Thank you. And welcome all to SFL’s Fourth Quarter Conference Call. I will start the call by briefly going through the highlights of the quarter, and following that, our CFO, Aksel Olesen, will take us through the financials, and the call will be concluded by opening up for questions. Our Chief Operating Officer, Trym Sjølie, will also be present in the question-and-answer session. Before we begin our presentation, I would like to note that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as expects, anticipates, intends, estimates or similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. These statements are based on our current plans and expectations and are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause future activities and results of operations to be materially different from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ includes, but are not limited to, conditions in the shipping, offshore and credit markets. You should therefore not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please refer to our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a more detailed discussion on our risks and uncertainties, which may have a direct bearing on our operating results and our financial condition. The total charter revenues were $208 million in the quarter, which was up 17% compared to the third quarter. The majority of the revenues were from vessels on long-term charters and around 16% from vessels employed on short-term charters and it is spot market. The EBITDA equivalent cash flow in the quarter was approximately $135 million, which is up 7% from last quarter, and over the last 12 months, the EBITDA equivalent has…

Thank you, Mr. Hjertaker. On this slide, we have shown a pro forma illustration of cash flows for the fourth quarter. Please note that this is only a guideline to assess the company’s performance and is not in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and also net of extraordinary and noncash items. The company generated gross charter hire of approximately $208 million in the fourth quarter, including approximately $7 million of profit share, approximately 84% of the revenue coming from our fixed charter rate backlog, which currently stands at $3.6 billion, providing us with strong visibility on our cash flow going forward. In the fourth quarter, the liner fleet generated gross charter hire of approximately $99 million, including approximately $6.5 million in profit share related to fuel savings on seven of our large container vessels and one car carrier. At the end of the fourth quarter, SFL’s liner fleet backlog was approximately $2.4 billion, with an average remaining charter term of approximately 4.5 years or 7.2 years if weighted by charter hire. Our charter backlog includes approximately $0.5 billion of backlog from our seven car carriers. In the fourth quarter, SFL had a fleet of 18 crude oil, product and chemical tankers, with the majority employed on long-term charters. Our tanker fleet generated approximately $49 million in gross charter hire during the quarter, compared to approximately $42.4 million in the previous quarter. SFL had two Suezmax tankers and two smaller chemical tankers trading in the spot and short-term market. The net charter hire from these vessels was approximately $12.1 million in the fourth quarter, compared to approximately $11.5 million in the third quarter. Subsequent to quarter end, SFL sold a 2009 built Suezmax tanker for a total consideration of approximately $39 million. Net cash proceeds as a sale of repayment of associated…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from the line of Chris Wetherbee from Citi. Your line is open. Please ask your question. Chris Wetherbee, your line is open. We are going to take the next question and the question comes from the line of Greg Lewis from BTIG. Your line is open. Please ask your question.

Yes. Thank you and good afternoon, everybody, and thanks for taking my questions. Ole, I did have a couple of questions around the rigs you mentioned. You mentioned the $80 million of rig CapEx ahead of the contract with Exxon Canada. You mentioned upgrades about potentially long-term work. As we think about the Hercules, it’s high quality rig. When we think about these capital upgrades, are we -- is this like MPD, is this BOP, any kind of color you could give us around the upgrades related to that rig and the costs associated with those upgrades as you bid that rig for, I guess, longer term employment?

Yeah. Absolutely and thanks for calling in. It -- what we are saying, drilling rigs are quite expensive to run and that goes for any drilling rig, whether it’s harsh environment or not. It consists of, you could say, two main parts. It’s the top side, where the under drilling functionality and then you have the platform itself or you can say the marine piece, where -- which is really sort of stable -- sit stable in the water under drilling operations. And then you have relatively few drilling rigs with a steel quality and that needs to be built from the yard side. It’s got to have a steel quality that can withstand, I would say, extreme cold and also ultra-harsh weather, which is one -- and this rig is one of them, where -- and it has been drilling up in the Barents Sea during winter under pretty extreme conditions. Over time, of course, both drilling equipment and the marine part, just like any ship, you can say, we will have to be renewed, call it, painted, parts change, generators need to be overhauled. I mean this is sort of normal procedure. The difference with the drilling rig and a normal ship is that a ship is basically like a big bathtub, but a small engine in the end that you pushed through water and the drilling rig has a lot more equipment and a lot more high value equipment on board. And as a consequence, as you go through your scheduled maintenance, there is more work to be done. So while it’s -- we kind of give you a bit of a full breakdown on element-by-element. But I would say that you have one piece, which is just regular standard maintenance and then you have some upgrades…

Yeah.

But the other side of this is cash flow potential on these drilling rigs, because we have an example, there was a drilling rig Transocean that was announced last fall on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, three years generating sort of more than $80 million in cash flow, EBITDA cash flow per year relating to that contract. So, yes, they are expensive to upgrade and maintain and take through special surveys, but there’s also very significant cash flow potential when these rigs work in a recently hot market.

