘07. Do you have a schedule for 2008?

No, I am sorry we haven’t. We don’t usually give out that. Jonathan Chappell – JP Morgan: On the dividend policy, if I look at the presentation, you already have $42 million in gains from transactions plus the $14.7 million from the settlement minus your $20 million for the investment in Navig8. That’s about $35 million in excess cash from 1Q. Would you expect that to be distributed in the form of dividends or would that be used as the equity for some of the new building commitments?

It’s a total picture because all our cash coming in and that’s what we pay in equity installments in the new buildings that will basically be without a doubt.

I’ll guess that about that we have some remain in new building installments now in the first quarter, we also have some heavy lift installments, and we also have generation of cash. But total picture that will actually be the excess cash of that, which will then of course be paid out to the to the shareholders.

Your next question comes from Siri Evjemo Nysveen - Kaupthing.

I have a question about the spot rates that were obtained during the fourth quarter. I was just wondering if you could please elaborate a little bit on the rates achieved, because obviously about 50% of the quarter is quite poor, and then 50% of the quarter was excellent. So maybe if you could put some color on whether and how this would affect the first quarter results that will be very good.

It’s generally time lag in the spot market from when you fixed to when the income is earned to about four to six weeks, since the rate increase came at the last part of Q4 most of that income is attributable to Q1.

So does that mean that you will have most of the rates that are above $100,000 here equivalent to the first quarter earnings?

We said before that we are giving no guidance and specific figures for Q1 so I am sorry for that.

We have now no further questions in the queue.

Thank you very much for attending this conference call, and have a good day.