Welcome to the Golar LNG Limited 2025 Q4 Results Presentation. After the slide presentation by CEO, Karl Fredrik Staubo; and CFO, Eduardo Maranhao, Tor Olav Troim will have some closing comments prior to a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I will now pass you over to Karl Fredrik Staubo. Karl, please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and welcome to Golar's Q4 2025 Earnings Results Presentation. My name is Karl Fredrik Staubo, the CEO of Golar and as the operator said, I'm accompanied today by our CFO, Eduardo Maranhao, to present this quarter's results, and our Chairman, Tor Olav Troim , to give some closing remarks. Before we get into the presentation, please note the forward-looking statements on Slide 2. Starting on Slide 3 and an overview of Golar today. Golar owns 3 FLNG vessels, all with 20-year charter backlog. Starting on the top left, the Hilli is the best-performing FLNG globally and delivered another quarter of 100% economic uptime. The FLNG Gimi started its 20-year contract for BP offshore Mauritania and Senegal in June '25 and is now producing above the contracted volume. The Mark II FLNG is under construction and on schedule for delivery by year-end '27 and thereafter to start a 20-year charter in Argentina alongside the Hilli. We have 3 growth designs ranging from 2 million to 5 million tonnes per annum, and we have obtained yard availability and pricing for all 3 designs during Q4. We're listed in NASDAQ with a market cap of approximately $4.5 billion. And pre year-end, we had a cash balance of $1.2 billion and a net debt position of $1.5 billion. We have an EBITDA backlog standing at $17 billion before commodity-linked earnings and inflationary adjustments. Our adjusted EBITDA for '25 was $232 million, and we expect this to grow to about $800 million once the fleet is fully delivered and under long-term contracts. Turning to Slide 4. This is just an illustration of the overview of the long-term cash flow visibility of our 20-year charters. Hilli will end her existing contract for Perenco in Cameroon in July this year and go via Seatrium…

Thank you, Karl, and good morning, everyone. I'm happy to share an overview of Golar's financial performance for the fourth quarter of 2025. If we move to Slide 18, let's review some of the key highlights of the quarter. Total operating revenues significantly increased in 2025, reaching $133 million for the quarter and $394 million during the full year, an increase of over 52% when compared to 2024. This quarter, we report a net income of $23 million and a total of $113 million for the full year of 2025, an increase of 40% compared to 2024. Our Q4 adjusted EBITDA came in at $91 million, reaching a total of $265 million for the year. Some key drivers of this performance were Hilli, as Karl mentioned before, has maintained its commercial uptime level of 100% and recognized an additional $2.5 million of production in Q4 '25, while Gimi also saw increased earnings in Q4, largely driven by higher production volumes resulting from technical improvements and also improved ambient conditions on site. This quarter, we declared a dividend of $0.25 per share with a record date of March 9 and the payment scheduled for March 18. In November, we approved a new $150 million buyback program, of which approximately $41 million was spent during Q4 at an average price of $37.76 per share. Across the full 2025, we have been consistently active on buybacks and repurchased and canceled a total of 3.6 million shares. I'll provide some further information on this in the next slide. Moving to Slide 19. We continue to improve our balance sheet flexibility and Q4 was a very active quarter in terms of transactions. In October, we issued $500 million under our first U.S. rated 5-year senior unsecured notes with a coupon of 7.5%. And at that…

Thank you, Eduardo. And turning to Slide 25 and a look ahead at what's our focus on continued value creation. Near term, we see increasing commodity prices that will boost the commodity-linked earnings for Hilli until end of contract in July this year. Based on the strong performance of Gimi, we also expect to see increased capacity utilization payments that will somewhat improve the adjusted EBITDA from Gimi. We believe one of the most or least understood parts of Golar is the commodity upside of our Argentina contracts. And within this quarter, we expect the commercial terms for the SESA offtake to be announced. And hopefully, that can ease the market's understanding of those -- of that potential offset. We have done -- we've proven to do accretive buyback and cancellation of Golar shares, and we have more capacity under the existing buyback program. Through last year, and we'll continue to look for asset level debt optimization, and there's plenty of opportunity to do so across Hilli and the Mark II that could release significant liquidity to fund a fourth FLNG unit and enhance equity returns. The start-up of the Hilli and the Mark II contract in Argentina these are obvious step changes in earnings growth as well. The commercial pipeline of new projects -- new FLNG projects remains under strong development, and we see the terms in which we believe we can obtain to be highly accretive to our platform value. The commodity exposure on the SESA contract will come into fruition as the 2 units become operational. As Eduardo just explained, the dividend capacity and the capacity to multiply increase that is evident once we're fully operational. We continue to see structural strong LNG demand beyond 2030 onwards. And our focused FLNG strategy with proven FLNG conversion expertise…

