Suncor Energy Inc (SU) 2005 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Suncor Energy's Third Quarter Results Conference Call.

Please be advised that this call is being recorded.

I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. John Rogers, Vice President Investor Relations.

Please go ahead Mr. Rogers.

Good morning everyone and welcome to our third quarter conference call.

I can tell you, we have waited the whole year for the third quarter.

So, we are incredibly happy that it’s here.

I have in the room with me Ken Alley, our CFO;

Brenda Cherry, our Vice President/Corporate Controller; and Rob Dawson from our Controller’s Department.

We'll start the usual routine -- Ken will give us an overview of the quarter.

I'll give us a bit of an update in terms of some of the details.

And then we will go right into Q&A.

So, why don't I turn it over to Ken.

Thanks John and good morning everyone.

I'm pleased to announce our earnings for the third quarter of $341 million and cash flow from operations of $651 million.

From a financial perspective, this a stronger quarter than we have seen in the previous two, but I think it's still a quarter that was significantly impacted by the oil sands fire.

And I think the real story of the quarter is that the fire is now behind us.

The rebuild was completed on schedule during the third quarter.

We now have both upgraders running at full capacity, so we feel very much the fire is behind us.

I think importantly as well, during the repair period, we were able to maintain the momentum on all of our growth projects.

So during the third quarter, we did complete the expansion that takes production capacity from 225 to 260,000 barrels a day, and we have commissioned and started up that unit.

So, we are seeing the ramp-up of production in the fourth quarter; we will continue to line out those units as we ramp up production.

We are still targeting to reach full production capacity during the fourth quarter and exit the year at 260,000 barrels a day of production.

And we also completed –- fired the stages -- second stage of Firebag in the third quarter, and we've started steaming and so we will expect to see the ramp-up of production from Firebag really over the next couple of years.

So, I mean, once again a project, in fact both projects completed on schedule and on budget.

And as we move forward, we also made progress in the construction of our expansion plans out beyond 2006 to take production to 350,000 barrels a day in 2008, so construction is well underway on the coker expansion.

In fact, the new coker set is at the plant side, and it's been physically erected.

So, there is still a lot of work to be done to complete that project in 2008, but it is well underway and we are pleased with the progress that we have made so far.

I will also say during the third quarter, we completed a major maintenance turnaround, which should set the units up for a strong run through the fourth quarter and into next year.

On the financial front, there is a couple of things I would like to update you on.

Net debt ended the quarter at $3.3 billion.

No real surprise there.

We knew that during the repair period that debt would increase.

Now that the repairs are completed, we are back up to full production capacity and with the substantial proceeds that we have received on the insurance -- from the insurance policies, we expect to see those debt levels stabilize now.

As I said, we have received a substantial amount of insurance coverage.

We received over a third of our business interruption coverage.

Still on an interim basis, we are working closely with the insurers to continue to receive interim payments as we move towards final settlement.

But, we are very pleased with the progress that we have made to date and the proceeds that we’ve received.

And the way we look at the insurance policies and we think in terms of a total coverage of $1.15 billion, the property program should largely cover -- will largely cover the repairs for the unit.

There is about US$900 million available for business interruption coverage, which we view as a policy that will really protect our balance sheet and significantly mitigate the impact of the fire on Suncor's balance sheet going forward.

We have already seen that.

With the substantial proceeds we’ve received, the balance sheet is in pretty good shape and as we move forward into full production and receive additional proceeds, we are very pleased with the state of the balance sheet going forward.

In terms of the insurance coverage, I think the policies, although they do replace some of the profits that we lost, a substantial portion of the profits that we lost, it wouldn't cover all of the loss that we would experience during the fire outage with the deductibles on the business interruption policy, and with the very high crude prices that we have seen over the last nine months, it's quite likely that the final loss, and we haven't got a final cost estimate yet, but I would expect that the final loss would exceed the policy coverage limits.

But I think the way to think about it is that that substantial amount of insurance proceeds really does leave Suncor's balance sheet in very good shape.

And I want to talk a little bit about Suncor's hedging strategy.

We have been re-evaluating our hedge strategy going forward really in light of the changed crude oil market conditions, which over the last couple of years have changed to the point that we now can see opportunities in the forward market to lock in a substantial floor on crude prices and maintain very substantial upside participation to the crude market.

