Hi, everybody, and welcome to FLEX LNG's Second Quarter Result Presentation. It's August 14. And I'm Oystein Kalleklev, CEO of FLEX LNG management. And I will be joined here as usual by our CFO, Knut Traaholt, who will run you through the numbers a bit later in the presentation. Before we begin, just want to highlight, we will do our presentation, followed by our Q&A session, where the best question today can win a summer pack, consisting of the Just Flex It T-shirt. We are already preparing for Oslo Marathon in September. I might be on Gastech and not able to attend this year, but Knut will run this year, he promised me. FLEX on the beach sandals, and then of course the FLEX cap. So, before we then start the presentation, I just remind you that we will be providing some forward-looking statements. So, there are limited details, and we will be using some non-GAAP measures. So, please also read the earning support together with the presentation. Yes. Let's kick off with the highlights, revenues for the quarter $84.7 million, which was in line with what we said, close to $85 million was our guidance. This resulted in net income and adjusted net income of $21.8 million and $30.4 million respectively. Just a reminder, the difference here is in adjusted net income, we only include the realized gains and losses on derivatives, while in the net income figure we are also including unrealized numbers. So, earnings per share came in at a healthy $0.41 or $0.56 on adjusted basis. Of the major recent events, we also touched upon this in our earnings report back in May. We have fixed one ship on our 10 months charter. So, we had, as some of you might recall, we had Flex Constellation being redelivered back from our three-year firm charter, end of Q1 last year. And we then decided to take it in dock early, as this is our low period of the market. We completed the dock here according to plan and budget, and took it back in the market in the middle of April, where we traded spot for a while. We managed to get our cool down slots, so we could get the ship back in cool condition, and then after our spot voyage, we fixed on this 10 months charter with a large Asian LNG buyer. Redelivery then is end of Q1 2025, but where the charter has the option to extend this time charter by one year to 2026. So, that means we are fully covered, 100% charter cover for the remainder of the year, also a very high coverage going forward, as I also will touch upon a bit later in the presentation. As some of you also recall, we have been doing an extensive balance optimization phase for some time, and we had one phase, where our aim was $100 million, we did our balance sheet optimization 2.0 and then 2.1, and correct me if I'm mistaken, Knut, I think we raised $387 million on those refinancing, and we actually have a very good financing situation. But you know, we are not idling because of a good financial structure. We try to optimize and find better terms. As I said in the Q1 presentation, we had the extension of FLEX endeavor from 2030 to 2032. And with that attractive backlog on that ship, we were able to secure our very attractive Japanese operating lease on that company, and we also amended our bank loan, and we have thus secured $430 million of new financing with our net proceeds from this financing of $97 million, which Knut will tell you more about. During this quarter, Q2 is more or less always the softest quarter; we tried to plan our drydocking during this quarter. So, we had FLEX Constellation as I mentioned in dock, and Flex Courageous also taken out from a TC out of operation in dock and back on TC. Both ships were done at 17 days each, three days below our guidance of 20 days. Cost of docking around $5 million according also to our budget. That means we do expect revenues and earnings to pick up in Q3. We have all the ships back in operation. Two ships were out of the market for some time in Q2. So, with all ships back in operation, somewhat better spot market affecting the one ship on variable hire, we do expect revenues to pick up to around $90 million. Time charter equivalent earnings also increased a bit, and the same then goes with EBITDA as most of our costs are fixed in the short-term. So, with our very healthy backlog, which I will touch upon, very strong financial position, good outlook, once again, we are declaring $0.75 of quarterly dividend, dividend last 12 months is $3.125 per share implying a running yield of around 12%. So, just a reminder here on the guidance, we guided between 70,000-75,000 on the TC rate delivered in the middle of that with their level spot on the revenues we said close to $85 million, $84.7 million is as close as you get to $85 million. And then, adjusted EBITDA, we said close to 63.2, a bit lower because OpEx is slightly higher in Q2 than Q1 due to timing effects that Knut will tell you more about. And then, as I said, we expect higher revenues and earnings for Q3 and probably, usually Q4 is the strongest quarter for us. We have one ship on index linked to the spot market, and Q4 tends to be the high season in the spot market. As mentioned, the drydockings we had scheduled for this quarter were completed according to both plan and budget. I mentioned the backlog, so there's been one change from recently. We have some core ships on very long duration charters, Flex Rainbow 2033. We recently extended Flex Endeavour from 2030 to 2032. The charter has the option to extend to 2033 and we utilized that kind of added backlog on that ship to refinance the ship on better terms. Vigilant last year extended to 2031 with options to 2033, and then we have two ships to 29, we have the Flex Freedom to 27 with option 29 Resolute and Courageous, we announced in Q1 that those two ships were extended from 25 to 27 as expectation and we do expect these ships also to be declared until 29. Due to the contract structure of these ships where you have a front-loaded firm rate compared to the option rate which you will also find more details about in running support where the remaining ships in our portfolio have a higher about 18% higher option rate though this doesn't apply for these two ships and it has a bit revenue recognition effect, although not a cash flow effect. Flex Volunteer and Aurora 2026 with Option 228, then we have Flex Ranger fully open 27 and then, as I mentioned, Constellation fixed now until end of Q1 '25, where the charter has the option to keep on until end of Q1 '26. So, that's our first fully open ship with Ranger coming back of that in '27, then we have some ships in '28, '29, which we think is a very good window of having ships open. For reasons, I will explain a bit later in the presentation. Then the last ship, Flex Artemis, is on a variable higher index charter, where it's linked to the spot market, where typically revenues are highest in Q4 and then Q1, Q3 tend to be a bit similar, and Q2 being the softest quarter. Here the charter has the option to keep that ship until 2030. So, with the healthy backlog, a high level of income visibility, 47 years of firm backlog, which may go to 66 years, we have a fairly predictable cash flow. Last three years now we paid out $528 million of dividends, consisting of the ordinary dividends, $0.75 per quarter, plus some special dividends in the past. We're topping those dividends up. And as we have said and touched upon a lot of times in the past that the dividend decision factors not going to go into too much details the change we have had, we upgraded the market outlook for reasons I will tell in the market section. Spot rates are up, but that's not really the driver here. It's really the fact that term rates have been picking up where we take this back to green. As I said in last presentation, we were intending to have the color yellow also in Q4 '23 when we reported in February. But we got a bit colorblind by all the green lights and forgot to do it. But we're upgrading this again to green, so green colors on most of the decision factors in terms of the dividend and $0.75 once again declared bringing the trailing 12 months dividends to trade all at 125. And then, I think I hand it over to you Knut on the financials.

