Good day, and welcome to the Golar LNG Limited Q4 2012 Results Presentation. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Brian Tienzo. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, and hello, everyone. Sincere apologies for the delay in starting the presentation. In any event, welcome to Golar LNG's Fourth Quarter Results Presentation. As the administrator said, my name is Brian Tienzo. And as the usual, I'll be taking you through the fourth quarter highlights, as well as the financial highlights. I'm also joined here by our CEO, Doug Arnell, who will take you through the business update and summary and outlook section. Let's now turn the Page 4 for the Q4 highlights. So Golar reports consolidated operating income of $52.9 million and net income of $22.8 million for the quarter. The Q4 numbers, as most of you will have expected, were negatively impacted by commercial waiting time for the Golar Maria and scheduled drydocking of Golar Spirit. As per our press release, you will have seen a notice to investors and the company's announced that we continue to assess where the Golar Partners can be consolidated from 13 of December 2012 following the Golar Partners' disclosed AGM. Deconsolidation is a significant possibility, but that is something that we're continuing to assess. During the quarter, Golar secures 5-year charter with energy major for the Golar Maria and that's commenced at the end of November. And Golar Partners repaid both Freeze and Nusantara Regas Satu vendor financing using proceeds from its Norwegian bonds and also the $155 million syndicated debt facility ended in December. After the quarter and following various mentions of our pursuit on FLNG projects, we announced plans to launch new entity that will pursue floating LNG projects. Golar Partners also completed 2 further follow-on equity issues and uses notes net proceeds of $310 million to part fund its acquisition of Golar Grand, $265 million, and Golar Maria, $215 million purchased from Golar LNG. Finally, and most…

Thanks, Brian. Good day, and good morning to everybody. We'll start the -- my part of the presentation on Slide 13 with the market outlook, which, I think, is fair to say has seen quite a volatile scenario, especially on the spot term rates for shipping charters and that's largely due to the effect you're seeing on the right-hand graphic on this page, which is a comparison of basically the Atlantic/Pacific price arbitrage on LNG versus spot rates for shipping. You can see that through the third quarter, we had quite a drop, in fact, a collapse in the LNG price spread and a corresponding drop in the charter rates. I think it is interesting to note though that through that time period, the spot rates still remain fairly robust, never dropping below $100,000 per day. As you can see, as we came through the fourth quarter of 2012, we had a steep recovery in the LNG pricing in Asia and a corresponding recovery in the spot market prices. Despite all that positive outlook in the last couple of months, it is still the case that there are several anomalies on the production side of the LNG market, facilities with unexpected outages, facilities -- new facilities that haven't come on stream on the timing that they were expected, and that has resulted in a lack of available cargoes to be shipped. And it's not just a lack of available cargoes because these projects often have project shipping associated with them, a lot of cases, those ships were released on to the market, so you get a drop in the number of cargoes and an increase in the number of ships available -- open -- ships with open positions in the market. So looking forward, we are very confident that the…

[Operator Instructions] We will now take our first question from Jon Chappell of Evercore Partners.

Doug, I wanted to ask you in general terms and then more specific terms as regards to GasAtacama, the timing as far as the decision to convert newbuild carriers to FSRUs. So in the instance of the Tundra, it's not delivered until 2015. How long can you extend the GasAtacama before you'd have to make a move to convert that? And then, I guess, as far as the other ones you talked about potentially converting, when would you have to make that decision prior to delivery in order to get an on-time delivery?

That's a good question. In terms of GasAtacama, I guess, this is in general for conversion to add on FSRU capability. It sounds a bit obvious but it's true. The longer you get to the normal delivery time of the vessel, the more expensive and difficult it is to convert the carriers. We're using the word conversion, but it's more adding the FSRU capability on to the carriers because once we do this work, the vessel will still be fully utilized as a normal carrier with exactly the same performance characteristics. So the situation with GasAtacama and the other vessels is that, as of today, for some number of the vessels, we can add on the FSRU capability without we expect too much more cost than was originally added on to the FSRU newbuildings that we did that are part of the fleet today. So as long as we are moving toward this now and in the near term, we would expect to see a similar cost. If we get too deep into this year before GasAtacama makes a decision or before we move to make the FSRU addition on our own carriers, then it just -- it's just a matter of cost. It just starts getting more expensive to unwind some of the design and redo the work. As of now, we don't expect, and again, the discussions are ongoing with the yards right now so I'm sort of predicting things that haven't been solidified yet. But we aren't expecting the cost to be too different than the existing FSRUs that we have.