So, we are looking at hedges.

We have in fact put 7000 barrels a day of hedges in place after 2006 and 2007, using a costless collar structure with a range of a $50 floor and a $92 ceiling.

And we will continue to evaluate the market opportunities.

We would hedge up to 30% of our production if we could lock in a substantial floor –- call it in that $50 range, but importantly maintain significant upside to the strong crude oil prices.

And so we will continue to evaluate that as we go forward.

In conclusion, I guess what I would like to say is, we feel we are really well positioned now for a solid fourth quarter and we are very much looking forward to 2006.

With the higher production levels, with the expanded facilities at 260,000 barrels a day and with the crude oil hedges from the previous program at $23 behind us, all those hedges roll off in 2005, we have much more full exposure really to a higher commodity price environment.

So the combination of higher production and exposure to the strong crude oil market we think sets us up for a strong 2006.

So with that John, I will pass it back.

Thanks for that, Ken.

I will make a couple of comments in terms of the outlook for the fourth quarter.

You will notice for oil sands, we didn't give you specific numbers in terms of production and cash costs.

It is a little difficult with the vacuum tower coming up in to full production at some point in time during the quarter.

It certainly will be up 260,000 barrels a day of capacity, probably sooner rather than later.

So you will begin to see that when we put out our quarterly production number -– or monthly production numbers, excuse me -- and should be able to go from that.

We will return to a full forecast for oil sands for the 2006 year.

Starting at the end of the fourth quarter, we will give an outline of what we are expecting for 2006.

Natural gas, you will see that we are expecting it will average somewhere in the neighborhood of 195 to 200 million cubic feet, probably at the lower end of that particular range.

I think they have experienced some of the difficulties that other E&P producers have in terms of adding volumes.

We are still quite pleased with where we are in that business and I think the volumes will begin to show up even more in 2006.

Just a couple of bottling type comments, capitalized interest for the quarter was $34 million, year-to-date with $91 million.

Crude oil hedging losses were 159 million in the quarter, 102 after tax for the quarter.

Year-to-date they’re 391 and 245 after tax, and just think how good the earnings and cash flow are going to look once we have those particular hedges roll off starting in 2006.

Insurance that has been received to date I think again is another good news story. 343 million in business interruption US has been received to date.

That's about a third of what the total BI policy is.

So clearly that's working out quite well and about 95 million US has been received in property settlements.

So those were our opening comments in terms of the quarter.

We will turn it over for questions, and once again we would ask that if you do have detailed modeling questions, Fred and Rob and I will be around right after the conference call to help you and we can do a much better job in terms of helping you with those modeling questions if you will just be kind enough to hold on until after the conference call.

Well Lisa, that would be all we’d have and we’d certainly be pleased to take questions now.

[OPERATORS INSTRUCTIONS] Greg Pardy, Scotia Capital, please go ahead.

Hi, good morning.

Could you just walk us through your oil sands growth to 350,000 a barrels a day by ‘08, just in terms of the split between mining and SAGD.

I know you flagged that in your release today.

Thanks Greg.

Why don't we step back a little bit and talk a little bit about the strategy per se and how we are thinking about both our mining and SAGD input to the upgrader.

As you know, we have got very substantial mining leases and I’ve talked a little bit about the additional mining opportunities we have going forward.

I think, as you also know and we have talked about, I mean, we do have very substantial and very attractive SAGD leases that we want to access longer term.

So we felt that it was important to move into and start a transition to using the SAGD technology to start to develop those in-situ leases in combination with mining.

So, we've got a regulatory approval for four stages of Firebag, we have got one stage complete as you know, and as I indicated, we have just completed the second stage, which is going to start ramping up production and build up over the next three years.

We thought that we needed to have at least those two stages and then evaluate additional stages going forward, so that we could get this technology and these operations up to a scale where we could really work to improve this technology longer term.

So, the longer-term vision for us is to have a SAGD operation that’s competitive with our mining costs, and of course there's different cost drivers there with the -- obviously the mine being labor cost and SAGD being a natural gas cost.

So, we’re going to have the two stages growing.

Those will feed our expansion in addition to the mining –- it will be predominantly mining out through the MCU expansion, which is 350,000 barrels a day, after which point we will be in a position to evaluate additional stages of SAGD going forward or to look to additional mining opportunitites as we continue to expand from the 350 to 500 to 550.