Thank you, Oystein. Revenues for the quarter came in at $84.7 million slightly down from the first quarter, but as explained by Oystein this is due to the seasonal lower period impacting the variable higher contract for Flex Artemis and also the spot operations for Flex Constellation. In addition, we had a fewer operating days as we had a number of ships in drydocking resulting in an offhire. That returns into a time charter equivalent per day of 72,400 and if you look at the vessel OpEx as we commented on the Q1 presentation we were a bit low compared to budget, but that is timing effects of our expenses. So, we're slightly higher this quarter, but please note the full six months average of 14,600 and we are in that sense in line with our budget. When we look at net income, net income at $21.800 million, that is $0.41 per share, in the report, you will see that we had realized gains from a derivative portfolio of $6.8 million and we had unrealized losses of $3.4 million. In the adjusted numbers, we adjust out the unrealized gains and losses. So, for this quarter, the $3.4 million and also the slight FX gain. And then, we also add back the cash gains that we realized on the amendment of an interest rate derivative swap in April. As announced in the first quarter presentation, we reduced the duration of two swaps, one for Q1 and one for the second quarter, and that's adjusted into the numbers. So, we get an adjusted net income of $30.4 million or $0.56 per share. Looking at our cash balance, we're at $38 million from operations and $9 million of change in networking capital; we reduced our debt by $27 million in scheduled installments, and here also the cash from determination of the swap and then paid dividends of $40 million. That ends up with the cash balance at the end of the quarter $370 million and as we note here as the mentioned refinancings are expected to be concluded in the second-half of the year, we will free up $97 million and I'll come back to the refinancing a bit later. On our derivative portfolio, we have reduced the duration of it, maintained the short-term high coverage which is in line with our expectations of the long-term interest rate development. When we now add a Japanese operating lease, we will also have a fixed rate element of that and in August we also amended a so-called mirror swap structure where we now have added $100 million and used the positive value from the mirror swap structure to reduce the fixed rate interest rate and as you see there, it's six years starting in 2026 at attractive 82.5 basis points. On the refinancing, they started off with a new contract or the extension of the Flex Endeavour contract which made sure attractive for a lease financing, in particular this JOLCO financing structures. We have raised $160 million for that. It's at near about 10 years lease financings. And that will release about $48.5 million. This is a structure where we have a fixed rate element and a floating rate element. On a blended basis, we have a long margin here of about SOFR plus 130 basis points, which is very attractive. On the back of that, we are then refinancing the two remaining vessels of the old $375 million facility. We are extending the duration and also increasing the leverage somewhat. That will release $48 million. As you see, we are matching the terms of the recent $290 million facility where we have now a margin of SOFR plus 185 basis points. In total, this will release $97 million. And we expect to conclude these transactions in Q4. If we look at debt maturity profile, we see that we are now prematurely addressing our 2028 maturities. We are pushing them now. So, we have remaining maturity in '28 of $103 million, and then, spreading out the remaining maturities. And with that, I hand it back to you, Oystein.

