Good morning, all. Thank you for dialing in to this audio webcast.

Catrien van Buttingha is my name, Investor Relations. I'm here with Mark Heine, CEO, and Barbara Geelen, CFO.

We have a short presentation to give to you about the Q1 trading update, which will last, think around 10, 15 minutes in total max, and then we'll open the floor for your questions. Mark, please go ahead.

Thank you, Catrien. Good morning, everyone.

Q1 2026 trading update. As anticipated, Q1 was seasonally low, and the market conditions remained challenging with a lower offshore wind activity impacting our top line.

Revenue declined by 2.1% on a currency-comparable basis. We saw growth in other markets, especially oil and gas and infrastructure, largely offset by offshore wind softness.

EBITDA margin slightly improved to 10.4%. EBIT margin was in line with last year, driven by lower revenue largely offset by cost reductions.

The €120 million cost reduction program is completed, but we're also prepared to take further action if required. Free cash flow improved due to significantly lower capital expenditure.

However, working capital increased because of large ongoing contracts, a high activity of billing, especially at the end of the quarter, and very high payables last year in the first quarter. We remain focused on what we can control: maintaining cost discipline, actively managing vessel capacity, improving cash flow conversion through reduced capital expenditure, and lowering working capital from elevated levels seen in the recent quarters.

At the same time, strengthening sales momentum remains a clear priority, with a strong focus on accelerating the conversion of opportunities into awards. Our backlog for the coming 12 months stands at €1.4 billion, slightly lower than last year, 3.5% lower, with a strong tendering activity across markets.

Next slide, please. The direct impact of the conflict in the Middle East has so far been largely confined to our operations in the UAE and Qatar.

This relates to, amongst others, to our two key vessels there: Fugro Proteus and the Pacific Graus. The latter one is a charter, a long-term charter that will probably release later in the year.

They have been facing limitations on operations in the UAE and Qatar. Please note that these vessels currently do not require the passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

The other vessels in the region, the Kobi Ruegg and the Fugro Mapper, have been and are operating outside of the affected area and are less exposed. Still, we have experienced some knock-on effects in other countries and regions.

Going forward, we continue to monitor the situation, ready to respond when necessary, with safety of our people as our foremost priority. Next slide, please.

If we talk about the markets, a brief update compared to what we said earlier in the full-year publication: offshore wind markets in Europe are indeed showing first signs of recovery, with increased tender activity in several key markets in quarter one 2026, and that's notable in the UK, Germany, Netherlands, France, and Ireland. The war in the Middle East, which might well have meaningful and long-lasting implications for the global energy sector, with increasing localized oil and gas investments and a diversification of the energy sources.

We dive a little bit deeper in oil and gas, what's also here on the report, and we spoke about that before as well: energy companies in oil and gas are selectively expanding their oil and gas portfolios through targeted exploration programs, with obviously a strong emphasis on tight timelines and cost efficiency. There's heightened attention on energy security and energy independence, and that's also expected to support continued client investments, particularly where the higher oil prices improve project economics.

If we talk about the offshore wind market, we already said that we see the signs of recovery of the market. It will take some time, it is important to note that this is obviously happening, we see it happening, we see activity increasing over time, but it will take a little bit of time before that materializes, where they increase installations only from 2030, '31 onwards.

In Asia-Pacific, short-term challenges remain, as we said before, but the sector is cautiously optimistic about the auction frameworks that are revised there and the bottlenecks are addressed. Obviously, we don't see any new fields coming to the market in the US, albeit we saw the first emerging wind activities in Latin America, Brazil, and Canada.

With that, I would like to hand over to Barbara.

Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us.

I want to first talk about revenue and margin developments. In Marine, revenue declined by 2.4% with a vessel utilization of 60%.

Overall, we increased market share during the period despite ongoing pricing pressure. In the Americas and to a lesser extent Europe-Africa, lower volumes of offshore wind work were only partly mitigated by higher activity levels in traditional energy markets.

Middle East and India reported growth driven by surveys for multiple field developments in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The Marine EBIT was adversely impacted by delays arising from vessel-related challenges on an inspection and monitoring project in Denmark.

Land revenue declined marginally, as you can see. The EBIT improvement was mostly related to the strong growth in nearshore projects in Europe-Africa, which was partly offset by permitting delays stemming from the prolonged US government shutdown.

Next slide, please. Now, first let's look at the free cash flow graph on the left.

Operating cash flow before changes in working capital was €13 million for the first quarter of the year. The working capital increased by €55 million, and this was driven by higher billing due to higher activity towards the end of the quarter in combination with high payables for the comparable period last year.

A couple of additional comments on the working capital: while we previously noted large receivables at year-end 2025 have been collected, we are reporting an increase in Q1, as you can see on the right-hand side graph compared to year-end 2025. This is outside our targeted 10% to 15% bandwidth, which we are always communicating about, and obviously we're not pleased with that, and we remain focused on bringing working capital back within the bandwidth.

Also, please note that March 2025 was exceptionally low. If we look at the cash flow CapEx, one more comment: you can clearly see comparison of the spend: €101 million in Q1 last year versus €31 million of this year.

