Equinor ASA Q1 FY2025 Earnings Call

Thank you, operator, and thank you all for calling in for the presentation of Equinor's first-quarter results. I'm here together with our CFO Torgrim Reitan, as usual, he will give an introduction about our research, and then we'll open for the Q&A. I know it's a busy reporting day, and we will keep the session within one hour. So with that, I hand it to you, Torgrim.

Thank you, Bard and good morning everyone, and thank you for joining. I know you are interested in the situation we are facing on Empire Wind. I will address that, but let me start by saying that today, we are reporting strong financial results for the quarter. Gas production was particularly strong in Norway and the US, capturing higher prices. We reported adjusted operating income of $8.6 billion before tax, and an IFRS net income of $2.6 billion. Cash flow from operations after tax came in strong at $7.4 billion. Our adjusted earnings per share was $0.66. Earnings per share based on net income was $0.97, impacted by currency effects and book value gains. We are in turbulent times. The significant increase in tariffs and risk of trade wars creates uncertainty and volatility in the global economy and global supply chains. The uncertainty, combined with increased production from COVID, led to a drop in oil prices. It has recovered somewhat, but uncertainty does prevail. These circumstances confirm the importance of a strong balance sheet and resilience toward lower commodity prices. We are well prepared for market volatility. We have a strong cash position of around $25 billion, and the net debt ratio is below 7%. Strong cost control and capital discipline remain a priority for us. For the quarter, we deliver capital distribution in line with our CMU guiding. The board approved an ordinary cash dividend of 37 cents per share and a second tranche of share buyback of up to $1.265 billion, including the state's share. In total, we expect to deliver $9 billion in capital distribution for the year. Before I get to our financial results, I want to address Empire Wind, and I want to be clear this situation is extraordinary and unprecedented. Equinor has, over decades, built a material position in the US, in our core country to us. Since the early 2000s, we have invested around $60 billion, mainly within oil and gas. In the first quarter, we produced around 425,000 barrels of oil equivalents per day and delivered earnings of more than $500 million. During recent years, we have, on the invitation from authorities, also invested to build a renewable business in the US. In 2017, we signed the federal lease for Empire Wind, after being successful in a bid round hosted by BOEM. Since then, we have worked to mature and realize this 810 megawatt project. The site assessment plan for the project was approved back in 2018; then we submitted a construction and operations plan in January of 2020. This plan was approved by the Department of the Interior in February of 2024; it was not a rush process by any means. It took more than four years from submittal to approval after extensive documentations, consultations, and review. Based on this approval and an improved off-take contract with New York, we took a final investment decision and started construction in the spring of 2024. Project financing is a prerequisite for Empire Wind, and this was also secured last year. Empire Wind has already passed 30% completion. The project invests more than $1.2 billion in supply chains across the US, and so far, around 1500 local workers have been involved in the development. On April 16, we received an order from BOEM to halt all ongoing activities related to Empire Wind on the Outer Continental Shelf. We have complied with this order. However, the order did not include any information about the alleged deficiencies in the approval. Our position is clear: the stop work order is unlawful. It disregards applicable law and the prior reviews and the valid approvals of all agencies, including BOEM and others. Equinor has invested in good faith, and this is now a question about the sanctity of contracts, the legal protections and rights afforded through lawfully issued permits, and the security of investments based on valid approvals granted in the US. Empire Wind is an important project for Equinor, and we believe it contributes positively to New York and the United States. So we are seeking to engage with the administration to clarify the situation, and we are considering our legal options. In our first-quarter report, the halt order is treated as a subsequent event. The current book value for Empire Wind is $2.5 billion, including the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal. The book value reflects our investments to date in the project. Of this, around $1 billion is covered by equity injections. The remaining $1.5 billion is drawn from project finance. Equinor US Holdings has provided guarantees for the equity commitment in the project financing. If the project is forced to stop due to the US administration's decision, the $1.5 billion will be repaid from the equity commitment to the project finance lenders. In addition, various