Okay. Now moving on to the new potential subsidiary, I guess, definite subsidiary, for the FLNG. I mean, I understand the purpose behind it. I guess it's still early stages, but how do we go about modeling this? I mean, it'll obviously be consolidated because you'll own 66% but outside of the 3 first generation assets, where is the cash going to come from for that business in order to finance the investments in FEEDs and whatnot?

Well, again, part of the reason for creating this new subsidiary is to raise financing the most effective way we can to participate in the projects. So the financing for the projects will come from various sources. Obviously, we're going to make a contribution to that company initially, which has a certain value. We expect to have a certain amount of available cash following on the launch of the subsidiary. And that cash would generally be used to progress FEED studies, some seed money for the various projects that we're working on which needs some injection of pre-investment decision funds to keep the projects going. So we expect to be able to enter the market and get some -- get the vessel schedule on track, get the projects developing with the cash that we would have available to start the launch of this subsidiary. After that, the raising of finance to implement a full floating LNG production project, they would -- that's going to depend on the nature and the structure of each particular project, most of which aren't in a state yet where we can say exactly what will be the best means to do it. Certainly, we would have all the tools available. I mean, if you do have a fully flanged up project, let's say, where we are merely leasing-in the floating LNG vessel to somebody who has gas reserves, turning it into LNG and shipping it away to market, then on the back of that lease we would be able to raise financing for the construction of the vessel. Golar is more embedded in the project and, again, is creating more of an integrated project. We still would, I believe, be able to raise financing based on the revenue stream that we would solidify in place with that particular project. So project financing is certainly an option, but we think that there's a place for raising further equity in the sub in order to advance those projects. How to specifically model it at this point? I think it's a little bit early days. I think we'll have more news in that and how we intend to structure the company and how we intend to structure the deal we're working on when we actually get closer to the launch.

Yes, that makes sense. Just one more quick one, then I'll turn it over. I didn't have a chance to go through the entire press release but I really didn't see, by skimming through, an updated CapEx budget. You said $500 million of equity contribution. But Brian, if you can just give us an update of the annual capital budget plan for all the newbuilds and drydockings, both the equity and the total components?

Sure. So I mean, to start up with -- I mean, our newbuilding program is obviously approximately $2.7 billion, of which we've already paid $450 million of that. We -- then there is an additional $500 million to cover as -- what we call the equity portion, which we will pay up from, obviously, from generation of cash and drop-downs and so on. We now have that in place. As we mentioned in the presentation, as of the end of December, we had 500 -- plus $500 million, which excluded Golar Maria dropdown. And so that essentially takes us to the delivery of each of the vessels. And then, of course, we're now in the eve of very progressive discussions with various parties to try and meet that -- those extensions. As far as expenditures are concerned, I think for 2013, there are 5 deliveries, which amount to approximately $700 million and also in the next year is where the majority of the deliveries are. So that's close to $1 billion and then one in 2015. But I think, as already highlighted in the presentation, of course, we are very much progressing the financing options that we're working on, ECAs, banks, capital markets, but we mustn't forget the corporate structure that Golar LNG has been able to make work for its own course. I mean, to date, we've dropped down 4 assets and each of those assets has essentially paid -- has contributed quite a lot of cash to enable the company to pay off some of its equity newbuilding obligations.

We will now take our next question from Michael Webber of Wells Fargo.

