Welcome to the Golar LNG Limited Q2 2023 Results Presentation. After the slide presentation by the CEO, Karl Staubo; and the CFO, Eduardo Maranhao, there will be a question-and-answer session. Information on how to ask a question will be provided then. [Operator Instructions]. I will now pass you over to Karl Staubo. Karl, please go ahead.

Hi, everyone, and welcome to Golar LNG's Q2 2023 Earnings Results Presentation. My name is Karl Staubo, CEO of Golar LNG, and I'm accompanied today by our CFO, Eduardo. Before we get into the presentation, please note the forward-looking statements on Slide 2. On Slide 3, we present our company overview. We are a focused FLNG player with 2 FLNGs; Hilli operating in Cameroon and Gimi about to deliver and start a 20-year contract for BP. The key changes to our asset portfolio in the quarter was high grading of our FLNG conversion candidate, selling the LNG carrier Gandria and acquiring the LNG carrier Fuji. Fuji has significantly more storage capacity, younger age and lower boil-off and is therefore more suitable for our intended Mark II 3.5 MTPA FLNG conversion. Snam of Italy has an option to convert the Golar Arctic into an FSRU. This option lapsed in July, and we are now reviewing alternatives for her, including long-term charter or asset sale. Our investments include Avenir LNG, a small-scale LNG carrier business and Macaw Energies, a company founded with Golar as sponsor, targeting small-scale land-based liquefaction and gas monetization through proprietary technology currently under construction. Golar is the world's only independent proven FLNG company. Turning to Slide 4 to illustrate our near-term cash flow growth and the further earnings upside in recontracting of the Hilli and potentially Mark II FLNG. Hilli continues its market-leading operational off time with another quarter of 100% economic utilization. The vessel will operate for Perenco in Cameroon until July 26, and we see strong earnings generation supported by the increasingly attractive commodity exposed earnings for the unit. However, the vessel is currently only 58% utilized versus nameplate capacity, and we see significant potential for increased capacity utilization, combined with higher earnings for recharter of…

Thanks, Karl, and good morning, everyone. I'm very pleased to provide an update on our group results for the second quarter of 2023. So turning over to Slide #14. I wanted to show some of the financial highlights of this quarter. We had total operating revenues of $78 million, up 5% versus Q1 '23. As a result of softer Brent and TTF prices in Q2, we had total FLNG tariffs of $99 million, down 10% compared to the previous quarter. FLNG tariff is a key non-GAAP metric comprised of total revenues from liquefaction services, including realized gains on oil and gas derivatives. We expect to see a positive reversal of this item this quarter on the back of higher Brent and TTF prices. We also recorded an adjusted EBITDA of $83 million, pretty much in line with Q1, despite lower contribution from commodity-linked fees, as I mentioned before. However, reduced costs associated with the Tundra Development Agreement, which has been concluded in May, contributed to improvement in corporate and other adjusted EBITDA. This quarter, we had net income of $7 million, a significant improvement compared to Q1. This figure is included of a total of $72 million noncash items such as $77 million unrealized losses from oil and gas derivatives, $10 million unrealized gains in our interest rate swaps as well as a $5 million impairment upon the sale of Gandria. Our liquidity position remains strong with close to $1 billion of liquidity. That includes cash on hand and other receivables from the unwinding of our TTF hedges earlier this year. Our total contractor debt stood at just shy of $1.2 billion, leaving us with a net debt position of $190 million. Turning over to Slide 15. We would like to provide a recap from our historical earnings from Hilli.…

Thank you, Eduardo. And turning to Slide 19 for summary. Starting off on the left-hand side, we see significant earnings growth from the existing asset portfolio with Gimi moving from CapEx to cash flow and increased future contribution from our commodity-linked earnings from Hilli. So you can see from the graph, all of the bars above the green line, which represents total debt service, equates to free cash flow to equity. Turning to bottom left, we have an attractive pricing on EV over 1 million tons of annual liquefaction capacity currently standing at around $680 million per ton, which is around half of what current shore-based liquefaction projects would cost to develop in the U.S. Turning to top right, we have a balance sheet that enables us to continue to grow the company. Current cash sits at around $1 billion. Total net debt at just shy of $200 million. We have initiated shareholder returns through quarterly dividends and $150 million buyback program, of which $30 million has been spent in -- during Q2. We plan on distributing an increasing amount of the free cash flow to equity to our shareholders while using our balance sheet capacity for FLNG growth projects, namely through Mark II FLNG with 3.5 MTPA of capacity. On the bottom right, we have an illustrative CapEx to EBITDA multiple, subject to margin per MMBtu on the x-axis versus what the CapEx to EBITDA multiple would be if we deploy at various different rates. We believe with more than 300 MMBtu available of liquefaction capacity from 2027 onwards, that we're well positioned to capture monetization of stranded gas reserves, in particular, in West Africa, but also in other geographical areas in discussion. This concludes our Q2 earnings presentation. Thank you for listening in, and we'll now hand the call over to the operator for any questions.