companies within the Equinor Group have exposures related to the Empire Wind project, including guarantees and termination fees towards suppliers. This is an aggregated gross exposure on an Equinor group level of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. This is before taking into account tax and any potential reductions from negotiations, settlements, legal actions, and damages and rules of limitation of liabilities. One thing is clear: our priority is to protect the value for Equinor and our investors. And I’m of course ready to take any questions on this during the Q&A, but now let's go to the results for the first quarter. Safety remains a top priority, and we have a solid safety trend this quarter. This year’s incident frequency was a record low at 0.28, and the total recordable injury frequency was 2.2 per million hours worked for the last 12 months. We continue to learn from any incidents and work towards improvements. In the first quarter, we produced 2.123 million barrels per day. We saw increased gas production and somewhat lower oil production than the same quarter last year when it was extraordinarily high on the Norwegian continental shelf. We have good operations, and several fields have near historic high regularity, including other projects. NCS production was impacted by the shutdown of Hammerfest LNG. This quarter, production from Halten East started, and this field, at full production, will contribute 150,000 barrels net to Equinor. For E&P US, we are seeing the positive effect of our increased non-op position in Marcellus. We have high production, and we are creating value from higher gas prices. For E&P International, production was lower, as you should expect, due to the divestment of Nigeria and Azerbaijan. We produced 1.4 terawatt hours this quarter and have announced that we will establish a new power business area that will go live from September. Now to our financial results: liquids prices were lower this quarter, while gas prices were higher in Europe. US storages in Europe ended the gas winter at 34% of total capacity, around 24 percentage points lower than last year. In the short term, we expect balances to be tight, and summer demand will be impacted by the need to fill storages in Europe. Uncertainty around Asian demand and potential supply disruptions may also cause further volatility. This quarter, adjusted earnings in E&P Norway totaled $7.4 billion before tax, driven by higher gas prices. Our international segments combined delivered more than $1 billion in adjusted operating income and around $500 million after tax, supported by higher gas production, capturing higher prices in the US. The realized US gas price was actually $4.06, which was stronger than Henry Hub, a 74% increase from the same quarter last year. The E&P international tax rate was higher due to a one-off non-cash effect caused by the extension of the UK EPL period. MMP came in below the guided range, impacted by lower liquids and LNG trading results and the drilling of two CCS wells. This is a one-off cost, and excluding these, we would have been close to the lower end of the range. The results of our renewables business reflect lower business development and early phase costs across the portfolio. We continue to focus on cost control and capital discipline. The reported adjusted OpEx and SG&A was up 11%, impacted by a change in over/under lift position in the quarter, increased transportation costs, and royalties. Adjusting for that, the increase was 3%. At our CMU, we said that we are targeting flat cost levels for 2025, realizing improvements to beat inflation. This remains our target, but this quarter group OPEX and SG&A came in around 3% above this ambition, primarily due to increased maintenance and one-off costs like the CCS wells. This quarter, our cash flow from operations was $7.4 billion. We paid one NCS tax installment of $3.1 billion. Next quarter, we will pay two equal installments. Those will be the last payments related to the 2024 earnings. Remember, the Norwegian tax system has a dampening effect when it comes to lower prices: if prices are lower, 78% will be offset by reduced taxes, and investments are deducted immediately. As you know, there is a lag in the tax payment, but we see through this when we decide on guidance and capital distribution. In June, we will decide the tax installments for the second half of this year based on our estimated 2025 full-year earnings. This quarter, we distributed $2.5 billion to our shareholders; organic capex was $3 billion; and our net cash flow was just about above $2 billion. We have a solid financial position with around $25 billion in cash and cash equivalents, and our net debt to capital employed ratio decreased to 6.9% this quarter. Next quarter, the state's share of the buyback will be booked as a finance debt, impacting the net debt ratio by around eight percentage points. The actual payment and cash flow impact will be in the third quarter. Finally, to your guidance, we maintain the guidance we communicated at our CMU in February. So, by that, I'll leave the work to you, Bard, to take us through the Q&A. So thank you very much.