I just wanted to follow up, first, on kind of the new midstream co. And just to be clear, anything associated with Douglas Channel or Molecule [ph] ownership would fall under this new code that's initially going to house the other 3 Moss Inc. assets?

That would be the intention. Yes, that's right.

Okay. And then, I guess, specifically, you mentioned a minimum ownership of 66%. I mean, is this something where -- I mean is there something going on with the flow? Is there a private buyer in mind here? How do think about -- it just jumps out of me as being a bit odd-- but how do we think about that at this point?

Yes, I mean, I think, we just want to let everyone know that, obviously, Golar's intention is to retain majority ownership of the entity, but we want to keep open the option to be able to find some form of financing outside of Golar that would allow us to progress the project. I mean, the one thing that we want to be able to do is extract some value out of the vessels that we put in there. And although there are old carriers in there, they do have values. They can be converted to FSRUs or in this case, FLNG.

Right. But you're not saying that upon this spin, there's going to be a 34% sale at some point. This is more just a guideline for the future? This is not something -- we will see -- we'll see a sale sometime in the near term?

I think it's pretty early days. We wanted to give some early look at our intentions as to how we're going to progress this floating production business. We don't have all the decisions finalized on what the first step is going to look like exactly. Certainly, we'll be coming back to the market when we make that determination.

Right. All right. I mean, it's certainly one of the more -- it seems to be one of the most lucrative portions of the business and certainly, in kind of an infantile stage, so this kind of piques our interest. I guess, separately, around Douglas Channel, and you guys have provided a bit more color here, but can you give us some sort of scale? And I know it's very early, and there are a lot of moving pieces in terms of what your overall ownership could look like in that project. And then may be a bit more color in terms of timing, and when you think you could come to an investment decision and how that should work?

Yes. So the -- I guess, we can't be too open about it. It's an ongoing negotiation and subject to confidentiality and things, but the -- I think it's fair to say, the investment -- total investment there is $500 million to $600 million on assets for the first phase. If Golar participates, I would think you would see us contributing or be responsible for contributing at the end of the day 50% to 100% of that amount, either from various sources of funds and again how we financing -- how we finance that kind of endeavor is certainly undetermined [ph] at this point. You don't need all $500 million to get going, obviously, the amount required this year, for example, for that project will be far less than that. So timing on the investment, it's hard to predict. We are working to understand what our options there as quickly as we can. Of course, we're not the only party at the table, so -- and we can't control everybody, unfortunately. But -- so we're hoping it's the near term. But I don't want to go on record with predictions exactly when that will happen.

No, no, no, that's fair. That color is helpful. I guess, just a couple more, and I'll turn it over. Maybe just switching into the carriers. Viking is -- certainly, it seems like it's next up. And just curious as to A, what are you seeing out there right now in terms of the deals for the Viking, in terms of tenure and trying to hit that kind of omnibus mark and whether or not there's a 5-year deal out there? And then in terms of the newbuild carriers, I know you mentioned potentially converting other FSRU, but out of those, say, 9 to 10 carriers, long term how many of those do you think -- or, I guess, intermediate term, how many of those you think will actually be trading in the spot market?

