Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2016 Golar LNG Limited Earnings Conference Call. 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, moderator, and hello, everyone. Welcome to Golar's second quarter results presentation. As the moderator said my name is Brian Tienzo and I will take you through the second-quarter highlights as well as the financial highlights. I'm joined here today by our CEO, Oscar Spieler, and he will take you through the business highlights and the summary and outlook sections. So let's turn to page 3 for the second-quarter highlights. EBITDA in the quarter reported a loss of $17.5 million, compared to a Q1 loss of $21.7 million. As previously announced, Golar and Stonepeak Infrastructure Partners launched Golar Power, a 50/50 joint venture. The aim of that joint venture is to offer an integrated LNG based downstream power solutions and infrastructure. Of course that's already in process, and the first big project that we are looking forward to enacting under that joint venture is the Sergipe project. At the end of June, Golar's 15.9 million subordinated units in Golar Partners converted to common units. That means that Golar now has 17.8 million common units. In addition to that it also owns the 1.3 million GP units. We also refinanced and then closed the sale of the Golar Tundra FSRU to Golar Partners, releasing an incremental $102.8 million of liquidity. In July we closed the Golar Power transaction and received $103 million in new liquidity. In addition to the cash coming in, debt and operating cash burn in respect of two vessels, the Penguin and the Celsius, as well as the $216.5 million of unfunded capital commitments for the FSRU new build that delivers in November 2017 is now removed from Golar's balance sheet. In January of this year both Golar and Schlum announced a joint corporation that would allow both entities to look at greenfield, brownfield, and stranded gas…

Thank you very much, Brian. The market has over the last month changed with more activity, high utilization, and rates. Factors like increased LNG production, low LNG prices, and some congestion have resulted in higher utilization of the world LNG fleet. The utilization of the world LNG fleet has been extremely low over the last year, but going forward we believe, based on the new production coming on stream and the LNG new building group, that utilization of the world LNG fleet will improve as indicated in the graph. We have seen in the LNG shipping market and other shipping market when the utilization reaches a certain point that the rate spikes up in 2011. In 2012 we saw the market move from a very low level to about $100,000 in a few weeks, followed by a number of PC concluded. The Q2 utilization is higher than Q1, and Q3 will actually be higher than Q2. The rate has changed from $30,000 on the sing and royal business to around $40,000. And more importantly that they actually get compensated for the balance leg. Going forward, the new quarters - the next four quarters we believe that the market will be active and steadily improving. Going over to the next slide on FSRUs. With the increased LNG production coming out on stream combined with the low energy prices, there is a lot of interest in the FSRU market. We are pursuing opportunities in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt and a few others, and we have actually increased our commercial resources working on the FSRU market over the last quarter. More players have actually entered into the FSRU market increasing the competition, and owners of LNG carriers have started to enter into FSRU conversions. We believe that we are very well positioned…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And we will take an opening question from Michael Webber of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good morning. How are you?

Hi, Mike. Thank you. Good, thanks.

Brian, I wanted to start off with a question for you and just focusing on liquidity within the context of the ongoing FLNG build out. I guess maybe can you help us frame up how you think about prioritizing a balance sheet clean up and taking care of the convert? Any issues with the Tundra versus being able to get over the line on attractive financing for the next FLNG project? Is it a situation where we would need to see the convert handled and the Tundra issue put to the side before we could reasonably see a $1 billion check from your lending base? Or just maybe…

No, I'm sorry. Sorry to cut you off. The answer is no. I think both of those to some extent, those were independent. I think on the one side, we are very focused in fixing the balance sheet. I think that starts with fixing the convert issue. I think to some extent that makes up a big chunk of some of the liquidity concern that we're seeing from investors and analysts alike. We've put into motion a quite good discussions now for a few weeks on how best to do it. We think that there's an opportunity to be able to take the CVs before maturity. We've discussed a couple of structures which we are now looking at that enables us to accumulate sufficient funds pre-maturity to be able to take out the convert. So I think that the repair of the CV is priority -- sorry, the repair of the balance sheet starts with repairing or fixing the CV. On the side of that, there has been a lot of discussions, and they're being involved in those, in looking for a financing for the second FLNG. And they are independent, and of course to some extent I'm sure it would be easier to be discussing these kind of projects with potential lenders if we weren't in the position that we are today. But I think they also realize that the project itself will be self-sustaining. So we're not very far from being able to agree terms on a second FLNG project.

