Eduardo Maranhão: Hi Greg, this is Eduardo here. Yes. I think the short answer to your question is yes. We have — as Karl said, we have received indications from a few potential blenders to new FLNG projects, which have indicated that they could be willing to look into funds for levels beyond the actual construction price of the vessel. So, I think when we look at the Gimi, for instance, as we have a 20-year contract and with such a long duration, we do have the ability to look at levels beyond what usual land it would look like in terms of a regular loan to value or 70% or 75% LTV. So, I think in that case, we’re effectively looking at the ability of the contract to serve that debt. So, for instance, we believe that finances in excess of $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion could be feasible, just looking at the Gimi alone.
But other banks have a different approach and look at those assets on a loan to value basis. So, on those instances, we believe that levels at around 70% to 80% of the value of the asset could be achieved.
Karl Fredrik Staubo: Just to summarize, it’s more prevalent for those that proposed those type of financing. It’s driven by the contract value and not the LTV on this deal.
Greg Lewis: Thank you for that. That’s good to hear. I did want to ask also around the — you highlighted the investment in Macaw Energies. Realizing that small scale LNG, is there any kind of timelines or framework you can kind of tell us where that stands? In other words, could we see a project and from this company in the next two to three years, or it could be something sooner? I guess how active is Macaw? I’m just not really familiar with that company.
Karl Fredrik Staubo: I think one of the attractions there is that what they are looking to do is modularized shore based small scale liquefaction. One of the advantages building smaller scale and in modules is that time to cash flow is shorter. You have plenty of examples of flare gas and stranded gas today. And if you can liquefy the flare gas and use it to something sensible, it’s not only economically attractive, it’s also environmentally the right thing to do. So, those would focus mainly on the U.S. and Latin America. And the plan there is to have the modularized design ready for sure within 12 months, subject to how that design then performs, and we’ll take the next steps on that one. But, all else equal, it’s exactly what we do on the floating sides that are shore based on smaller sized.
Greg Lewis: And then I just had one other question. As a follow-up to a previous question around number of units obviously, today we kind of have been biting — doing one project at a time. Karl, as you think about the market and just make the decisions or have the opportunities maybe is the right better word to do more than one project at a time. What are the gating factors? Are the gating factors the shipyards, supply chains, labor? And I mean, like as you think about that and the potential to win multiple — have multiple projects under construction at the same time, any kind of color you can give us around that?
Karl Fredrik Staubo: It’s kind of yes to all of the above. You need all of that in order to push an FLNG project. But at the end of the day, it’s willing clients and a project that’s mature enough that we will be building it. But for most of the projects, subject to where they are — the somewhat annoying thing, if you think about this, all the time it takes to get to FID, from FID the long lead item is the FLNG. It’s not the upstream infrastructure.
