Unidentified Analyst: Probably a question for Gernot. But on the shadow tanker market, can you quantify that? I mean, how big is it relative to the overall fleet? Is it lower end, 30 or , that’s kind of interesting as well from a €“ high curtailment. So just a little more detail on that would be great.
Gernot Ruppelt: Yes, I think that’s a great question because, unfortunately, it’s not like the ships fly a flag that says shadow fleet. You have to use sort of various data points to extrapolate, which ships are likely to end up in the so-called shadow fleet. It’s a bit too early to tell. Of course, now we can see certain ships trade into those Russian export cargoes and it will become more apparent. I’ve heard a lot of different estimates, and I almost don’t want to transfer myself, but I think it’s, I think, 100 to 120 ships, could easily be €“ they’re dedicated to those trades. And the way you extrapolate is usually age. So these are older ships. That’s sophisticated. And then you can look at certain demographics within the distribution of ship owners, owners that would typically be a bit more prone and risk taking to what’s potential sanctions violations and just exploring trades that we would not get anywhere near to.
I think €“ yes, I think the €“ as an example, just today on a ship with one of our competitors that got into a fair bit of trouble due to trading history, and we also know that fairly high-profile customers, of course, are quite concerned about their reputation and to ask a lot of questions during their KYC process, not just about the owner, the counterparty, but also about individual ships and their trading history, just being scrutinized even more. So I think it is a fairly safe assumption to say that these ships will be not in a perfect growth from that owner’s perspective, you would take a Russian cargo to the Middle East and then load another clean product cargoing take it right back to Europe. That is unlikely to play out. This is just going to be shifted ballast-back essentially back to Russia.
And certainly, the way it’s trading is still making sense for them. But I think for the wider market, the important message is really that these ships will be dedicated to those shadow trades and a de facto removed from the markets that we would find ourselves in. So it is actually still important from a ton-mile perspective, and it’s probably even more so important considering that it’s very inefficient in terms of how you can actually really shift those cargoes a lot of empty legs for the ships to get back to with the Baltic states.
Unidentified Analyst: Starting Slide 38. The International Maritime Organization is talking about 20%, 30% or 40% reduction in carbon intensity. My question is, is this considered to be a significant reduction as it is now or will be since nobody has really agreed to all of this and would this type of reduction met through staggered transition dates going forward?
Anthony Gurnee: Fantastic question and clear. And this is the frustrated part for us, and I think a lot of companies is if we just knew what the rules were, we could plan accordingly, and this is also what’s holding back ordering activity. So the IMO has basically come up with short-term measures, which EEXI, CII, et cetera. They’re now working on medium-term measures, which are more market-based to try to level the playing field of renewable fuels with fossil fuels, and that will then hopefully incentivize owners to build ships that burn renewable-type fuels, whether it’s ammonia, methanol, biodiesel, et cetera. So the timing and the nature of that legislation is to be the deciding part. And that’s why we’re focusing on what we can do in the near-term to just reduce carbon emissions because.