And just as a follow up to that, you mentioned in your prepared remarks, Brian, and Oscar, I think you mentioned as well, finding a way to potentially monetize the IDRs and JMLP as a means of adding liquidity outside of simply collateralizing or selling your LP units. Initially my question was going to be would you look to do a maybe a GMLT [ph] and have them buy them in house and/or sell them to the JV, or to your downstream JV. But it seems like you could potentially collateralize those within a corporate facility. If you could maybe help us think about each of those scenarios and where monetizing the IDRs fall within the B priority west of liquidity mechanisms for you?

Sure. I think the way we have been looking at this is obviously that Golar LNG with FLNG projects and potentially FSRUs coming soon, there is a good source of growth that we can see coming which we could use to feed Golar Partners. But I think in the current environment today, it's very difficult for the partnership to achieve an incremental and meaningful growth with all the restrictions we're having in terms of being able to raise finance and so on. So one of the things that we could point at which helps both entities is we highlight that currently Golar LNG Limited receives about $8.6 million worth of IDRs annually. There is the potential and there is a mechanism within the partnership agreement that allows us to have a look at perhaps resetting the IDRs, and by doing that there is a possibility for Golar LNG Limited to receive some cash up front in return for that. Similarly the dividends that Golar LNG Limited would otherwise receive under those IDRs could become available for distribution to common unit holders. And we've tested a scenario where at a time when we're able to drop down chunks of the Hilli, under that scenario it seems to us that it's easier to achieve a meaningful incremental growth for that kind of drop down to the MLP than in the current status today.

Okay, that's helpful. Just one more for me and I'll turn it over and I'll leave the Tundra questions to the next in line. But I believe within the text of the release, and Oscar I think you mentioned this, around the Hilli the ability to potentially increase the volumes and the throughput there after first gas. I'm just curious as to whether you're talking about pulling forward volumes and shortening the term of the contract to activate a third train and going from eight years to five years, or whether you're talking about the government being potentially open sooner rather than later to a larger nominal export license and keeping that term the same?

We are having initial discussions for that, and the discussion I'd say it's not decided; there are two options. Either you can accelerate the production under today's production license or you can actually increase the volume. It's under discussion.

Right. And which one of those - it seems that if it's pulling forward volumes, it would seem like the easiest option because it still fits within the existing license. I guess what I'm asking is has there been any movement from the government's end to potentially just go ahead and expand that?

We are in discussion with the partner, with our stakeholders and it's too early to actually comment on that question.

That's fair. I'll turn it over and get back in the queue. Thanks.

We will take our next question from Jon Chappell of Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Brian, first thing I wanted to ask you about was on potential economics for FLNG as you look outside of the core competency right now of West Africa. It said in the press release that you're looking at maybe other regions like Asia, and I think in the presentation the US Gulf. And we see headlines today or yesterday about maybe [browse] coming back online in the form of an FLNG as opposed to an onshore facility. So obviously the focus right now has been on one certain area and stranded gas there. Is it something where the economics potentially make even more sense in other areas, or is it something whereas you develop the relationship and the capabilities with Schlumberger that maybe the economics could improve over time and enable you to pursue other regions?

Thinking about where we are today, there is a reason that we're concentrating on West African opportunities at the moment, and it is good for their FLNG solution that we have. They have a quality of gas that does not require us to change very much the FLNG solution that we can offer. And similarly there is a very cost effective production that the upstream Partners could actually achieve. So to some extent that makes the LNG coming out of that region very competitive, and at the moment I think that's very important given the current environment. As you know, Jon, we looked at other opportunities outside of West Africa previously. We have seen certain constraints in those regions previously. However, we believe that there are now - that we have now got the hang of those constraints. And we can see solutions going forward with those. So I'm talking about potential opportunities in North America, Gulf of Mexico, et cetera, et cetera. But you're absolutely right. I think the partnership with Schlumberger not only removes some of the shackles that we see, but we firmly believe that it allows us to get to those opportunities much more quickly, simply because we are approaching this from a more integrated offering rather than a midstream solution.