Well, again, in terms of what we're seeing in the market now, I think we are still laboring a little bit under market that's short on cargoes or shorter on cargoes than anybody anticipated just from a number of production outages and some late production on new projects. So I think that if I had to predict, it's not necessarily that the first charter following on for Golar Viking would be a longer-term charter, which may -- we may see some shorter-term deals to leg into something longer term, a little bit like -- with Maria, although trying to avoid the 60-day idle time that we had on Maria. Obviously, that's the goal to not let that happen. And then onto the newbuild, again, I think that it's -- as I said, we're coming into a pretty visible rebalancing of the shipping sector. So you've got ships coming on a pretty firm schedule. Everyone can see it. Everyone can find out what the order book looks like. And that what you have is the shipping catching up in a kind of concentrated way, and the production coming out over more elongated time. And that's just naturally how it had to happen. Obviously, the ships are going to end up or arriving ahead of the curve when the new LNG's coming on. And in that period prior to the big wave, you can expect some -- a little bit of volatility on rates and things on the ships as they wait for the production to come on. And we kind of rely on a couple of things. One is that when our newbuild fleet starts coming on, our fleet, along with being one of the largest, will also be one of the most efficient. And so when things get a little bit more balanced, what we will [indiscernible] is that fact that our newbuilds will be among the most attractive ships to charter from a cost and of operational point of view for our charters. And also sitting in the actual open tonnage late this year and next, I believe, there's something like 37 open vessels coming into the market over the next period, and we have 1/3 third of those or a little bit less, 11 of those. So we -- hopefully, we'll be able to show a little bit of market leadership with ships that should be quite attractive to charterers. For me to guess that how many of these ships will be and on what time will be in the shorter-term market versus longer-term market, it's difficult to say right now, but I think the earning power of the fleet will still be good. The shipping supply-demand looks balanced and then undersupply starting in 2016 and '17, so -- or how we think of the market, it was quite optimistic.

Okay, that's helpful. Actually one more for me, and I'll turn it over. But I just -- just curious, as you guys are back along the lines of FLNG and that FEED study with Keppel and the 3 Moss Inc. assets heading to the new co. Within the FSRU space and within the FPSO space, we saw a pretty quick conversion from conversions towards newbuilds. And I'm just curious to know what sort of feedback are you guys getting around that conversion and, I guess, the sustainability of kind of conversion assets? And how quickly you think we would see it transition to, say, newbuild FLNGVs, being that you guys already gone through that on the FSRU side?

Yes, of course, I mean, it depends which sector you're looking at. There's the creative-style FLNG venture, which is a very field-specific offshore asset that's completely different from what we're talking about here. Those will get developed and done on a spoke basis and usually very, very long time lines. I think you're probably referring to more like what's happened with the where -- Golar, of course, was very successful with the FSRUs with conversions from Moss tankers like, but very quickly, the Korean shipyards figured out how to do that kind of project on a similar -- a little bit slower time line but a similar time line as -- Golar could do conversions. So I'd still say its -- there's still 6 months or more slower than the conversion to be done. I think that kind of thing is natural to have happen. It's a little bit -- I think, on the FSRU side, you can be a little bit more generic on the vessel itself, which needs the Korean shipyards in order to build a generic FSRU newbuild. So it's fairly easy to come into the space and a little bit more complex on a technical side, on the FLNG space, but I'm not going to say it's not something they will get over. So our speed of entry here is critical. I think that we will have to not just still rely on the fact that we are able to create floating LNG assets, but I think we have to be very good at selecting good projects for those assets and be very good at integrating our other franchises into this integrated midstream position, which can turn into more of a self-sustaining optimizable, if you will, business entity that won't be 100% reliant on being the fastest converter of -- or builder of FLNG vessels. But that's certainly our advantage to start off with and get the business going.

Our next question comes from Fotis Giannakoulis of Morgan Stanley.

Can you please clarify to us the distinct roles between the new subsidiary and your partner in the BC LNG project? Will the partner be participating in the construction of the FLNG, or is -- totally separate?

Well, as we've announced, all that's really happened is -- formally happened is that us and the original developer LNG Partners have been awarded the offtake on a conditional basis on a joint several basis. That project's been underdevelopment for some time by the original proponents along with their partner, the Haisla Nation. The funding -- who's going to fund which part, who's going to contribute to the floating aspects of the project versus the land-based project, that's all -- I mean, there might be some obvious predictive answers to that, but all of that is under discussion, and we're just not at a point where we can describe exactly what that looks like yet for us.

Okay. And you announced, first, as an offtake agreement for 700,000 tonnes. I understand that the capacity of the project will be 2 million tonnes. Does this mean that there's going to be a project with 3 trains, each of around 700,000 tonnes? Why the agreement was at that amount and not for the total amount?