The first question today goes to Teodor Sveen Nilsen from SpareBank 1 Markets.

e's share of the buyback will be recorded as financial debt, affecting the net debt ratio by approximately eight percentage points. The actual payment and cash flow effects will occur in the third quarter. Regarding your guidance, we continue to stand by the guidance we provided at our CMU in February. Now, I will turn it over to you, Bard, to lead us through the Q&A. Thank you very much. The first question today goes to Teodor Sveen Nilsen from SpareBank 1 Markets.

I'm sorry, but you are breaking up, so we are not able to hear your question. I suggest we take another one in the interest of time, and you will be the next on the list, and hopefully the line will work better than so then let's go to the next one on the list.

And that is Biraj Borkhataria from RBC.

Thanks for the details on Empire Wind. I guess there's not much you can say, given it's a legal process, but I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about what this event is making you consider in terms of changes in the way you think about the business. Because your geographical exposure is a lot more concentrated than your peers. Obviously, Norway is the backbone of the business and the home ground there, but if I look beyond Norway, the international footprint has been a conscious decision to be more concentrated. And obviously, the US is the second largest footprint you have, and your peers are much more diversified. So does this in any way make you change that approach, make you think a little bit differently? Maybe think you want a bit of a more broader exposure? Just any comments on that would be helpful. And then the second question is, on Bucha Lou, there's maybe a little bit of confusion around expectations there. Just wanted you to clarify expectations on startup and time to get to plateau. Is there any reason we shouldn't assume a ramp-up to plateau in line with other FPSOs we've seen in Brazil, which is typically less than a year to get to full plateau? Thank you.

So on your first question, the situation around the Empire Wind is both extraordinary and unprecedented. We see it as an unlawful act by the US state. The US is an important contributor. We have invested many years, and it generates $500 million in this quarter as such. So it remains so. I think your bigger question is about the concentration of the portfolio, which is very much about our ability to take out scale effects and synergies and getting into critical size where we do operate. If you look at the political risk in our portfolio compared to many others, we have a significant high share of OECD countries in there. There are risks in all countries, and we need to deal with them. All this is very much boiling down to management. In managing the situation around one asset and one investment, then on Bucha Lou, the startup is planned for 2025, and the ramp-up is expected to go as planned. It is on location. Commissioning is ongoing, and the hook-up is also on its way. So things are moving according to plan, so there should not be confusion out there. I hope so. So we are confident in the development of the assets. Thank you, Biraj.

Thank you, Biraj. Let's try Teodor Sveen Nilsen again from SpareBank 1 Markets, and hope that the line is better. So operator, please open the line for Teodor.

It is on location. Commissioning is ongoing, and the hook-up is also on its way. So things are moving according to plan, so there should not be confusion out there. I hope so. So we are confident in the development of the assets. Thank you, Biraj. Let's try Teodor Sveen Nilsen again from SpareBank 1 Markets, and hope that the line is better. So operator, please open the line for Teodor.

Sorry, sorry, Theodore, but we are not able to hear you. So either you need to find a better line and we will put you on the list, or, if not, you are, of course, happy to call me or any other member of the IR team after, and we will try to respond to your question.

Let's then turn to John Olaisen from ABG.

Thanks a lot for taking my question. I want to ask a little bit about the sustainability of your dividend and total capital distribution. You don't make any change to the guidance capital distribution of $9 billion in total for '25, but just wonder, is '25 safe at $9 billion, regardless of oil and gas prices? Or is that at some oil price should we expect the lower capital distribution also for '25? And also then maybe, is it possible to give some indication for 2026? If the oil price stays at, yeah, now we're at $62 at current levels, is the dividend sustainable at current oil and gas price levels? Or if yes, at what level should we expect dividends to become at risk? If you could just talk a little bit about this, please. Great.

Okay, all right, now, thanks. Thanks, John. It's very important for us to be competitive when it comes to capital distribution. Sort of a little bit of a data point, we have distributed $45 billion over the last three years of capital distribution. And I hope that is read as a strong commitment to distribute capital. The $9 billion this year as well, you should see that as very, very firm. I said at the capital markets day that it is important to run with a solid balance sheet and a lot of liquidity, and that enables us to see through volatility when we make decisions on capital distribution. You should take the $9 billion as a very, very strong commitment from our side, even in a lower price environment. Just want to remind you of some sensitivities we have said, you know, a cash flow from operations around $20 billion for 2025 that was based on a $70 oil and a $13 gas in Europe. If you assume a $10 lower oil price, which is $60, and a $2 lower gas, which is $11, that would reduce cash from operations by around $2 billion, taking it from $20 to $18 billion as such, creating still significant room for capital distribution. It is very important for us to be competitive. We have the cash dividend that is going to be growing, and we want you to think about that as bankable. Then on top of that, we will use share buyback, and we will ensure that we are competitive compared to our peer group through the cycle. The last point I would like to make around a low price environment is that the Norwegian tax system has a significantly dampening effect because, as oil and gas prices drop, 78% of the exposure is picked up by the tax bill. There is a lag in tax payments of six months, but clearly, we are seeing through that when we put together guidance and capital distribution. So we do see the Norwegian tax system to be a dampening effect that enables us to manage very well in a low price environment. Of course, I mean, you know, you know our cost base, and you know return on capital employed. It costs us $2 all in cash to get to Europe without gas, selling into an $11 market. So this is a business that works well in a low, low-price environment, and we stay committed to your capital distribution. So thanks, John.