A comment from my side there is of course we are -- with a developed Hilli we have a very narrow envelope when it comes to gas quality, and also when it comes to wabes [ph] and environmental conditions. We are working on the second version of Hilli to see - to increase the gas specifications so we can take more heavy gas. And secondly also operating in a bit more harsh environment. But harsh environment is not only benign environment. And that's going to unlock quite an opportunity.

Totally understand, very helpful. Just my second question, to keep it to two, I like that policy by the way. On the Tundra, obviously you sound very hopeful in something coming together with the counterparty there. But just as we think about potential derisking of that asset now, especially as it's still consolidated at Golar LNG, are you pursuing or even looking at other FSRU tenders with the Tundra? Is this something that could go to Golar Power? What are the alternatives if this doesn't work out as planned?

We are under contract with WAGL and we don't have the right for the moment to actually go out in the market based on Braswell one. So that's a discussion we would need to have with WAGL before we do it.

I think on top of that as well, if you look at the need of Ghana for an FSRU, it's pretty compelling. There is no - there's very little reason that Ghana itself will eventually not need an FSRU, I think it's the other way around. So while there has been delays on this project, we are still confident that the need for FSRU means that the Tundra will eventually go on to its contracted employment.

Okay, that's great. Thank you, Brian, thanks, Oscar.

We will take our next question from Fotis Giannakoulis of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yes, thank you. I understand that you're still working for the Ophir project, and at the same time you announced this OneLNG joint venture with Schlumberger. I wanted to ask how many projects are you reviewing right now with OneLNG JV? I think it was mentioned at some point that you have short listed nine potential projects. If you can give us a little bit more color about the projects? And also if the OneLNG could be potentially the participant in the Ophir potential contract, potential project, and how this project will be structured, how the economics will be split between you and Schlumberger in any investment?

When it comes to the different opportunities we are working on, we have just completed the screening. We have gone from 1,000 to 300 to 40 and then down to nine. Out of these nine there might be a few of them which we are working on. I will not go into detail for each project, but it's very much focused on West Africa for the moment. That's what I would want to say about that. And we are looking at as I said to increase the gas envelope. I think that's important to increase the number of available projects. Though West Africa is where we are focusing on for the moment. When it comes to Ophir, we have made good progress. We can take -- let's take the split between Schlum and Golar, I think that will be based on an equity basis, how much equity we build in each. So that's a fairly simple model. Schlumberger, they will actually deliver the upstream equipment, they will have some profit there, and we will deliver the FLNG and we will potentially have some profit in the FLNG and moving it in. There are different ways of doing that, but that's how it will work and then we will have an equity under which basis according to that. But when it comes to Ophir, we have made good progress; we are very optimistic. I think we are extremely aligned with Ophir and the government there. The gas fault is perfect, so we are extremely optimistic on that project. What else did you ask?

Yes, what I wanted to understand is if the OneLNG can potentially be the participant in the Ophir project? And also regarding the structure, the first contract was a simple time charter to Perenco; you didn't have any clear commodity exposure. I was wondering if in the OneLNG you're going to have also much more active upside on the commodity price?

When it comes to OneLNG, generally on our project what we see as a big hurdle developing on the LNG project, whether it's FSRU or FLNGs that you need alignment. So we will try to have more alignment between OneLNG and our customer. So I think that -- because that reduces the time to develop the project, it reduces the time for legal fees, it reduces the requirement for letter of credit between the parties. So I think that's the structure we will go for. In the beginning we will try to - there are different ways of doing this. We can go ahead and offer services to smaller companies which doesn't have the operational and balance sheet to actually develop this, to do this on top of over royalty basis to them, that they will be the operator. Working with bigger parties, we will go for a type of tolling fee or a rate. So it is different structure for different clients. But of course we are targeting - our main target is actually small to medium companies which needs our help, both on the technical side and financing side. And we also believe that to these customers we have a much better leverage when it comes to negotiating a good deal for OneLNG.

Thank you. May I ask a second question, or that's considered two?

That's three I think.

Okay, then I'll let it for the next one. Thank you.

We will take our next question from Ken Hoexter of Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Great, good morning. Just on the Fortuna, the good progress, you're optimistic. I want to get a little more specific. Is there a specific deadline for FID that is coming up? Is this very fluid? I just want to understand if there are more specific time frames that we should expect to see the next movement on the FID progress.

Sure, Ken. Hi, it's Brian. So I think we've - not just ourselves, actually, but Ophir also have made known that we're aiming to take FID on the Ophir project around the end of this year. So that's still the case. Both parties have aligned to try to work something to enable us to be able to do that.

