Karl Fredrik Staubo: Hi, Greg. This is Karl. To answer the first part of the question, for all of the commercial opportunities that we are in discussions with, there are spillovers between Hilli and Mark II, some of them is better suited for one, some of them is better suited for the other, but many projects can do either. It’s obviously different CapEx involved, different sizes involved, so for us it’s really about gas flow and the size of the reserve and to some extent the level of pre-treatment before the gas enters the FLNG. Because Mark II would be built from — we have more space to deal with pre-treatments than what we would have on Hilli, hence gas quality, gas flow, and reserve size is basically what decides between the two.
But, yes, there are spillovers. If you think a little bit of the history of Golar, so Hilli was ordered on spec and the Perenco contract and was done even if the unit wasn’t fully utilized to prove the concept. The Gimi contract was entered into with BP, it’s well known in the industry that after the Macondo incident, BP probably has the highest operational standards for maritime equipment globally. Hence, if our technology is sufficient to meet BP operating standards, is a significant proof-of-concept on using the same technology for basically any other potential FLNG chartering prospects. That’s also why we accepted a tolling fee to BP. And you’re correctly pointing out that going forward, we would not be looking for tolling fees but mainly more integrated solutions, given the very attractive risk-reward that we see for that type of contract structure and also because we are the only service provider of FLNG that can monetize these assets.
Gregory Lewis: Super helpful, Karl. Thank you very much and talk to you soon.
Karl Fredrik Staubo: Thanks, Greg.
Operator: Thank you. We’ll now move on to our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Robertson from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Christopher Robertson: Hey, good morning, good afternoon, Karl and Eduardo. Thanks for taking my questions. Guys, this question just relates to slide 10 on the adjusted EBITDA guidance looking at 2024, just hoping you can provide clarification around kind of the delta between last quarter’s update and this update, is the difference in the ’24 level related to timing around the Gimi start0up or what’s the — what goes into that number that’s changed since last time?
Karl Fredrik Staubo: Do you want to have a go, Eduardo?
Eduardo Maranhao: Yeah, sure. So I think the main difference when it comes to 2024 is, we have updated those figures with the current forward curves for both Brent and TTF. So I think those will largely drive the variable fees on Hilli and that’s where the bulk of the difference can be — can be justified.
Christopher Robertson: Okay, that’s clear. Just looking at the Hilli, when the current contract — and what type of downtime and maybe range of CapEx requirements do you think would be required to prepare it for its next contract? I know there’s questions around, you know, where it will go and the type of projects, but are you thinking about maybe a range of CapEx required at this time?
Karl Fredrik Staubo: Hi, Chris. The range is basically — it really depends on location and duration of the next contract, but assuming we go for a 10-year to 20-year contract upon re-contracting and a relocation to another geography than Cameroon, we would likely look at anywhere six and 12 months downtime, which would include the transportation legs to the new site and any potential vessel upgrades and CapEx could be anywhere from, I guess, in the very low end, $50 million to $200 million.
Christopher Robertson: Okay, got it. That’s clear. And then just following up on CapEx guidance here, can you remind us what’s been invested to-date on the long-lead items on the Mark II projects and kind of what the total projected CapEx remaining would be upon an FID decision?
Karl Fredrik Staubo: Eduardo?
Eduardo Maranhao: Yeah, sure. So, to date, we have committed around $300 million in long-lead items, out of which approximately 50% of that, around $155 million has been spent to date. We have an agreed payment scheduled with all those respective suppliers and that should basically be paid over the next quarters and going even further beyond the end of 2024. So we have an agreed price and the price follows an agreed schedule. And then, the incremental $100 million is basically related to the ship and engineering costs. That takes the full commitment or current commitment on Mark II to around $400 million. And then the incremental fixed upon FID would then be approximately $1.6 billion, bringing total CapEx to around $2 billion.
Christopher Robertson: All right. That’s clear. Thank you, guys.
Operator: Thank you. We’ll now move on to our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Christian Wetherbee from Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, guys. This is Matt on for Chris. Thanks for taking my question. I wanted to follow up on some of the details on the Gimi timeline, and so it’s currently en route to arrive at the GTA hub around that mid to late December timeline, that is still the expectation, correct? And then just to gain a little bit further clarity on when we could potentially see first gas begin flowing and ultimately realize that full commission rate. If I’m understanding everything correctly in the press release and in the conversations today, that will take approximately six months right from when Gimi arrives onsite at GTA, which would sort of put that in sort of mid-year next year, when you would see that full realization. Just trying to get some further clarity on that because I was under the impression that — that was could potentially occur towards the end of first quarter ’24. So any details there would be great. Thank you.