May I have one quick follow-up on that?

Yes, please.

When you talk about a low price environment, in your view, what is a low price environment? Because, I mean, you said that you have break-even for new projects. Your new projects are break-even below $40. Is $62 a low price environment in your view? When do we come into a more medium or high price environment?

You know, both you and I, John, have lived long enough to know that we should never have a very strong view on what is a low price and what is a high price. My job is to make ourselves as robust as we can to volatile prices, and clearly we are prepared for significantly lower prices than we see currently, both through flexibility in our spending, a strong balance sheet, significant liquidity, and a tax system that actually helps on the way down as well. We remain prepared for significantly worse, not believing necessarily in that, but our job is to be prepared.

Next in line is Peter Low from Redburn.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. The first was on Empire Wind and the impact of the pause on the capex budget. I thought you had a reasonably significant amount of investment this year going into Empire. Given you are halting work, would a portion of that not drop out? Can you perhaps just talk about the dynamics there? Then a second question on capex, you alluded in your previous answer to kind of potentially some flexibility in a lower price environment. Can you talk a bit about kind of where that flexibility could potentially come from and at what price level you might look to revisit your spending plans in the coming years? Thanks.

Okay, thanks, Peter. So first of all, on Empire, our main focus is to manage that situation, getting clarity as quickly as we can, and taking the actions that are prudent in the current environment to protect the value of the asset and the value for all shareholders. That is a very top priority. When we know more, we will revert to guiding implications as such. But it is too early to conclude on that as such, but it is a high priority for us to clarify the situation and take the necessary actions. Just want to remind you of what we did on the capital markets day: we actually reduced our investments over the next three years by $5 billion, and also the cost reduction is targeted at $2 billion, so we sort of put that forward at the capital markets day. So first, it's important to be ahead of the game to set up a business that works in a low price environment. There is some flexibility in 2025, but most of the investment program is related to ongoing projects coming in 2026 and 2027. There is significant flexibility opening up as well, and those are discussions we have currently. What are we going to do with the flexible part of the investments? We're being better aware that when we start a project, you sort of lock your capacity. It's always a bad idea to stop ongoing projects.

Next one is Yoann Charenton from Bernstein.

Hi everyone. So I'd like to ask about the MMP business. And if you're able to tell us what was the contribution for cash flow, or contribution to cash flow from MMP in the first quarter, and this quarter as well you had the working capital. Is that possible to understand whether at the end of the quarter you have reached what you will consider as a normalized level for working capital?

So on the MMP results, a few data points. So the result in the quarter was $253 million, impacted by two wells into the relevant reservoirs. So adjusting for that, the result would have been close to the lower end of the range. And then, you know, LNG trading is lower than normal. That is due to that LNG facility in the Arctic has been down for maintenance for part of the quarter. And then in general, you know, within the trading environment, there is a little bit of a risk-off for the time being, so there has been lower than normal results from that. On working capital, so let me first say that sort of the guiding we have on cash flow from operations, that is excluding working capital movements, so it's sort of a clean number, not disturbed by working capital movements. In this quarter, there was a freeing up of working capital of $1.6 billion. So that actually adds to the cash flow in the quarter. And of course, whether this is normal or not, I would say it was higher than normal at the end of the fourth quarter. This is a fair level of working capital, but you should expect that it moves depending on whether there are contango in the market or special situations. Volatility in general creates results, but it also takes working capital. So if you see volatility and changes in the curves, you will see working capital movements.

Next one is Matt Lofting from JPMorgan.

Thanks for taking the questions. Most of mine have been asked. Perhaps just ask you to follow up first on Empire Wind. I just wonder if you could share any thoughts on how, what situation or duration of the sort of the hold would be required in order to trigger a write-down of the $2.5 billion book value as we move through 2025, and in particular, sort of then get to year-end impairment testing into the second half. And then second, perhaps just coming back on MMP and some of the comments talking that you just made. I just wondered the extent to which, in the current environment, the industry as a whole is seeing moderated trading conditions in terms of the opportunities and spreads that are there versus a sort of more temporary risk-off approach. Thank you.