And I think there may be a bit of a misconception, Greg, that we don’t have additional mining options and that we’re moving predominately into SAGD to fuel the growth.

And I think that’s not the case.

I mean, we do have additional mining options that we are evaluating, once we have the SAGD technology stabilized through its first few stages.

So your question is specifically what’s the long-term feed combination going to be?

Well, don’t have that mapped out yet because frankly, we don’t need to, because we do have the options.

And as we continue to develop beyond the 350,000 barrels a day, we will bring on the more economic aspect, whether that be a mining expansion or whether that be additional SAGD stages.

Thanks.

Just in terms of the front-end work required with the additional –- let’s just say you do split more of this –- you go half and half between SAGD and mining.

How much lead time is the required rate to build up the additional production because, I mean, ’08 is getting closer now.

I would say as we move into ’08, we’re comfortable with the amount of SAGD that we have available.

So, I mean, we’re already underway with those two stages.

It does take about two years to start from steaming to reach full production for each SAGD stage.

So we feel that we’re comfortable with the progression of the SAGD technology in combination with our mining, that we’re well-positioned out through the 2008 expansion.

And remember, this is all about feed to the upgrader.

It’s not about stand-alone SAGD production.

So we’re trying to coincide it, as much as reasonable, with the upgrading expansion.

And then as we move forward to the expansion with 500 to 550 out in that 2010 to 2012 period, we’ve got enough lead time to look at both mining options and additional stages of SAGD.

And the last one for me.

Just in terms of Firebag, is it too early to really evaluate how well that project’s been working for you?

No, I mean, I think there’s a number of things that we’ve evaluated, and we’re very comfortable with the SAGD.

I mean, first is the reservoir, and that’s the most important aspect of any SAGD project.

So I think as we’ve indicated earlier, we’re very pleased with reservoir performance, and no surprises there -- in fact, in some cases exceeding our expectations.

We have been working on the above-ground technology, which we would consider to be normal course adjustments and tinkering with that technology to improve it.

So nothing structural from a technology standpoint.

So so far we’re pleased with the progress of SAGD.

Obviously, what we need to work on is the energy intensity of SAGD, and obviously its cost relative to mining is to a large extent dictated by natural gas prices.

Amir Arif, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey.

This is actually Sam Arnold calling for Amir.

On the steam/oil ratio, just to follow up on the last question, what’s that looking like right now on SAGD, and has it been improving at all over time, or what are you guys thinking there?

I mean, the steam/oil ratio has been improving, and it does improve.

I mean, it’s important to remember that there is a buildup of production, a ramp-up period.

I mean, it’s up to two years as you build through that.

So there’s more steaming up front, and then as you build up to production, the steam/oil ratios do come down.

So we have seen steam/oil ratios coming down in the first stage, stage one.

And as you know, we’re continuing to build up production to full production capacity in the 35,000 barrel a day range.

So we continue to target something in the 2.2 range for the steam/oil ratio based on what we’ve seen so far.

Great.

Also, what’s your actual current production right now, because I know you’re ramping up.

Are you at the full 260 now, or--?

Oh, sorry, you mean from the full operation?

Right.

Yes.

Where we’re at is we have got the full production capacity with the commissioning and start-up of the new facilities.

So 260,000 is the production capacity.

We are lining out the unit.

So, we have got a very successful commissioning and start-up, so we are quite pleased with that, but it does take a little bit of time to line up all the units.

So, we expect to see a ramp-up production in the fourth quarter up to the 260,000 barrels a day of production capacity.

Yes, Sam, we are somewhat north of 225, as we introduce the vacuum tower, and it is a little difficult for us to give you a specific number as you are ramping up the unit because one day you are at full capacity and the next day you are a little bit below that.

But we certainly are approaching the full capacity and we have no issues whatsoever in terms of the vacuum tower or the commissioning of that there.

So we are quite comfortable with were we are.

Okay, great.

So entering October, you guys were kind of the 225 range and then you are ramping up to the 260 over the quarter?

Yes, that's the way to think of it.

Okay, great.

One final question, if I may for the third, I guess the third expansion up to 350, I know you guys have the vessels in place.

What's the bottleneck to accelerating that?