But working toward it, is that different than there is a -- does their license expire at the end of the year that they need to, or is that just something that you're targeting?

It is something that we're targeting. I think to some extent that is something that they need to deal with themselves. We can help them with that by representing the solution to the EG government, but ultimately they are the ones whose name is on the license, if that were the case. And in the event that we achieve it, then great. In the event that they may be late, which I'm not suggesting there is, then they may need to approach the EG.

There are more specific time on there, but what we are doing is that there are weekly meetings between the top management of Ophir and the top management of Golar. We're putting up targets to try to get this done. One of the major challenges is of course financing. I think you'll actually agree that Ophir is not the biggest, but we have extremely focus to try to do this as short as possible. But I believe that it will actually end of the year we are hopeful that we will manage to get done by the end of the year and have the finance ready.

That's helpful, thank you for that. On the Tundra I just wanted to understand, it sounds like from the release, so no payments have been made. You've issued receipts for that. Can you maybe walk us through the process here; what has to happen? If they don't make payment you mentioned that there were timelines. Maybe just clarify some of that, Oscar. Do you buyback from the MLP? Can you talk about the financial implications for your balance sheet and the like? Thanks.

I think I will leave the financial discussions for Brian. But when it comes to discuss the process we have with WAGL it would not be wise to us. So I think we are having discussion to solve this the best way for both parties, and then we will -- of course we are protecting our rights under the contracts and then we will take it from there.

Yes, I think what we've been talking about with delays now, it was in our 6-K and of course we highlighted it again because it exists. But as far as Golar and GMLP is concerned, we are doing what we need to do under the contracts and make sure that our rights under that contract is aligned. We have procured a very strong legal opinion in the event that we have to go there. I'm not suggesting that we do, but we are just protecting our rights. But to some extent we've not really got into the nitty-gritty of unwinding the transaction simply because of the different factors we mentioned earlier, one being there is constructive discussions ongoing with WAGL. There is proof of a FSRU requirement in Ghana, and we believe that there is also ministerial support in there. So I think it makes us cautiously confident, but confident nevertheless that this project exists. And it's not in the benefit of either Golar or MLP to be thinking or to be preparing for otherwise anyway. In other words, we are both aligned in our respective belief of the project.

Okay. So just to come back to the question though, as far as balance sheet implications or anything, nothing changes in the interim? You're confident that it's going to get done, but you have a year time frame until you have to receive those payments? I want to again coming back to deadlines to understand how long this stays open for?

Yes, so as far as Golar is concerned, and Golar Partners is concerned, there is under the sale transaction, the drop down transaction, the put option only crystallizes in May 2017. So until that time we look for a solution, we continue to make sure the dialogue is ongoing and trying to facilitate a way forward for the Tundra.

Okay, that's helpful. Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Oscar.

Thanks, Ken.

We will take our next question from Eric Stavseth of Arctic Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. Two questions. The first one you mentioned India and Indonesia. Could you elaborate what type of projects these are that could use or potentially develop into power projects? Is this residential projects or are they industrial projects? Indonesia, will they require small scale carriers?

The Indonesia project is a straightforward FSRU contract, nothing special. And the Indian ones we are working on different projects there. Some are private players, which we are working with on the West Coast of India. So I don't want to really go into more detail on that. We have competitors listening into this call.

Okay. Second question then relates to the -- you mentioned a Mark II FEED study, and could you just give us some indication on what the differences from the Mark I and the Hilli will be, and then how that FLNG unit would look?

Not only what it will look like, for sure not, but what I can say is that we're going to increase the LNG specifications so we can actually extract on condensate from the vessel. We will be able to operate in a harsher environment; so that's the main things. How we do is something we will try to predict as long as possible. We believe that FEED will take something like six months. There are different ways of executing this, but we are a strong believer that we actually manage to maintain the cost of capital produced per year. It would be based on the new build LNG carrier. So we are starting - we have worked on it for a year, but we have not really focused on it due to resource restrictions. So we are taking that up again.

Okay, thanks.