Matt, on Empire Wind and your question on consequences for our accounts, what is happening now around the project is dramatic. It is extraordinary and unprecedented in a way. We will do impairment testing related to the second-quarter results. There are so many outstanding topics yet still with the project, so it's too early to say anything about what the consequences might be to it. Hopefully, we will be able to create more clarity around the situation by the second quarter. So there is a reason why we are very transparent on the economic exposure, and we hope that will put you in a situation to be prepared and have an opinion about that. Your second question related to MMP and moderated trading opportunities – yes, I think in general, the risk across various markets is sort of a new type of risk. The whole world is used to dealing with macro uncertainty and dual geopolitical turmoil, but what we currently see is sort of a different type of risk, and that makes everyone more careful in sort of taking risks. We see a risk-off across that and it's a difficult environment to trade in. What is interesting to note is that if we see increased tariffs or trade wars, it might change trade flows, which creates opportunities. We're well positioned with our shipping fleet, various oil qualities, and our ability to realize higher prices. Traders can make value in situations with uncertainty. This quarter, we saw quite good trading around refineries and the qualities we have on the liquid side.

Then we'll turn to Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Chris Kuplent.

Just two to tidy up for me. One more on MMP: I was wondering whether you could give us a little bit of your thinking when you issued your trading updates a few weeks ago, and I didn't really read into that trading update the weak results that you ended up reporting below the low end of the usual quarterly range. So maybe you can talk us through the visibility you had at that time and your thinking behind how to use that trading update in order to guide consensus. And then lastly, just because it's an asset that I enjoy asking you about every time, also today, that $260 crowns or so, if it was a good investment at $400, why wouldn't you buy more today?

On your question about MMP, Chris, it's a good question. What we try to do in a trading update is to give you some steer on the direction, and we recognize that there are a lot of moving parts that are hard to analyze and model. What this time around, there were a lot of transactions very late in the quarter that we were not able to pick up as part of the trading update. So that's sort of on your question related to the trading update. The best advice I can give is to have a close and good dialog with our investor relations department around these topics. Then on Ørsted, yeah, we hold 10% of the shares. We are an industrial and long-term owner. Clearly, the share price of Ørsted is impacted by the industry realities within offshore wind, which is reflected in the price. Even if we see beyond that, they have a quality portfolio of producing assets delivering significant returns on capital employed. We see this as a quality company with a quality portfolio, clearly impacted by the reality that surrounds this industry for the time being.

Chris, we are happy to take any feedback on the trading update. I just want to remind you that we did say that you should expect an impact from the CCS that we have in our report, and we did also say that you should expect relatively weak research from LNG trading that we saw, but happy to discuss this further.

Then next on the line is James Carmichael from Berenberg.

Another one on Empire Wind. Obviously, you’re sort of, I guess, following up on your question. You’re obviously an interested observer in what’s going on with the portfolio in the US. Have you got any indication on why it’s only Empire Wind received this halt order at this stage? I guess you must be concerned that others might follow. I don’t as much as you can say on that, but any thoughts would be interesting. And then just on the power business that you’re setting up in September. I think it said maybe just a bit of color, I guess, on the assets that are going into that business and the rationale for setting that up would be helpful. Thank you.

Okay, thanks, James. When it comes to further stop work orders in the US, I’m not in a position to comment on that naturally, but there are rumors around these topics all the time. I think the best one to ask is actually the US Federal Government about their ideas around those assets and industries; hopefully, they can provide some clear answers to that. When it comes to your question on the power business, clearly, we have powers assets split between two business areas, within renewables and MMP. MMP, you know, these assets belong more together to take a more full, comprehensive approach to the power markets. Secondly, we believe that going forward, there will be a strong link between the gas market and the power market, and having gas-fired power plants as part of the power business area is important. The assets that we are discussing include the Triton asset, and they also have power assets in the UK, and clearly, there are trading opportunities as well.

Next on my list is Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley.

