Andy Inglis: I’m going to give Neal a minute to think about the answer to that question, Neil. But I think it’s a great question because what we’re talking about is the inflection point that is occurring in €˜23 for Kosmos. And mid-2023 middle of this year, we’re going to start to see first product from Jubilee Southeast, which is a significant contribution to the growth in production. We obviously see an end of the capital going into that project. We then go through the back end of the year, and we see a continuing decline in CapEx as Tortue Phase 1 is complete. And then we go into the beginning of F ’24 we’ll start-up of production at the back end of €˜23 on Tortue and then the startup of production in Winterfell at the end of the first quarter.
So I think the most important thing is you’re going to see a progressive increase in our free cash flow quarter-on-quarter as we go through the second half of this year into the first half of next year. And then once we’re we have Winterfell on then you’re starting to get to a sort of plateau number. Yes, so that inflection is really close. We’re not far away now. The forecasting of free cash flow in €˜23 is going to be dependent on the exact timing of those projects. Could you move to €˜24, Neal?
Neal Shah: Yes. So without giving new numbers, Neil I’d say all the things Andy said structurally are still sort of in play, which is sort of operating cash flow increases to the sort of maintenance or the CapEx required for the business to maintain that production certainly comes down quite a bit. I think the key piece that will continue to progress on top of that, we’ll be we’ve got some choices then to make around sort of where do we redirect that incremental free cash flow. And I think we feel good and as we’ve said in the past around being able to direct cash flow towards future growth, high graded on to the projects that we want, continued debt paydown to get the balance sheet into a stronger, more resilient place and then an additional piece on top of that for shareholder returns. And so I think we should be unique in that ability to do all three, given the quality of the portfolio and kind of where we are, and that’s certainly where we’re taking it.
Neil Mehta: Thank you both.
Operator: Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Subash Chandra with The Benchmark. Please proceed with your questions.
Subash Chandra: Yes, hi thank you. A couple of questions, follow-ups, I guess, on the gravity base. First is, how do you compare cycle times post FID for that versus floating? And what do you think about sort of the novelty of gravity base, at least for this purpose? Do you think it’s — it actually increases the risk or the operational risk or decrease is it?
Andy Inglis: Yes. No, good questions, thanks, Subash. The — in terms of the cycle time, we would see the cycle time being very competitive with floating. I think simply because you’ve got a broader access to construction yards, shipyards relatively full at the moment. So I think you have a broader contracting base to draw upon. So we see no disbenefit from a contract cycle time. In terms of the novelty of it, it’s a proven development approach, it’s been used elsewhere. There are proven designs that have both a concrete base and a steel base, so we don’t see any increased complexity associated with the approach. In some respects, it’s a very straightforward piece of design and engineering that’s been proven. And as a base structure, it obviously gives you a very simple architecture then for putting the FLNG trains on a very simple sort of top side.