We will take our next question from Christian Wetherbee of Citigroup. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thanks, good afternoon. Wanted to come back to Fortuna and the Ophir project for a moment, just thinking about FID taken hopefully by year end. When we stretch out the timeline from then, can you just remind us or update us on how we might be thinking about project development and maybe first gas timing? Just wanted to get a sense, I know a lot of things need to happen between now and then, but how would you generally be thinking about it? I just wanted to make sure we're still on the same framework that we've been.

The Fortuna project is a production deepwater directly from the well, so we need to add some extract equipment like a turret. We need to have some pre-treatment, additional pre-treatment equipment for the gas coming in. This will probably extend the conversion period a bit. So we are talking about going from 31 months to potentially 35 months from FID. So that means that it could take - it will be in 2019 beginning leaving the yard that we will have a two-month selling period to EG. A month's pick up I think, so we are talking about starting up in Q2 2020.

Okay, that's very helpful. I appreciate that. And then just wanted to touch base back onto the Hilli for a moment, just to get a sense of completion in the schedule timing and maybe flex within that window as you see that target towards September of next year. From a shipyard perspective, percent completion, from a financing perspective, how do we stand relative to the benchmarks that we've been waiting for? I know you said you're on schedule, it sounds like it's an aggressive window, but how do we feel about that as it stands right now?

Originally the contracted capital was 17th of March next year. We have given them a month additional. We are down there every month, we are pushing them, getting more resources, making sure that the safety is taken into account and so forth. And the schedule now is still 17th of March. We are working on, as I said, trying to make sure that we complete system by system. So we manage to do as much pre-commissioning in Singapore as possible. The more we manage to test in Singapore the easier the testing in Cameroon will be. We are considering to take LNG on board, which makes us able to test even more. So you could say that we have to leave Singapore to be hooked up and ready to start commissioning from Singapore end of -- or middle of July, end of July, 2017. Then we have two months until - it's a month and a half sailing and two weeks hook up. So you can say that from the schedule we are working on today, which is the 17th of March, we have additional four months in our pockets. This I think is sufficient. Saying that, we are pushing to complete this vessel by 17th of March. We need to do a lot of testing. As I said, the earlier we are ready by the yard the less problem we will have during commissioning. And rest assured we are doing whatever we can to push the yard. You can say that Senior Management is down there every second week pushing the yard.

Okay, so you have the March 17 deadline, but you have the wiggle room effectively until July. So that's your cushion to the extent that you need it?

Yes.

Okay. Great, thanks very much for the time. I appreciate it.

We will take our next question from Espen Landmark of Fearnley Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, guys. Just wondering on the LNG shipping side things are starting to improve, which is good for cash flow near term. But is there a scenario here where Golar divests or charters out some of these vessels on long-term contracts?

Of course there is a scenario for that when the market picks up, but at these levels we will not do it. We see two opportunities for these LNG carriers. It's of course if the market improves that's good, and taking liberty market for conversion into FSRU. So we'll see, we might go into some pawn sharpters [ph] in order to secure the cash flow, but we don't have any immediate plan for that.

All right.

We are very bullish, or not very, but we are bullish on the market, not near term, but if you go one or two years ahead now, we believe that this market can actually breathe through partigue and give a positive cash flow going forward.

And then, Brian, on I guess on Hilli you're starting to retrieve $13.9 million and then another $31 million. Is there some material changes to the expectations for achieving this restricted cash going forward?

No I don't think so. Unfortunately, we are in a position where we are trying as much as possible to push the bank to release cash. And we were somewhat successful in that in our last meeting. And there is -- we can see some ways to release the $31 million, we want to make sure that we use the right one to do it. But beyond that, I think to some extent it makes it a bit more difficult. But certainly without relying - what I mean by that is without relying heavily on the bank itself. So we will continue to push them. But I think we just need to be cautious about expecting a big chunk over and above the $31 million that we mentioned just now, expecting a big chunk over and above that to be released in the near term.

All right, thank you.

We will take our next question from Herman Hildan of Clarksons Platou. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, Oscar and Brian. Two questions. The first one is on the equity contribution. After FID we won LNG $250 million from Golar and $250 million from Schlumberger. Could you give some color on why those numbers have been chosen in particular in comparison to the Hilli and the equity requirements there?

Well I think that the $250 million is a number that's in the joint agreement itself, Herman, but it may not necessarily come to that. You're absolutely right. If we can secure a financing for the Hilli -- sorry, financing similar to the Hilli, then that will be too much. Having said that, there may be additional expenditure as part of development of upstream side of the project. So we just needed to find a way to document it in order that we don't have to keep going back to it later on. So the flexibility is there. It's not a fixed amount, but ultimately Golar and Schlum will agree on that number if it's absolutely required to.