Is it just the tightness, so you can only fit so many people in the area of the construction workers and what kind of labor force are you expecting to work on that particular unit -- on the upgrader?

Sam, I think there is a natural construction period here.

So, I mean, we are, as I say, we are well underway.

I mean, there is no -- at this stage of the plan, there’s really no incentive or economic reason to want to push this forward.

I think we are working with the construction workforce and plans that we have in place.

We would expect construction workforce to peak at around 3000 people on this project, and clearly that's the thing we’re going to have to manage as we go forward, as we move forward with this project.

So far so good, but in this environment there is likely to be some cost pressures as we move forward with the project.

We do feel that, given where we are, how much progress we have made, that we are in pretty good shape right now.

Yes, that sounds good.

Okay, great, thanks.

Good quarter, you guys.

I appreciate it.

Thanks, and I one thing I will reiterate is that we will put our production number out for October next -- for the month of October next Thursday, so you will get a pretty good sense of where we are in terms of production.

Okay, thanks.

Paul Cheng, Lehman Brothers.

Ken, wondering if you can share some -- everyone is talking about the demand destruction or slowdown.

Can you shed some light with us there, in terms of your own network, retail network, what is the same-store sales in Canada and any noticeable pattern change?

Hi, Paul.

I don't really have that kind of detailed information.

I think that the picture is very unclear right now in general, as you know.

I mean with the situation on the Gulf Coast and a significant amount of refining capacity still out of production, I think it's really hard to assess what’s real demand destruction here longer term and how much is just short-term dislocation.

So, it's hard to use the kind of numbers we would have to give you that kind of indication.

Do you have any data about the same-store sales so far, in October?

No, I don't have that information.

The other question is that the US Congress there on the energy field or that the House have just passed on some incentive for the oil shale and that I know that you guys have the disappointing venture into the Australian oil shale several years ago, but I don't know whether that technology, you believe that has improved enough and you’re given the incentive there, whether you guys will try it again or that you start, even on the joining force for you guys?

Paul, I mean, if you look at oil shale, we don't have any plans to move forward in oil shale.

As you know, we don't have -- we exited the operation in Australia and we are very much focused on expanding our oil sands businesses and our supporting businesses.

So, no plans to move into oil shale at this point.

I was looking at your statistic data.

In US you have, with point of entry (ph), a pretty interesting trend.

You see sequentially from the second quarter the refining margin decline while retail margin actually rise, which is total opposite from what everyone else is seeing.

Is there something going on in your operation in PAD 4 that resulted in such an interesting trend?

I think what we saw in the third quarter, Paul, is just very strong refining margins.

I mean, my sense would be it was strong all across the US.

But in the PAD 4 region they were strong.

And this is a situation where all refiners are trying cope with the tight supply situation to meet customers’ --

Ken, that’s not exactly what I mean.

In your report there you actually had saw refunding margin trending lower in the third quarter from the second quarter.

Yes, Paul, we would have seen the second quarter to be unusually high and the third quarter probably came back to something we were more expecting.

So, although it does seem to be a bit of a disconnect for you, it is not off that much from where we would have seen the longer-term trend there.

So there's nothing that in the operations that you have changed as a result of that?

No.

Because, I mean, refining margin in US are substantially higher in the third quarter than the second quarter?

Paul, in this particular market, that's -- it is what it is.

Okay.

All right, it will do.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Paul.

Andrew Fairbanks, Merrill Lynch.

Just wanted to ask you a question about gasification opportunities.

And I lost connection earlier in the call.

So, I apologize if this has been asked already.

But, I was interested, as you look at the potential within your sight for some kind of gasification solution, are there any practical limits on how much gas you can replace or offset there?

I think the way we are thinking about gasification, Andrew, is, I mean, longer term it has the potential to supplement our requirements for natural gas.

I mean, a couple of things we would have to evaluate as we determine the extent of gasification.

Obviously, it is the economics relative to the natural gas price.

So, it is basically a capital cost versus operating cost trade-off.

So, we have to be comfortable with the economic business case.

So, I think more and as importantly it’s the reliability of that technology in our operation.

As you know in our business, it is usually a case of taking known technologies and scaling them up to the size of our operations.

So, we would have to be comfortable so we could scale up gasification to meet a substantial portion of our needs for natural gas to be economic.