Well, the original size of the project is driven by the existing pipeline capacity that serves -- that will serve the project, and that's what set the volume for the Phase 1. Phase 2 depends on expansion of pipelines, which will take a little bit longer time, so the project proponents have set about to execute the 700,000 tonne per year project, because it can come on stream earlier, which we agree with as a project strategy, so -- but the agreement that we are working on that project does contemplate the expanded volumes as well.

That's very clear. And in regards to the marketing process of the LNG, you write in your press release that you are in active discussions right now. When do you think that these discussions will be concluded, or at least give us some more details about the preliminary agreement? And do you expect that the sale of LNG will be at some fixed price? Or is it going to be some price that's linked to the price of natural gas in North America? And if you can give us an expectation of what would be the spread? Are we talking about $3, $4 of -- per MMBtu of profit for you or something higher or lower than that?

Okay. Well, again, it's very difficult for me to talk about too many details on ongoing discussions with that project. I think, I -- the -- I think, I'd like to pull back a bit and just say that our focus right now is to A, get this FEED study done with Keppel and solidify our technical solution that we are bringing to the market, because that's, in essence -- yes, there's a different size 700,000 tonnes project in Douglas Channel, various other opportunities. But that asset will drive the follow-on opportunities that will allow us to participate in the project. Douglas Channel or any other project, we will look to participate in those projects in the best way we can in order to maximize the value and manage the inherent risks of the project. So unfortunately, I can't really talk about any specific arrangements for off-sales on BC. I think there's a raging debate about sales of LNG from North America into Asia. There's certainly different viewpoints. We would, I think, take a view that the market will speak as to what kind of exposure they want in terms of price indexation and things. And we would be, as a first case, responsive to that market. There seems to be an appetite for pricing that's linked to North American gas price from Asian buyers, and the reasons for that are clear. In terms of what margin people can expect to see on those, far too early to say, it has everything to do with this specific project, the shipping distances, the type of commitment you're making, whether the buyer's contributing equity to the project or not. So it's just too difficult to make a prediction on that, Fotis.

Okay. And in relation to your 2 -- the 3 older LNG carriers, does it seem that these vessels, provided the FEED study goes well, will be tied to the FLNG initiative, or we might see any of these vessels bidding for an FSRU contract?

Well, I think that the intention is that all 3 of the first generation vessels would be part of the new floating production midstream subsidiary. Because of the nature of the production projects and the fact that you're actually -- by definition, you're introducing new production onto the market, we, obviously, see that there, hopefully, will be good opportunities to integrate entire midstream positions together, which could include carriers and FSRUs, and it could include potential for an FSRU conversion project. We haven't been as focused on FSRU conversions for those vessels, but there are projects out there, not so active at the moment. There are projects out there that first generation vessel conversion for FSRU make perfect sense. And just because those vessels are sitting inside something that we're attaching to our production initiative that we would, certainly, if the deal was right and the value was there, try to participate in the FSRU conversion.

Doug, my last question, it has to do with the FSRU tenders, the last 2 tenders, the one that you have been chosen as the preferred bidder, and the second, the Emirates one that you lost. Can you explain to us what were the elements in the technical aspect of the Jordan FSRU project that made you the preferred bidder? And what was the commercial terms that were not satisfactory for them in order to successfully get the Emirates FSRU?

I'm not sure you're at -- I can describe exactly what's the Jordanians mostly liked or disliked about our technical solution. The -- it did happen that the technical requirements for the project match up very well with both of our newbuild FSRUs, and we selected the second of the deliveries in order to put the vessel in there. So they're getting a state-of-the-art newbuild FSRU that fits their requirements very well. And again, you seem to be inferring that it was just a technical-based decision to make us preferred bidder. That's not correct. It was a full consideration of all technical and commercial aspects that led to the preferred bidder award in Jordan. I can't speak in -- with specificity about commercial aspects of Emirates LNG project. That's their project, and -- but I think we would say that how this is coming out if we're able to secure the Jordan FSRU project, we like the one we're getting better than the one we didn't get.