Thank you, Tor. So operator, we are now ready for Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of John Mackay from Goldman Sachs and Co.

I appreciate all the thoughts around the strategic review. I just want to drill into the details a little bit. I understand it's kind of a multifaceted process. But can you walk us through what the specific process you're focused on right now looks like? What could timing be? What are you watching to decide how to move forward? And maybe to put a bow on it, you mentioned you were approached. Is one of the options on the table here a potential sale of the company? Tor Trøim: I think in view of the discussion we have had in the Board, how we want to orientate the market around this, I don't want to give any further comments than what I've effectively already said. I think hopefully, the shareholders have some respect for the fact that these kind of processes kind of needs to be kept a little bit close to the Board and not effectively be a public process.

Okay. Maybe asking it a different way. You highlighted the current value of the company, your desire to push maybe some of the next vessels to the right a little bit to reallocate capital. Is the message here that the focus right now should be on further buybacks specifically? And I guess, at what point do you decide to switch from maybe investing in the base business to -- buying effectively the base business to commercializing the next vessel?

I can answer that one. So there's no change in our committed focus to develop attractive FLNG projects and none of the actions taken today will pause the pace of the commercial evolvement of the contracts in discussion. That said, an FLNG project, if it's just to agree commercial terms with the counterpart, that would be fairly easy. These are very large infrastructure projects that require significant regulatory, governmental, tax and environmental approvals, including LNG export laws. And most of the -- or some of the countries we're in discussions for didn't export LNG before we started it. That's true for Cameroon, that's true for Mauritania, that's true for Senegal, and it's true for Argentina. So there is absolutely no change whatsoever in Golar's committed focus for accretive FLNG growth. What we're saying is some of the projects in discussion have different vessel design requirements. Hence, instead of going on speculation, number one, because of the different requirements from the various commercial discussions; and number two, for the cash flow profile reasons mentioned by Tor, we've decided to not go on speculation as speculatively as we have previously done and then continue to mature the commercial pipeline before we commit significant capital, both because we believe that's right from a vessel design selection point of view and also for the cash flow profile that Tor alluded to. Tor Trøim: Let me add a little bit to that, Karl. I think kind of just have one thing in mind, the process, which we're talking about now where we're seeking some external advice for what the kind of options is for the future of Golar is not in any way influencing the day-to-day business. What the Board has given a clear mandate to management is run the business as we run it…

Our next question comes from the line of Chris Robertson from Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

Just given the strong operational performance of the Gimi over the last several months, it's producing slightly above nameplate, as you say here. How are the counterparties now thinking about the future of expansion at GTA? What other data points do they need to see or evaluate to make a decision around that? And what's the current thinking potentially around if an expansion would include a floating asset?

That question is probably better placed to BP and Kosmos, but the fact -- what BP has consistently said is that they want 12 to 18 months of well data before a decision is made on expansion, but it has to do with how the wells perform. Given that we are now producing above the contracted amount suggests that the -- not only the FLNG, but the flow from the upstream and the other infrastructure is also working at least as expected, if not better, and that should help a decision for expansion. And given that the incremental cost of expansion should be significantly lower than the initial phase, any growth should be accretive to the project economics.

My follow-up question here is, Karl, you mentioned getting quotes at the yards recently. This is kind of a 2-part question. One, what's the current thinking around the cost for Hilli upgrade and redeployment work? Has that range narrowed at all as we get kind of closer here to the summer months? And then two, could you clarify kind of where things are shaking out in terms of where you're getting quotes at in terms of a dollar per metric ton? Have we seen any cost inflation since the Fuji project? Any commentary around that would be helpful.