And also, we have to prove it to be reliable in our environment.

And so, those would be the constraints as to how much gasification could supplement our natural gas requirements.

So, in that context, would you expect perhaps you start out with a smaller unit in the next phase or two of expansion, see how it runs and then potentially implement more if it works out?

Yes, I think it is likely to be a transition.

I think we would not think of this as something where all of a sudden, we could just immediately switch off natural gas and have a gasification project to supplement.

So, we would view this as a longer-term strategic transition and something that we would likely see as we move forward.

If it continued to show promise, I would end that very short (ph) expansion period, so right past 2010.

Right.

And as you look at the overall opportunities to cut costs in the oil sands, would you agree that this is the best sort of near-term technology (multiple speakers)

Yes, I mean, I am not sure we would think of it as sort of a cost-cutting opportunity as much as a strategic alternative to natural gas.

I mean, we have to see where natural gas goes.

I mean, in the intermediate term, we are quite comfortable with our natural hedge for gas.

And so, our production operations give us a hedge to gas consumption as we go forward, if we continue to see strong natural gas prices.

And I think even more importantly, if we see a disconnect between natural gas and oil prices, which is the real issue from a margin perspective in our business, then we want to have strategic options that supplement natural gas with coke gasifications.

But you know, Andrew, one thing that we have kind of come to the conclusion on is if there is no huge breakthroughs that are going to be available to reduce the cost to put oil sands.

Particularly in coke gasification or other similar type technologies, when you have the opportunity to reduce your capital or your operating cost by let's say a unit, you are going to increase your capital costs, so, your capital intensity, by a similar unit.

So you won’t increase your overall returns from the business, it will simply give you the opportunity to not have an external need for at least part of your gas needs.

All right, thanks.

And I guess just one more quick one.

I just wanted to confirm what you said earlier, Ken, that potentially if the ability is out there in the marketplace to lock in historically relatively high oil prices -- I think you mentioned $50 or higher -- that you would seriously consider going to as much as 30% of production for a hedge.

That's right.

And I think the balance there, as I said, is we have to be comfortable that we are preserving enough upside.

So, I think that's the difference in this current market environment than we have already seen in previous hedge programs.

Right.

That’s excellent.

Thanks, guys.

Brian Singer, Goldman Sachs.

Apologies if this was asked before, as I did get disconnected.

But, with regards to Firebag and in-situ, excluding the stage two that you are on track for, do you look at the previous quarter's production level and cost structure as something that is now sustainable?

Do you see further improvements?

And then with regards to stage two, do you expect a similar type of volatility during the ramp-up period as you experienced in stage one, or has there been some kind of a learning process where you’d see less volatility?

I mean, we would expect to see as we increase production that operating costs would come down.

Obviously, the wild card there is natural gas prices.

So, it's very volatile or dependent on natural gas prices.

But, the other costs of the operation, there is efficiency as we bring on additional production and reach full production.

And as far as stage two goes, yes, we would expect to see similar volatility.

It's the same process of steaming upfront, relatively low production until the reservoir is stimulated to the point that we start to see the production increases.

So, we’ll expect to see the same kind of volatility in stage two.

Jason Fu (ph), UBS.

It's actually Brian Dutton.

Just a question here on costs and I know you were just talking here about the gas cost as well.

But, if you back up and look at the base plant operations and simply look at the mining aspect, it seems of on a -- excluding the cost of energy, the operating costs in millions of dollars so far this year have been very volatile.

And I was just wondering, can you give us a little bit of a color behind the volatility of those costs and are any expenses going into those costs such as R&D expenses?

I think the volatility by and large has to do with the production levels.

I mean, we haven't got a stable base here in terms of assessing what the true cost picture is.

And so, it's hard to say what's variable and fixed cost in a period where we are basically running at half capacity.

So, we’ll have a better sense as we move into the fourth quarter as to what the costs are, excluding natural gas, as you indicated, which would be -- move the financial gas price.

But, I think that volatility by and large has to do with the production upset.

One thing that is apparent to the conventional side of the business and into the oil sands side is that all of the industry today is under cost pressure and we would see that our costs would be rising on average at least 5% a year.

And I think we have to expect that in this particular environment that that is going to happen.

So, the base operating costs are actually going up, not as much as we would think as on the conventional side, but the base operating costs would be going up and you would see a higher level.