Thank you, Knut. Let's discuss the market dynamics for LNG. Overall, the product market experienced muted growth this quarter, increasing approximately 1% year-over-year. The U.S. has been the primary driver of this growth, outpacing Australia and Qatar, with 43 million tons in the first half of the year compared to 41 million tons and 40 million tons for Australia and Qatar, respectively. It's noteworthy that despite the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, we have seen loadings from Arctic LNG 2, the new liquefaction plant that has sourced older tonnage for its operations. This aligns with our earlier expectations regarding the potential development of a shadow fleet in the LNG shipping sector, based on discussions with various market participants. On the import side, mature Asia, which includes Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, grew by 4%, largely due to coal shutdowns and favorable pricing. Europe had a mild winter with high inventories and a reduction in energy demand, leading to a 20% decline in LNG imports year-over-year, redirecting more cargoes back to Asia. China saw a consistent growth of 10%, while India experienced a remarkable 25% growth. Thailand and the rest of the world also exhibited solid growth rates of 11% and 28%, respectively. As a result, we are observing a shift of cargoes to Asia. Graphically, U.S. LNG exports to Europe surged following uncertainty around Russian flows, and they remained elevated during and after the invasion of Ukraine. Currently, the energy situation in Europe appears more manageable, with reduced prices attracting Asian buyers back to the market. Now, Asian importers are buying more than European ones, a reversal of previous trends. European gas demand shows limited activity, especially in power generation and residential use, with gas storage levels around 85%, well above the 10-year average. The growth in Asia is promising for shipping, although the longer routes to Asia via the Panama Canal are not commonly used due to the distance compared to other routes. A U.S. cargo going to China typically faces much longer transit times, contributing positively to the ton mileage metric, which boosts the shipping market's sentiment. Recently, the geopolitical situation has created further uncertainty surrounding Russian pipeline volumes to Europe, impacting prices and also stirring demand for LNG in Asia. We have observed an uptick in the JKM, which needs to exceed the European gas price to make long-haul shipments viable. Henry Hub prices remain low, which creates an attractive price spread for contracts shipping cargoes from the U.S. to Asia or Europe. The spot market has recently rebounded, aligning with seasonal patterns, and we expect Q4 numbers to be strong, bolstered by our spot ship activities. While current levels are lower than historical highs, they remain significant as rates above $100,000 are generally favorable for ship owners. The upward trend in longer-term rates is also positive, reflecting better market conditions ahead. The order book features numerous new builds scheduled for delivery soon, contributing to our long-term strategy and market stability until 2026 and beyond. We anticipate that a good number of older steam ships will be phased out soon, as they can't compete economically due to their inefficiencies. Despite the U.S. export license moratorium, we observe strong activity among buyers committing to long-term agreements, indicating confidence that the moratorium will soon be lifted. There are many projects ready for endorsement, which will enhance the economic situation and job creation in the U.S. The first half of the year saw 48 million tons contracted, nearing last year's figures, with an average contract duration of 14 years. While waiting for the moratorium to end, projects are continuing to secure offtake agreements to ensure readiness for quick launch once restrictions lift. This sets the stage for a significant expansion in the LNG market around 2026-2028, where most of our ships will be available, enabling us to benefit from market growth and replacing older steam ships. Finally, we reported adjusted earnings per share of $0.56, staying within our guidance. We completed a new contract for Flex Constellation and have attractive financing opportunities in place. As for drydocking, this year we managed to maintain regular schedules, and our revenue is anticipated to improve in Q3. We will provide further guidance in November. We are also declaring a quarterly dividend of $0.75 per share, yielding approximately 12%, with sufficient cash reserves to support this distribution. With that, I conclude my remarks, and Knut may address any questions.