I also have two, including on Empire Wind. I'm afraid, if the project is not sort of permanently halted, but say there is a relatively positive outcome where at one point you could sort of go ahead, there would still be, I would imagine, a risk that you missed this year's weather window. I wanted to ask, how much of a delay can you have in the project? I would imagine it's probably not more than a few weeks or a few months before this year's weather window is lost. And also, if this year's weather window is lost, and the whole thing, like all the cash flows shift a year into the future, what would be the NPV impact of such a delay? That's one thing I wanted to ask, and then just as perhaps a bit of a technicality. But earlier on, you talked about potential tax losses that this might generate. Are Equinor's holdings in the United States, across both offshore wind and the upstream, structured such a way that if there are any tax losses, say in Empire Wind, that they are available to the E&P bill? Is it legally so separate that it's hard to kind of move these tax offsets around? I was wondering if you could say a few things about that.

Okay, thanks, Martijn. I love the details of the questions here, so let's get to that. First of all, it comes to Empire Wind; the project is progressing well, but the way these projects go is they all hang together. It's a timeline. There are suppliers, there are commitments, and all of that. You are dependent on that. The project is in a critical phase. We are sort of on time and schedule and working well, but it is in a critical phase because we are about to start the offshore installation, and the installation window is now, in a way, so it is a matter of urgency to get clearance on the situation, and the US authorities are very well aware of the urgency and the need for clarity. We are considering all optionalities, including taking legal steps to protect our situation and the value of our shareholders. On your second question regarding tax losses available to upstream—yes. That is in place, and there is a common structure overseeing all the US activities here, where this is consolidated and can be used.

Next on my list is TD Cowen, Jason Gabelman.

Thanks for taking my questions. I'm afraid I'm going to stay on topic with Empire Wind. I'm wondering, since it's been about two weeks since you've gotten the stop order notice, if you've had any engagement with US authorities, and if you know your sense, it's really the government that's dictating the timeline of a potential restart, or if there are things you could do proactively to move that along. And my second question, unrelated to Empire Wind, it looks like your US gas realizations are quite strong. So I'm wondering, one, what's driving that, and two, if there's an appetite to acquire more acreage in the lower 48 with gas exposure. Thanks.

Thanks, Jason. The government in the US has not shared with us the reason for the stop work order. It is a situation where we don't understand why. What we do know is that what has happened; we see that as unlawful. We have permits and approvals dating back one year ago, and we have always assumed that the United States of America will honor contracts and permits they have issued. This is an unlawful action by them, and we are going to treat it like that. I just want to be very clear on that. We are engaging on all levels that we can, and we are making a massive effort in all channels to get the dialogue needed to create the necessary clarity. We have been extremely clear with them that this is of urgency. We have little time, and we will consider legal actions as such. On the US gas realization: we had a realized gas price in North America of $4.06, while Henry Hub came in at $3.65, which is a significant addition to that. Normally, the Northeast trades at a discount to Henry Hub, but this is mainly linked to the way that we market and sell our gas, as we keep title. Even if it's operated by expansions, we have title to the gas, and we market and trade and sell it ourselves. We are not selling or hedging our gas, so we keep our position open to volatility in the market. What we've seen in the Northeast are periods of coal spells and very high natural gas prices, which allowed us to capture that. This doesn't happen every quarter, but when it does, we will be there.

I might as well follow the trend and stick with Empire Wind. But I just want to ask for some clarity on the urgency. So when is the weather window for offshore installation? And just to be really clear, if you missed that weather window, could we be in a situation where Equinor decides not to progress with the asset because the cost implications are just too high to generate the returns you want from this project? And secondly, just on the new power business area. Do you think you've got the organic assets that you need to develop the growth of this business, or are you looking inorganically for more power assets at the moment?

Thanks, Paul. The Empire Wind project is urgent. It is a very extraordinary situation, and there has been significant uncertainty about the way forward with this project, and the questions we are facing, of course, is about spending money in a situation with that significant uncertainty. So this needs to be clarified very quickly. The overall construction schedule is sensitive to contractor availability, the weather window, and actually commercial requirements as well. This project is also dependent on project financing to work, and as you would understand, lenders are very uncertain about the way forward. So this is much more than just about a weather window, which is crucial, but it's much more complex. We just want to have clarity as quickly as possible. As for your question on the new power business: currently, there are assets that sit in different business areas that belong together, and the decision made is to combine them because there are synergies there. So there are no sort of plans for inorganic moves at this moment, but of course, we can’t comment on what might come in the future.

Thank you. Thank you, Paul. That completes the list on our end, and we have managed to do it within the hour. I want to thank all of you for calling in and for your questions, and then remind you that the investor relations team is, of course, always available for follow-ups later today or during the week. Thank you all for calling in and have a good rest of the day.