The second thing is, just to reiterate what Ken said, it's difficult to make any kind of analysis during the rebuild period as to what the base operating costs will be, and please look to the fourth quarter to get a better sense, particularly if you're looking into 2006 forward.

How much are you spending on R&D this year and where does that get expensed?

It's a combination of -- it’s about $100 million that we're spending on R&D this year and part of it is -- most of it actually up at oil sands.

So, that would go into that cash operating cost?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Robert Plexman, CIBC World Markets.

Short questions for you.

First, Capex.

It looks like this year it's going to be about $3 billion and I am just wondering if that's a number we should be using going forward or if you have the rebuild and repairs at the oil sands in this year's number?

The rebuild is in this year's number and we're thinking of Capex in the $2.7 billion range, Robert.

And the next one, overburden costs.

It looks like you were busy removing overburden when you couldn't produce.

I am just wondering how far ahead of plan are you in that process?

Is this something that you're going to get benefits from like short-term or could you see benefits to the cash flow extending over a longer period?

I mean, you should think of it, Robert, as being set up now with the mining operation with the oil burden removal (ph) to move into the fourth quarter and into next year.

So, I mean, it's probably a benefit that we would see kind of over the next year and a half.

Okay.

And lastly with Firebag 2, does it use the same surface facility or do you have to use a separate facility because the chemistry is different in the water?

We've taken the opportunity, and this is one of the things we talked about, moving into additional stages beyond stage one, is there are some synergies between the fixed plant operations and steam generation, as well as the water preparation.

So, there were additional facilities, but we are able to use those in combination to a certain extent.

Jack Moore, Vanguard.

Thank a lot.

I was cut off as well, so you might have already covered this, but I caught part of your hedging program and costless collar seemed pretty impressive.

I was wondering how deep is that market, and I guess you guys are eliminating at this point 30%, but can you just talk about the fundamentals in the hedging market and what is available?

The market is fairly deep out through that kind of period that we have been looking at, which is 2006, 2007.

Of course, the prices do move around.

If you missed the earlier part, we do have 7,000 barrels a day hedged with a collar of $50 floor and $92 ceiling.

And that range does move around the market and so what we indicated is we would be comfortable moving up to 30% of our production during that period, if we could lock in a floor in that kind of $50 range, but also preserve substantial upside, and that does vary day to day in the market.

So, the market offers depths that -- it is not concerned as to how far the market depth is, it is just how much you want to --

If the volume is there to do, it is really a question of what is an appropriate price from a strategic perspective.

[OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS] Dan Fernandez (ph), Lehman Brothers.

Mr. Fernandez, your line is now open, please proceed with your question.

I am sorry guys, do you hear me?

Yes.

Just a quick question.

If you addressed this earlier, I apologize.

Do you guys manage to any specific leverage metrics and can you give us a little more color as to your debt reduction over the next couple of quarters?

What we think about, Dan, in terms of balance sheet ratios is a debt to cash flow measure, and that is what we predominantly talk to the to the credit rating agencies about, and our target is 3 times debt to cash flow at some kind of reasonable mid-cycle crude price proxy.

And in terms of debt coverage, it is hard to predict exactly where the balance sheet will go over the next couple of months.

I think the message here is that the increases that we have seen on a planned basis during the fire repair period, we now expect to see stabilize going forward.

Okay, but not necessarily decreasing in the near future.

It really depends on commodity price, which I can't really predict in the short term.

Okay, fair enough, thank you.

[OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS] And there are no further questions registered.

At this time I would like to turn the meeting back over to Mr. Rogers.

Thank you Lisa.

The first thing I wanted to do, I am not sure exactly what technically happened during our conference call, but it looks like most of the participants were bumped for a period of about two minutes off of it.

So, once again, we do apologize.

We are not sure from our end exactly what caused that to happen, but our sincerest apologies.

If there is anything that you may feel that you want to ask further, by all means, we are here, so give us a call, 269-8670, area code 403.

We will be happy to answer.

With that, we are very pleased to have reported to you our third quarter results and are looking to complete the fourth quarter and talking to you at the end of January.

So, without any further ado, we will say good day and hopefully we will be talking to you soon.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Thank you, the conference has now ended.

Please disconnect your lines at this time.

We thank you all for your participation, and have a great day.