Yes, thank you all for the questions you have provided. We have a number of them. But maybe start with the market and the sentiment for long-term contracts. Have you seen any change in sentiment or activity? And how do you then view the opportunities for types of Flex Constellation and Flex Ranger?

Yes, I think it's easy to say something, but we are a bit data-driven as well. So, we do see that rates have picked up on the term rates. Spot rates, of course, it's not unusual that spot rates pick up. They usually pick up. They bottom out typically March, April, and then they go up. But we do see also term rates picking up. And we are once in a situation where shorter term rates or five-year rates are higher than 10-year rates, which is how the market should be in a balanced way. If somebody can commit to taking a ship for five years at the same rate as a 10-year, most people will commit to taking five years rather than 10 years. Typically, people want the discount if they're taking a commitment of 10 years rather than five years. So, we are getting a bit better balance in the market. We do see increased inquiries for term rates. And it's not really surprising because there is this roll off of steam tonnage I've shown earlier today. Steam ships on legacy contracts being rolled off. People don't want to keep those ships. They want to renew them with much more efficient ships. We've shown in the past fuel efficiency per cargo ton lifted on our ships is about 58% better than a steam ship. So, that means that it's not only good economics, it's also good for the environment. So, when people are committing for a five, 10-year charter, they don't want steam technology. They want the new ships. So, we do see more inquiries for that for fleet renewal. And also some of these projects where are now signing up SPA contracts are also starting to look at locking in shipping. So, I think that bodes well for our strategy here trying to fix that window near term where we have seen muted growth of the market in terms of volumes, and then having our ships available ready for the next wave of LNG.

We touched upon in the presentation on the Russian shadow fleet. So, a number of questions here, how do you see that impacting the LNG shipping market, and their ability to grow to a large fleet and how that will impact the global trade?

Yes. This is not like a new phenomenon. This is a well-developed situation on the tanker side both the crude tankers and product tankers, but also on the LPG side here, around gases, well with a shadow placed on the VLGC is very big there, we're talking up to 15% of the fleet being in this captive shadow trade. So, for that particular trade, it's Iran-China. On the petroleum products, it's typically Russia, India, China, maybe Brazil. On the crude it could be Venezuela, Iran and then Russia. So, it's a lot of read-through from the other markets. It's basically the same thing happening. Older ships are being taken up by the affiliates with the Russian counterparties and they go into a captive trade. Once that ship goes into that trade, it will never come back to the regular trade. It will stay in that trade. If they have insurance at all, it's with a shady counterparty. And this is a way of the sanctioned party to avoid the sanction and being able to generate revenues on the products. So, it means that you could have some steam tonnage that we thought might be scrapped will go into that trade. But this basically also then to replace those ships that the Russians were trying to buy, a lot of icebreaking Arc 7 ships, which were sanctioned and they are not delivered, so they have to find a way to arrange that logistics without those ships that they contracted. So, it doesn't really affect the net fleet growth because some ships are not being delivered and some ships that we thought would be scrapped, they might go into this trade and we will never be in this kind of trade. Most serious actors will not be in that trade. But it just changed the dynamics because we haven't had the shadow fleet in LNG in the past, but it seems like this is something that will happen now and with a lot of similarities to the tankers and the VLGC side. But it's not good in the sense of you have a lot of ships trading around the world without proper insurance and maybe not proper maintenance, and these ships are old. So, it's a time bomb before one of these ships end up in a situation where you will have spills and ships sinking, breaking, whatever, which will be an environmental catastrophe. It's not that serious on the LNG side because LNG is cooled methane, so if something happens, that gas or the LNG on that ship will heat up, become gas vapor, or basically methane vapor, and it will evaporate. But that is not the case if you look at the crude tankers or the petroleum tankers, then you have a product that's not going to evaporate, but it's going to be landing on somebody's shores.

Then we are transitioning over to more to the trading pattern of the global fleet and a normalization in the Panama Canal operations. But still, most of the ships are trading through the Cape of Good Hope. Do you see any trend back to a normalization with transit to Panama Canal, or continue that the Cape of Good Hope will be the preferred route?