I understand that. I'm just trying to understand if there is any increased competition on -- for this project. And if rates, from what we have seen, they've been trending lower, which made you not want to participate that -- or made you not to find the acceptable or satisfactory, the Emirates terms?

I mean, I wouldn't say -- I mean, it's -- the competition field is not radically different. I mean, especially for near-term projects. There's a very small number of companies with vessels available for these bids. I think what can happen is due to specific characteristics of a project that one company really, really likes and maybe thinking of a strategic position, for example, or some other outside element, then a company can tend to get more aggressive on what terms they're willing to provide to projects, and in that case, you get some downward pressure on things like rates or contractual terms. But I wouldn't say the competitive space is radically changing. Still quite a few projects and a fairly limited field of competitors.

Is there any significant risk that somebody will try to outbid you on this Jordanian FSRU project in terms of pricing?

Well, the pricing's already gone in, and that -- so that part of the deal is finished. The technical commercial and pricing, all the elements of the bid were submitted previously and the preferred bidder award we've received is based on all of that information.

And which part of the bidding process is left right now? And when do you think that this is going to be concluded?

Well, we're entering into a exclusive negotiation period with the Jordanians on the time charter terms. They are hopeful to be concluded with that, within the second quarter.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Urs Dur of Clarkson Capital Markets. Urs M. Dür - Clarkson Capital Markets, Research Division: On the FSRUs going forward, a lot of it's been touched upon, but can you guys remind the audience and myself the main upcoming projects under which you're bidding? And any possible timing that you might expect where we see a preferred bidder emerge?

Yes, the 2 that we referred to in the press release in the first half of '13, one's in the Middle East and one is in India. I would say there's a list of several other projects, actually, additional projects in the Middle East, which are kind of in the formative stages. India is very active. We're still hopeful that eventually, there'll be a next project come up in Indonesia. But again, the near-term projects are one in the Middle East and one in India. Urs M. Dür - Clarkson Capital Markets, Research Division: Do you have any color or view as to new projects that you might see on the horizon? Or is that just too commercial that you want to keep close to your vest -- I mean, we've heard rumblings in the marketplace of Brunei considering an FSRU. I'm just wondering if you had any potential market horizons that you might be able to give us on the FSRU side?

Well, I mean, countries that have been out in the open talking about potential projects are Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, Kuwait, of course, that wouldn't be a new -- well, actually, they are looking at a second potential project. I don't know the status of it, but they have their existing terminal there. India, there's 3 or 4 projects that are at various stages. Indonesia. Of course, Chile is an ongoing interesting situation, where they've been trying to push the FSRU projects along and having trouble getting any of them going. Uruguay has spoken about projects. And there's others -- I just don't have them on the top of my head right now, but there's got to be -- there's always a pretty heavy churn of new FSRU projects. There's -- but -- and we track them all. We don't pursue them all aggressively, because, quite honestly, there's a lot of them that we just don't believe will ever go ahead, and we prefer to focus on high-quality projects. But we're, I think it's fair to say, very optimistic at the amount of market churn still on the FSRU side. Urs M. Dür - Clarkson Capital Markets, Research Division: Okay, helpful. The Hilli and Gandria listed as spot, and you were going to put them into the new FLNG structure, which is -- sounds exciting and looking forward to seeing how that develops. Do we -- how do we treat them going forward in the model? Do we treat them as idle until they go into the FLNG project? Or what do we do there?

I think it's fair to say as this rebalancing phase comes along with the newbuilds being delivered out of the shipyards that the efficiency gap between the newbuilds and first generation vessels is very, very large, and so it'll become increasingly difficult to trade older carriers. It's an actually different interesting dynamic. I'm not sure it gets thought about, but there is a large number of those first generation vessels trading as carriers in the industry right now. And as the newbuilds start coming in, the first point of flex in the fleet certainly will be those first generation carriers coming out of the market. So what we're doing, we're still, obviously, open to carrier opportunities for them. Certainly, our focus is shifting onto the sort of midstream opportunities to utilize those assets. We're going to be minimizing the operating costs associated with those vessels as quickly as possible but keep them in a ready state, so that they can be reactivated quickly or so that they're in a very good condition as they are as they -- as one or more than of them head into a conversion project. Urs M. Dür - Clarkson Capital Markets, Research Division: Okay. So and you said the FLNG process -- remind me, I'm sure it's in the press release. It'll take, what, 24 months you said or that's just the conversions, so how fast do you think the new structure will be in place? Any guesstimate there?