Sure. So on Hilli, the conversion budget, when we say conversion budget, that includes everything from disconnecting in Cameroon, towing and bunkering the vessel from Cameroon to Singapore, the yard stay and sailing back to Argentina and connecting and commissioning, OpEx, training, spares and upgrade work, all in, we estimate $350 million, including a certain level of contingencies. We -- as we continue to execute on the Hilli redeployment as most of the equipment is now ordered, we feel comfortable with that budget, and we'll try not to eat into all of the contingencies built into the $350 million, but that's the budget. But it's important to highlight that, that includes everything, not just the upgrades to the ship. And then the second part of the question, do we see price inflation? Yes. The price inflation is not so much on the yard scope. It's more on the top side and in particular, the long lead equipment on the top side. The primary driver of that cost inflation is competition for the equipment, mainly from AI data centers. We're using the same gas turbines and some of the other critical components. And the massive surge in such developments has caused lead times to go out and prices for that equipment to go meaningfully up. If we then look across an FLNG, we see a very limited cost inflation of the Mark II compared to where we ordered last time. We do see a higher cost inflation on the Mark I compared to where we ordered, but that's obviously a function also of it's a longer time since we ordered the Mark I. And the biggest cost inflation is without a doubt on the Mark III and that for the Mark III, it's also driven by competition at the shipyard, namely Samsung. So that's how we see it, but we still see that we can obtain a cost advantage compared to land-based of up to 40% lower CapEx per ton for Mark I and II, not so much for Mark III.

Our next question comes from the line of Alexander Bidwell from Webber Research & Advisory.

With the performance thus far on Gimi, how should we think about production above contractual base going forward? You had mentioned ambient temperature and gas composition are both key drivers. Are there any other factors such as maintenance, which would impact production quarter-over-quarter?

Sure. So maintenance is built into the difference between nameplate of 2.7 and the contractual amount of 2.4. So that's already taken into account scheduled maintenance. When it comes to the ambient temperature effects, you will see a level of seasonality over and above the 2.4. We don't expect to go under the 2.4 in the summer months, and we expect to be meaningfully higher in the winter months. So if you smooth it out on average, we expect to be well above the contracted amount for -- in the case of Q4, that amount was 3%, but we're still undergoing optimization, and we think more than 3% is fair to assume across the year. Exactly percentages we don't want to commit to right now as we are in the midst of these optimizations. To have this type of production this early in the project exceeds the expectation both of Golar and of the charter.

All right. Great color there. Turning over to Argentina. Could you walk us through the start-up and commissioning cadence for Hilli and the Mark II once the assets are actually on site? And are there any lessons learned from Cameroon and GTA that you plan to apply for the deployments?

Yes. So when it comes to -- they will be slightly different because Hilli has obviously operated for 8 years, whilst the Mark II will be -- has never operated. So we expect the commissioning process of Hilli to be quicker than the Mark II. And for simplicity, we expect commissioning of Hilli to be around 3 to 4 months, and we expect up to 6 months for the Mark II simply because the equipment hasn't been running in December. The actual process is that we arrive on site, we connect to the mooring system and then we start commissioning through gas, gas in production. The key learning effect that we are debating with setup but are likely to adopt is that we do expect to arrive cold. What that means is that we will arrive or likely will arrive with some LNG on the tanks that allows us to start commissioning before we are reliant on gas flowing through the pipeline. Hence, we can save any time that it would take to connect to the grid. And secondly, the cooldown process itself. That has a slight cost, but in the scheme of FLNG CapEx, almost negligible. But this can save significant time and it's the same as what we did both for Hilli and Gimi commission.

Our next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi from BTIG.

Maybe to start off, sticking with the Gimi, are project partners -- given production has been surprised to the upside, are project partners still interested in debottlenecking? And what needs to happen to debottleneck given Gimi is already capable of exceeding nameplate by a fair margin?

Again, it's a question for the upstream partners more than us, but it's in everybody's interest. to debottleneck provided you can do so and at, call it, CapEx accretive to the CapEx -- to the unit economics of the project. And we do expect that such debottlenecking will be at a very meaningful accretion to unit economics and as such is in the interest of all stakeholders, including Golar.