Can you also say what the equitable contribution in relation to your IP is as a portion of that 250?

Sorry, can you repeat that?

In your press release you mentioned that there's an equitable contribution mechanism in relation to future projects. Is that included in the 250?

It can be included in the 250.

Okay, but it's not defined? Okay. And my second question is on Golar Power. What's the timeline that you expect to deliver a full integrated solution with the power plant? And obviously interesting to get an update on progress in Brazil.

Well, we're making progress in Brazil. The project team is well established, and Sergipe, the projects are working on getting the permits and so forth. We are working hard on the PC contract and the maintenance contract going forward. We are looking into the infrastructure project and so forth, and we believe that we will be in a position where we believe are working on the finance. We believe that we will be in a position to take FID end of this year or within this year on that project. There are a few moving parts. One part is the FSRU contract, which needs to be also placed. So what we have seen on the FSRU we are able to operate there quite with a good up time on the type of yoke system. We don't need to build a great quarter, so potentially we will also supply FSRU to that project.

Okay, thank you.

[Operator Instructions] We will take our next question from Anish Kapadia from Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, good afternoon. I had another question relating to the Ophir project. I was wondering if you could explain what are the actual remaining obstacles to finalize the chartering agreement? And what's your financing strategy for the vessels? Are there any challenges that you're facing with that? And the second question was on the LNG FSRU supported power projects, just wondering how many of those projects do you currently see in the pipeline? Thank you.

Anish, I think on the discussion of the detailed terms of the tone of the agreement and the financing is not something that we do just yet. I think obviously we will disclose what those terms are when they're done. Suffice to say that we're making good progress on that front.

And of course to reintegrate the project we are, as I said, we are working on the Sergipe project. We are looking at a number of other projects in Brazil and other places, but I think it's too early to say how many projects will follow on this type of integrated project. So I can't really guide you there, but of course there are a lot of opportunities like reaching fuel to gas and provided we manage to do it in an appropriate way. We believe that there is a good market there and we will be able to capture that market through our FSRU projects.

Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] We will take our next question from Gregory Lewis of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you and good afternoon. It's Joe Nelson on the line for Greg today.

Hi, Joe.

Couple quick ones for me. You have called out some of the hurdles facing the Tundra. I'm just wondering, are you able or are you marketing the Tundra under the assumption maybe a resolution can't be found?

As I said earlier, we are committed to the - under the contract we are signed, and we are not in a position to tender out Tundra to other projects without the consent of WAGL, which we are discussing with these days.

Okay. And then last one for me, just going back to the Gandria a little bit. Apart from you mentioned coming to I guess a marketing agreement or tolling agreement rather, are there any other hurdles facing the project coming to FID? Are there any other project partners that need to be aligned or anything like that?

If you look at Ophir, we are very much aligned. We believe we are aligned with the government. Depending on the structure we agree with them, their government needs to approve it and agree, but I think it's in everybody's interest to get this project under way. We believe we are pretty much aligned there. Financing, we have pretty much under control. Conversion, we are finalizing contracts with the yards, but we believe that's not a big hurdle in this market. There is sufficient capacity and potentially also opportunities for savings on CapEx in this market. So I don't see any obstacles actually executing this project apart from the finances we need to get that done.

Great, thank you. That does it for me.

We will take our next question from Lukas Daul of ABG. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you, good afternoon. Brian, when you talked about addressing the convertible next year, could you just in a general way describe what are the options or what are the possibilities amortizing the IDRs?

So I think we answered that previously, Lukas, and I think that the short answer to that is there is - obviously we are receiving a chunk of money from Partners at the moment to the tune of $8.6 million. There is a possibility for us to forego that in return for a big payout. So that helps Golar in dealing with it, but from some simulations that we've done it also helps Golar LNG Partners because then the future investments is easier to achieve better and quicker return that benefits both the common unit holders and of course the GP also. So it's beneficial to both.

All right, thank you.

We have no further questions in the queue.

Okay, thank you very much for listening to us. We are working hard to succeed, both on the FLNG, FSRU, and shipping, and hopefully we will have good news next quarter. Thank you.