Well, we're targeting the first half, so before the first half of this year is out, we would come with all the details of how that was going to work. And as long as things stay looking how they do today, go ahead and execute on that. The execution time for the vessel itself, I mean, that's part of what the FEED study establishes is the exact schedule, but we're anticipating that following the FEED being completed, again, around the first half of this year. We would have available to us a 24 month execution time-line for the first vessel.

Our next question comes from Herman Hildan of RS Platou Markets.

Just have a few questions. You mentioned a $400 million to $500 million asset in the first phase of, call it, G FLNG. What kind of production capacity does that asset have? Does it have -- does it like 1.3 million tonnes per year? Or could you give some indications on that?

Sorry the first phase of which? I want to make sure we answer...

Yes, you mentioned -- you had a comment where you said that the first phase of the Golar FLNG will be a $500 million to $600 million asset. And what kind of production capacity do you have on the $500 million the $600 million asset?

Actually, that was, I think, I believe what I was talking about was the first phase of the Douglas Channel project, which includes a liquefaction asset and also onshore assets related to the liquefaction, which total up to $500 million to $600 million for the 700,000 tonne a year first phase of that project. We actually haven't come out with firm costs yet on the converted first generation vessel that -- for floating LNG. We will have more information on that when we complete the FEED study.

Is it possible to give some sort of indication, just rough indication, of how much of that $500 million to $600 million relates to the asset itself?

Sorry, I can't. That's project details. Again, we're not an investor in that project yet. We're working on it. So I'm pretty hesitant to give away too much detail about those. The majority of it is on the liquefaction assets as you might expect.

Of course. And why do you have to wait say 3, 4 or 5 months to spin off the FLNG RU? It sounds like you expect to spin the FLNG off before you complete -- or before you finish the FEED study, is that correct?

Of course, the FEED study is one of these things that -- it does have a set completion date, but every day we're working on it. We're learning more and more. The timing on the launch of the subsidiary, yes, we want to be able to have solid information about the cost and schedule for our technical solutions that we're bringing to the table. So within the first half of the year, we'll be ready with that kind of information. And I think we're still working on structuring issues and thinking about how best to take Golar into this business. There's a lot of opportunity there. There's some different risks inherent in the business that Golar, in the past, hasn't had to deal with. So it's a new somewhat different business line for us, and we want to get it right, the first time out and not have any false starts.

Is it the commercial aspects that you're -- that you want to, I guess, conclude a bit more before you kick off a subsidiary?

Well, it's everything. It's solidifying what technical solutions we're bringing, a little bit more work, getting the projects, getting familiar with potential projects, and how they can unfold, thinking about how we're going to structure commercially our participation in projects, our preferred way to raise financing for such projects. So it’s kind of a full slate of the business model that we need to be able to speak about clearly before we launch the subsidiary.

And also just the last question. I mean, you mentioned also the efficiency gap between the older and nearer [indiscernible]. Your previous press release you referred to a gap of $20,000 to $40,000 a day, is that -- do you see the willingness by charters to accept that you take parts of that efficiency gain, or is that, call it, more difficult to get through?

Well, it might not surprise you to hear just because I say on a webcast that the gap is $20,000 to $40,000 that the charterers don't want to hand that straight over the Golar. The market will work how the market works, and we'll find that inflection point. We certainly very much expect to be sharing in a significant portion of that efficiency uptick.

We have no more questions in the queue.

Okay, great, so -- well, thanks, everyone for your participation in our fourth quarter results. And as always, we look forward to speaking to you again in May when we announce our Q1 2013 numbers. And then until then. Bye-bye.