I believe the booking process in Panama isn’t always ideal for LNG trade. It’s quite inflexible. The market can change quickly; when you book a slot and have a cargo, prices might fluctuate, prompting you to consider sending that cargo elsewhere. For instance, if you're ballasting a ship toward the Pacific Ocean, there aren’t many options for picking up a cargo other than in the U.S. In contrast, if you’re traveling from China to the Atlantic, you have various options to load cargo from places like Australia, the Middle East, or West Africa, providing much more flexibility in arranging shipments. While the canal authorities are communicating with LNG companies to create a system that encourages more use of the canal, many still find the inflexibility and associated costs off-putting. If you have significant slack in your schedule and a commitment to deliver cargo, any natural boil-off results in sunk costs. For example, using the Panama Canal incurs tolls and while waiting 10 to 14 days to discharge in China, boil-off continues. Thus, there’s often no financial advantage to taking the longer route; you avoid Panama fees while burning a similar amount of LNG. Some ships do have advanced re-liquefaction systems, allowing them to use the Panama Canal, idle in China, and re-liquefy part of the boil-off to minimize fuel loss. Ultimately, the choice also hinges on the specific capabilities of the ship involved in the trade.

As we observe an increasing amount of cargo being routed to Asia, often taking the longer path through the Panama Canal or around the Cape of Good Hope, we need to consider the impact of ton miles compared to the incoming fleet supply.

Yes, so, in general, of course, we always like when you have a pull to Asia, especially if you have a pull to Asia with congestion in Panama because, as I mentioned, these numbers in nautical miles, it really drives up the requirement for ships. So, we have seen that now, and lately often if you have ships from the U.S. going to Asia not utilizing the Panama, they will typically use the Suez Canal with better weather and shorter route. Today, nobody is using that except for those taking cargo into Egypt with a switch from being an exporter to importer recently, and then to Jordan. Except for that, nobody is using the Suez Canal for transit, except for these two ships linked to Russian buyers for Arctic 2. So, it's positive. We want as much LNG to flow to Asia, in general, because it drives off them. And that's one of the reasons why I would say spot market's been surprisingly good this summer because we didn't really expect that much pull through Asia. And then, on top of that, you have the Suez crisis, which also adds on some extra ton mileage.

Then to Europe and the EU, how do you see the situation developing for modern two-strokes compared to steamers and tri-fuels?

Yes, I can begin with the question. You are more responsible for the implementation on all sides, but I can offer some general ideas. This year, ships trading into Europe will need to purchase CO2 carbon permits as part of the emissions trading system for the emissions they generate. This implementation will occur over a few years, culminating in a requirement to cover 100% of documented emissions for 50% of the trade. For example, when shipping from the U.S. to Europe, there are two legs: the laden leg and the ballast return. This leads to the 50% calculation since half the journey is in Europe, where the EU emissions trading system applies, while the other half is in the U.S., which does not have this system. The price of these EU permits is volatile and can vary from EUR100 to EUR60, requiring you to measure your emissions. While it is not a carbon offset, you still need to pay for permits covering your documented CO2. This will create an emissions cost, which I believe is a better approach to addressing global warming. When people have to pay for it, they have a real financial incentive to adapt their behavior, rather than relying on bureaucrats to create rules and distribute subsidies. Establishing a price for emissions encourages behavioral change, and we generally support this approach. We value our CO2 emissions and think it should be applied on a global scale, providing us with a competitive advantage. Our fuel consumption per ton of cargo transported is approximately 58% lower than that of steamships, meaning that steamships will have to purchase significantly more carbon credits in Europe for the emissions permits. First, steamships are less economical due to their higher fuel consumption and smaller size. Additionally, they face this carbon penalty. Overall, we see this as beneficial for our operations. Knut has been managing our time charters since these costs are passed through to them. We charge these taxes on top of our fixed fees for charters. Under a time charter, we receive a set fee to operate the ship, while they cover all associated costs, including transit through the Panama Canal, port fees, and fuel. We ensure a specified fuel consumption, which we are allowed to utilize. When taxes related to the trade arise, they will also bear those costs. We have implemented a system where we provide them with documentation detailing our CO2 emissions and the necessary purchases for carbon credits, along with invoices for reimbursement or credit issuance. Do you have anything to add?

No, I think we are handling the reporting. We are passing this information on to our charters as long as we are on a time charter basis. Regarding the geopolitical question about the U.S. elections, do you believe it will affect the LNG market? Specifically, how do you see it impacting the permitting process in the U.S.?

