Andrew Inglis: Yes. Thanks, Neil. 1Q results, we find that subsea work scope was delayed due to the late arrival of the deepwater pipeline vessel. So that’s the first sort of straightforward issue. As a result, the work stream moved to the critical path and therefore, is driving the overall project timeline. I’ll come back to the work streams in a minute. As VP noted in the 2Q results last week, the first gas date is now expected in 1Q. And then it’s simply as a result of further delays in the deepwater pipeline. And the operators fairly focused on that issue and looking to both address that delay with contingencies and optimize the other work streams to fit with the overall 1Q first gas timetable. So that’s the basic sort of issue we’re dealing with at the moment, Neil, it’s focused on a very singular issue.
It’s being clearly getting the attention of requires from the operator and I think they put together a very good plan, which both addresses the issue in terms of a base plan with contingencies to allow for first gas in 1Q ’24. And as with any large project, we’re bringing together several work streams now. And I think we shouldn’t — clearly, a major focus on the pipeline part of it. But across the other work streams, a lot of progress has been made with several major items derisked. The FPSOs left the yard where obviously with a delay in the subsea installation, it creates an opportunity for us to complete work in areas where we’ve got greater support in imports in shipyards rather than take that work offshore Mauritania and Senegal, which clearly gives us the ability to arrive at an even higher level of completion.
The wells have been drilled and flowed back, that hub terminal construction is complete and currently has been handed over to operations and the FLNG is close to sailaway. So whilst we’re disappointed with the subsea delay, it’s getting the attention that it needs and the other work streams are proceeding accordingly.
Operator: Our next questions come from the line of Subash Chandra with Benchmark. Please proceed with your question.
Subash Chandra: Just some clarity on the CapEx issue. Should we think of that overflow into first quarter of next year sort of be at that $30 million that you came in under in the second quarter. And then I think you mentioned there’s probably some additional CapEx but also shows up independent of 2Q July.
Neal Shah: Yes, Subash, I’d say there are probably the $40-ish million that we underspent in 2Q that gets refaced partially into 4Q and then some additional CapEx that will show up in the first quarter as well. So again, we’ll get out 24 guidance when we get to that time frame. But I think, again, I think within the year or 2Q and 3Q are going to be lower than the first quarter and fourth quarter, and then there will be a residual period in the first quarter that will provide some clarity on as we get through the budget cycle.
Neil Mehta: Okay, great. Second is on Phase 2 sort of any update on all the aspects that go into it? And secondly, Senegal politics, right, just keep making the paper here over the past week and any color there?
Andrew Inglis: Yes. Yes, Subash, I would say on Phase 2 is sort of again, sort of going back to the fundamentals. Phase 2 is a brownfield expansion of Phase 1. We’re putting in place the infrastructure where the additional gas processing capacity on the FPSO pipeline capacity to export more gas and the hub terminal that can accommodate additional gas processing. So the most important thing at the moment is we properly optimize the concept to take account of all of the brownfield capital that we’ve laid in. So that’s the work that’s going on at the moment. And nothing’s changed from the lines we gave previously, which is with the concept fully optimized, then the objective would be to [indiscernible] next year, which ourselves and VP would regard as a formal project sanction given the nature of the spend increasing at that point.