Yeah. No doubt about it, especially when rates are -- not that I want to spend all the time talking about the offshore rigs, but I think it is somewhat as people think about SFL, and as we try to think about the dividend, that’s obviously important to us and investors and obviously, SFL as well. I guess in previous years when the rig market, like you mentioned, was in a six-year to seven-year downturn, it was -- the assets maybe weren’t as viewed as core to the portfolio and really, I guess, what I am trying to understand is, as we think about potential for the offshore rigs to be additive to the dividend, maybe a six-month or 12-month contract on the Hercules doesn’t make it additive to the dividend. But like is that a fair way to think about it, where maybe if the rig is on a multiyear contract, generating cash flow is obviously paying back the initial investment probably in under a year. Is there any way to think about how those -- how the two rigs can impact the dividend or should we be thinking about cash flow from those rigs really being deployed elsewhere on maybe longer term business to then drive the dividend higher, any kind of color you can give around that? I realize that was a long question.

Yeah. Thanks for that. I may attempt to answer that. I think as you see on both rigs, you start with the liners, it has a long-term contract, which is market linked. I think, as we now work ourselves through 2023 and we see the market expectations for 2024 and 2025, I think, that’s when I should expect to come in to, call it, distributable cash flow from the rigs in terms of kind of contributing to the dividend. I think that’s kind of the timeframe we are looking at. I think if the liner is covered, it’s reset every six months that’s positive and then you basically have an interesting supply-demand for that type of rigs in the North Sea with many rigs leaving as well. And also same with the semis, we see many semis migrating out on the international market where you actually see now higher day rates than in the North Sea. You see you have a lower OpEx, and you have more term business, and that’s really when you can see visibility on that, that we can guide on a more precise guidance on kind of the cash accessible to support the dividend, but we think indeed it looks very interesting.

And maybe also to add on that…

Okay. Great.

I mean, if you look at the expense, of course, it’s an investment as you take it through this SPS, but we have quite significant cash flow or cash position at end of 2022. We recently raised that new bond loan that is effectively taking out the maturities -- bond maturities we have this year. And on the asset side, we are effectively fully invested as the remaining installments on the car carriers that we have under construction will most likely be covered by debt facilities. So there may be actually be cash coming out of those. So from that perspective, this is something that we have, I would say, been prepared for, for quite a while and we put down the money now, and of course, we wouldn’t do that if we don’t think that this is accretive to SFL and/or -- and the distribution capacity long-term.

Yeah. No. 100%. And then just kind of pivoting more to a bigger picture how we should think about lease yields and really your returns, and clearly, interest rates have gone higher. Is -- I don’t know if the era of free money is over or not, but it looks like at least in the medium-term there is. We have also -- it looks like we have seen some crackdowns and we will just call, say it, in Asia around some leasing companies deploying capital across the maritime space. Has there been any -- has there -- is there any shakeout where we could see returns for SFL in a higher interest market? Could that actually be a positive for SFL just given the diversity and kind of your different pockets of money or is -- should we be thinking about that as neutral at best?

You have two sides. I mean if you look at a more financial, call it, the structured finance, we have some assets that are effectively structured finance type deals, bareboat type deals. You can say that, those are becoming more competitive in a way, because as we have seen it over time, investors -- not in SFL, but in other, call it, vehicles or companies who have that strategy, it looks like investors have more of an absolute return requirement, whereas the companies who might, call it, use those, call it, financing services, they could otherwise go to the bank and borrow at a floating rate, which was lower. That has not come off. From our perspective, I mean, we focus more on time charter contracts, because then we have more direct interaction with the end users. But also if you look at the way we have looked, we have sort of managed interest rate risks over time, we have tried to hedge that out. So when we do a deal, we structure the financing and then we hedge the interest rate generally. So which means that when they come up for rechartering, yes, then we have, I would -- you can call it -- then we have an interest rate exposure, but charter rates are also have an element of interest embedded in themselves because for anyone who wants to charter out a vessel, they will have to take into account their financing cost at that time. So I would say, on the longer perspective, we are more neutral on the interest rate side. We do think there will be more, call it, bareboat type deals perhaps coming down the line. But we are looking at a lot of deal opportunities. As an example, last year, we did a tally after end of 2022, I think, we did proper work on deals worth around $23 billion in total. Of that, we ended up doing less than $1 billion for various reasons. It could be that we didn’t like the return profile, risk reward, maybe the counterpart didn’t work for us, et cetera. So we are screening a lot of deal opportunities and try to be disciplined and then selective when we do deals.

Yeah. And I think, a general note on our access to financing in terms of banks, and call it, Japanese leases, et cetera, I think, that has an improved over last year. I think with our name, track record, I think, we are able to achieve an extremely competitive financing. And as Ole alluded to, the kind of the limitations you see in the Chinese market is, you could argue it’s going away more bareboat type financial providers, which we previously have been competitors to ours, although we haven’t done bareboats. So I think kind of the financing market there has -- is now smaller and that potentially gives us more opportunities.

Okay. Super helpful. Thanks for the color.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further questions. I would now like to hand the conference over to our speaker Ole Hjertaker for closing remarks.

Thanks. Then I would like to thank everyone for participating in this conference call, and if you do have any follow-up questions, there are contact details in the press release or you can get in touch with us through the contact pages on our website. Thank you.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now all disconnect. Have a nice day.