[Operator Instructions]. The first question is from Ben Nolan from Stifel.

I had to -- hopefully that's okay, the first is when you move the -- or the transition on the -- with Nigeria moving from a memorandum of understanding heads of terms, trying to understand how big of a change that is and how close to a final contract, do you think a heads of terms is? Is it -- are we moving meaningfully closer to a definitive agreement in your opinion? Or is it just, I don't know, maybe frame that in for me.

Nolan, thanks for the question. So, there is no recipe on how to fix an FLNG. The only independent provider of FLNG in the world is Golar and we have done two contracts, one with Perenco and one with BP and they were different in nature. However, the way it works on the ongoing discussions with NNPC is first, you sign an MOU to unlock resources in particular on the NNPC side. Following the unlocking of these resources in late April and over a series of meetings in London and in Nigeria, we have together developed a framework -- commercial framework for how to develop named resources. We have then agreed that commercial framework, and that's what's been signed up to through the heads of terms. By signing the heads of terms, we unlock another set of work, in particular, then for NNPC to allocate further resources to further develop these projects. Given that the all of these FLNG projects are different in nature, it's difficult to guide on exactly when or how or how material, but it's certainly developing in the right direction.

Okay. That's helpful. And then for my second question, you talk about the Mark II if you're able to secure a contract on that asset before the end of the year, it would be available in 2027. In the same -- at the same time, you talked about the Hilli sort of being first on mind. I'm just curious if you think it is reasonable to think that you could get a Mark II contract before the end of the year and stay on that sort of 2027 time frame.

And so just to clarify, if we contract recharter Hilli, we will proceed with Mark II without the contract. You don't need to see both Hilli and Mark II contracted. I think with all of the projects we have in the pipeline, we see ourselves increasingly confident both on the rechartering of Hilli and an attractive charter for Mark II. It's just a matter of having a balanced risk reward before we add on close to $2 billion worth of CapEx.

Okay. But, I guess the implication is that you don't think that by the end of this year, that would be unreasonable. Is that fair?

That's what we're working towards, yes.

[Operator Instructions]. And the next question is from Chris Robertson from Deutsche Bank.

Karl, just my question is a follow up to Ben's. Just looking at the scope of work that might be done with NNPC, is there potential to deploy Hilli as well as the Mark II asset with NNPC.

They have more than enough gas to deploy multiple FLNGs in country. Yes.

Okay. Yes. All right. And then looking at the 5 other countries or entities that you're kind of in negotiations or conversations with now, do all of those I guess, involved in NOC or are there any IOCs involved in the resources that are being looked at?

Yes. But it's mainly focused on NOCs, but some of them also include IOCs.

And the next question is from Chris Tsung from Webber Research & Advisory.

Just following up on the NNPC questions and your other projects in West Africa. Will those all be tolling or integrated? And just as a follow up to that, like how should we expect, like how much ownership should we expect Golar to have? Will it be like 100%? Or could we see some NOCs or IOC partners coming on board.

Okay. So all -- none of the projects we're pursuing is a fixed tariff or like that of Gimi. They are either fully integrated or a fixed tariff with the commodity exposure, more like Hilli, but even more exposed to commodity. The reason why we look to structure the charters in that way is that we see that it's a lot easier to get better economics in the project if you have some upside and downside sharing with IOCs -- sorry with the NOCs. As long as that is done with linkage to highly liquid international price indices, such as Brent, TTF, JKM or similar we can always derisk such pricing movements in the paper market, and that's what we're targeting. In terms of -- it depends on project to project. Most of them, Golar remains the owner of the FLNG. The NOC remains the owner of the upstream and gas treatment. We both work to have as slim economics on that side as possible. And then we share in the gas offtake pricing, and then you basically achieve the same. In some of them, it's being discussed to have shared economics across the value chain as well. If that is to be the case, the resource certainly needs to be big enough to charter the vessel for remaining life, whether it's Hilli or Mark II.

Okay. Great. And taken from the contract, would BP for Gimi starts up in Q1 next year when the vessel arise on site? Or is it contingent on producing first on your commissioning, probably just keen what's going on from like BP and Kosmos' earning calls?

When it comes to that project, I think Golar's focus is to deliver the FLNG and to be delivered safely on site into the hub. And then we are not taking risk or responsibility for other parts of the infrastructure. And the contract mechanisms work so that there will be cash flow to Golar once we start -- arrive at the site irrespective of the status of other parts of the infrastructure. It is, however, fair to say that everybody around the table is incentivized to have the project up and running as soon as possible, but we are not actively part of any other parts of the project than delivering the FLNG.

There are no further questions. I will hand back the conference to Mr. Staubo for closing remarks.

Thank you all for dialing in. I hope you have a good day and hope to speak to all of you very, very soon. Thank you.

That concludes the conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may all disconnect.