Okay. And then turning to a fourth or fifth unit. Can you elaborate on these Middle Eastern opportunities? That's not something that was on my radar, but it's interesting. And I'm wondering if that's linked to ramping unconventional gas production in the region.

You are right that, that is a region that has, call it, saved up as more and more actively pursuing FLNG. And it's one of the regions where we like the pace of progress in our commercial -- or in the project development of a potential FLNG project. So for that one, you are right, that one we haven't spoken as much about previously, but what we are hopeful that we can continue to develop at pace.

Our next question comes from the line of Spiro Dounis from Citi.

I wanted to go back to demand. I think I heard you guys say several times that you're seeing more demand than ever before for this LNG infrastructure. I was just wondering if you could expand on that. Is that macro related? Or is that specific to more of an FLNG solution or maybe both?

I think it's twofold. One of it is the increasing industry recognition of the efficiency of FLNG versus alternative liquefaction solutions. The fact that you can construct this unit at up to 40% discount to land-based and the flexibility a movable FLNG provides versus land-based is one key driver. The other key driver is that the vast majority of incremental production of LNG will come out of the U.S. and all U.S. projects or the vast majority of U.S. projects source at Henry Hub. So the attraction is when you can find reserves that you can source in addition to the CapEx saving, but significantly cheaper gas sourcing than Henry Hub. That's the other component that drives the interest. So for us, it's increasing industry recognition and the attraction of sourcing cheaper [indiscernible].

Got you. That's helpful color. Second one, maybe for you, Eduardo. Just you mentioned on this latest refinancing or financing that it sort of proves out the bankability of these structures. Could you maybe expand on that as we think about the go forward here? You obviously have a lot more financings to do. Does this latest one prove as a blueprint? What lessons did you learn during this last go around?

Yes, that's a great point, Spiro. So you're absolutely right when it comes to the data point that we had on the latest financing. So when we look at the Gimi deal that we closed in November, we raised $1.2 billion, which is just over 5.6x Gimi's annual EBITDA. So if we try to apply and we are in discussions of potential similar transactions to that one. If we were to apply the same multiple to both Hilli and/or the Mark II, we could be looking to raise in excess of $1.5 billion for Hilli and over $2 billion for the Mark II. So that really shows the whole potential of financing capacity that we have under these contracts. These are long-term 20-year agreements, and we really believe on the bankability of these contracts that we have signed up to.

Our next question comes from the line of Liam Burke from B. Riley Securities.

Karl, you talked about a lot of interest in potential negotiations for future FLNG projects. Does shipyard capacity ever come into the negotiation? Or does that -- I mean, Chris touched on cost. But shipyard capacity, does that ever come into future discussions?

Absolutely, yes. That is why it's been critical as part of this commercial pipeline development to have confirmed yard availability and updated yard pricing in continuing such discussions because delivery is obviously a key part of this. What we see is that for the conversions Mark I and II, we are still able to maintain a very, very competitive conversion period of somewhere between 36 and 40 months, whether or not we go Mark II or Mark I. What we see is that if you go bigger on the Mark III, it's meaningfully pushed out even since we had the update with the shipyard 6 to 9 months ago. So on that one, we see the yard availability as a negative. On the first two, we still see it as attractive.

Great. And then other FLNGs out there mostly operated by the major energy companies. Has there been any potential competition on the FLNG as a service only from any other providers?

Nobody else in the world has done vessel conversions, FLNG vessel conversions. We think that the CapEx and delivery time is better obtained in the current yard and long lead situations for vessel conversion than it is for newbuilds. As part of the update we've had with the shipyards, we have also explored newbuilds on the smaller sizes that reconfirms that conversion is the cheapest and most efficient way to do, but obviously comes with significant engineering complication that Golar has built up over time. So we do see that there are more and more majors going for this type of technology, but there are significant advantages doing it with us as a service provider as opposed to replicating this through a new build because you cannot obtain the same benefit.

There are no further questions at this time. So I'll hand the call back to Karl for closing remarks.

Thank you all for dialing in and listening to the Q4 presentation. Have a great day.

This concludes today's presentation. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.