Yes. I believe that if Trump wins, it will positively impact the LNG market as the moratorium will likely be lifted quickly. There's already a judge in Texas who ruled against this, but I think a Trump victory would lead to a swift repeal. If Harris wins, it may take longer, but I believe it will happen eventually. This moratorium was implemented in January to attract green votes, especially after allowing oil drilling in Alaska. It presents a favorable image on social media. Ultimately, given the abundance of gas in the U.S., which can create many jobs, I think logic will prevail, and permits will be issued again. Additionally, there is significant pressure from countries like our European and Japanese allies for U.S. politicians to lift this moratorium, and I believe that will happen regardless. Once it's lifted, many projects are prepared with new LNG off-take agreements and will be poised to initiate the next wave of U.S. LNG.

Okay. Then we'll round up a couple of questions on Flex and strategy. And how do you view the outlook for growing the fleet and the company being M&A second-hand tonnage in new billings?

I expected you to discuss how to allocate it, which is typically a common inquiry we receive. As we've mentioned multiple times, we are returning ships. The most recent ship that was delivered, the Flex Vigilant, was completed in 2021. While we are eager to grow, it is essential that this growth is profitable. We will not expand just for the sake of having a larger fleet and increased revenues; it must be beneficial. Over the past couple of years, identifying solid growth opportunities has been challenging due to the soaring prices of new builds, which have risen from around 180 million to 260 million. This is a significant increase in costs. In addition to rising prices, the lead time has extended from 2.5 years to around four years, which is costly, especially with interest rates around 5%. I need to reiterate what we’ve said previously: we are not willing to pay for growth. Our approach will be disciplined. Currently, I believe our order book is already substantial enough that we do not require additional orders. I do not find the prospect of paying 260 million and waiting until 2028 to be very appealing compared to distributing dividends during this period. Therefore, if we are to expand, it will likely be more logical through consolidation. We are, by far, the largest publicly listed LNG shipping company. We possess a modern fleet and a solid track record. There are roughly 650 LNG ships currently in service and about 350 under construction, totaling approximately 1,000 LNG ships. The vast majority of these are privately owned. We own 13 ships, JOLCO has 30, and Awilco has 12, while the rest are in private hands. If you are a private owner with a good fleet and are considering going public to enhance your position with stock ownership rather than private equity, we encourage you to contact us directly. Avoid reaching out to Morgan Stanley or JPMorgan, as they will charge significant fees for taking your company public. Instead, reach out to us, and we may explore the possibility of offering you shares in Flex in exchange for the ships currently in your private fleet.

There was a question about balance sheet optimization and what to expect moving forward, including potential future developments. The two financings we are announcing today were prompted by a 500-day extension on the contract with Cheniere and the availability of an attractive financing package in Japan. This also allows us to address two other vessels, which are relatively low-leveraged. This marks the first transaction in our balance sheet optimization program for bank financing. The vessels have amortized, and their values have improved in the banking market. This wraps up those three ships. We are also discussing with some banks the possibility of converting a term loan tranche to a revolving credit facility, allowing us to maintain our $400 million of non-amortizing revolving credit capacity. Future refinancing will likely depend on contracts and the availability of attractive financing. We are very satisfied with the package we have at present. Additionally, with the JOLCO, we are introducing a new bank to our operations, which we are excited to work with and hope to expand our business further. For now, the trigger for more refinancing will probably be a new contract.

Yes, I believe the focus should be on optimizing interest rate derivatives. We were proactive, starting a lot of swaps in early 2021 and 2022, well before the Federal Reserve began raising rates. This strategy has yielded profits of $127 million since 2021, most of which we have realized and monetized. Currently, our balance sheet reflects around $35 million in unrealized gains. As rates are decreasing again, we have ample trading limits and will look for attractive opportunities to adjust our hedge ratio. We have been anticipating a shift from the Federal Reserve, peaking our hedge ratio in the second quarter. Long-term interest rates have seen significant declines since the recent employment figures in the U.S., a trend we will observe for potential hedging opportunities as rates continue to drop. Typically, we aim to capitalize on market distress periods, like when Silicon Valley Bank failed, to secure favorable terms for our shareholders.

That concludes the Q&A, and announcement of who wins the Flex kit.

Yes, you can see the names. We have a very active shareholder asking a variety of questions on multiple topics. Before we wrap up, I want to express my gratitude to the technical team and our crews for their excellent work during the recent drydocking of Constellation and Courageous. This is the sixth drydocking we've completed in the past two years, all on schedule and within budget. We are very pleased with the high technical quality of our team. We will return in November with our Q3 numbers, which we have already communicated today, so we don't anticipate any surprises next month. In the meantime, you can look forward to the $0.75 per share dividends, which should be available at the end of the month. Thank you all for tuning in. Thank you.