The net leverage amounted to 1.8 times at the end of March, and in connection with our full-year guidance, we expect this ratio to return to below the 1.5 targets towards year-end. Next slide, please.

Then if we look at the backlog, the 12-months backlog stands at €1.385 billion, which is a modest 3.5% decline. Just like previous quarters, this reflects the step-down in offshore wind-related activity since Q4 2024.

I do want to point out that this is a lower decline than we have seen during the past couple of quarters, and this decline was largely mitigated by successful replenishment of the backlog with oil and gas and infrastructure projects. This underscores our ability to recalibrate our business through our diversified and market-agnostic business model, serving clients across different end markets and geographies.

We see a solid tendering activity across most markets now, although conversion into awards remains slower than usual. Now I would like to hand back for the outlook to Mark.

Thank you, Barbara. For the outlook 2026, we can say once again that we anticipate margin improvements as our cost saving and efficiencies are now fully implemented.

The capital expenditure will be reduced to €150 to €165 million for the year, well below the 2025 levels. First quarter, you saw is €30 million compared to €100-plus million last year.

We're closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East. Far, the impacts have been mainly confined to the UAE and Qatar, but broader implications are uncertain in the longer term.

The safety and well-being of our people remain our top priority. That's always good to emphasize there.

The medium- to long-term outlook across our core markets remains sound. In addition, emerging markets including nuclear, critical minerals, and security solutions for safeguarding vital undersea infrastructure also present promising midterm opportunities.

With that, I would like to go over to questions. Over to you.

Morning, all. I first want to thank Barbara Geelen for her period as CFO, and I wish her good luck in the rest of her career.

Can you give us any update on the succession track of the CFO? Where are we?

Second question is on small nuclear reactors. You were active there for AI and data centers in the US last year already.

Rolls-Royce announced three of these SMRs in the UK, and there are many more to come in the rest of Europe. Finally, in Marine, offshore wind is weak, but the grid market very strong.

Are you switching in Marine from offshore wind to grid, and is grid reported in renewables or in infrastructure?

Thank you, Thijs. Good morning.

Three questions. First, the succession of Barbara, I guess I need to answer that because that would be strange if Barbara does that.

Obviously, thanks to Barbara as well for her period, let me emphasize that, at Fugro, where she really brought the company to the next level on the financial side. Thanks a lot, Barbara.

We're in a good, decent process for succession of Barbara for the new CFO that runs well, and as soon as we have more to announce, then we'll let you know. The second question was about nuclear SMRs.

We are involved in those. We have communicated about that with a project in the US last year.

We have also secured the next project there, and we're bidding for a few projects in the US. This is something that you will probably hear more of from Fugro moving forward.

We also spoke about the partnership that we signed for the UK with Fermi, we're also really on top of that moving forward on this market in Europe. Europe obviously still needs to make some changes around accepting nuclear developments in the wider European region, this is to be done, and then I expect this also to take off in the rest of Europe.

We'll be on top of that. In the US, for instance, we're one of the three parties that can actually do the ground investigation work and been accredited for that.

Then the last question is around the grids and offshore wind. Indeed, the grid market is active.

That's obviously onshore, then we put that in infrastructure. We are involved in several of these grid developments, for instance in Germany with the SuedLink interesting development there obviously, but there are several other activities that we're getting involved in.

If it's offshore, then it will be part of renewables. That is what I can say there, Thijs.

Thanks.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

I have three, if I may. On the comments on the cost reduction program that you could take additional measures if required, I was wondering what measures that could possibly be, because you've done already quite a bit, of course, in terms of FTEs.

Where could you still see cost-saving opportunity if it's needed? Second question is also on a comment that you make that you're taking market share despite ongoing price and pressure.

I was wondering if you could provide a bit more commentary around that. Is the price and pressure also intensifying versus the last quarter, and in the past you spoke, of course, about geophysical versus geotechnical, where geophysical it's much more competitive.

Is that trend the same or is geotechnical also seeing pricing pressure? I'm also wondering, are there situations where you're choosing not to bid just because prices are not right in your view?

Last question is on working capital. I was just wondering if you could indicate which regions saw the largest deterioration in Q1.

Barbara, you might want to start with the last one, the working capital?

Yeah. Thanks, Thijs, going back.

On working capital, what are the regions? There is some distinction to be made in the regions.

There are, as we mentioned before, there is the in APAC, there are some large contracts which we are executing at the moment, and we expect working capital to decrease there as a result of these large contracts. Middle East has been hampered, you will not be surprised, also by the Ramadan and the conflict, and there that is also a different, I would say, it's a different structurally situation in the Middle East of working capital, as we're all aware.

Europe-Africa is very sound, and that is also where the revenue towards quarter-end and the invoices sent out are mostly located, I can say. That's why we also say that the receivables portfolio remains sound.

The Americas is pretty stable, I would say, from a working capital perspective. That's what I can tell.

There are some differences within regions. Overall, the sum of the parts is too high at the moment, but we're confident we can bring that back within the bandwidth.

Some regions are already showing that in April due to the good collections. That's what I can share.

Thank you, Barbara. Then the other two questions.

Cost reduction program: I think you're right, Philip, that we have done a lot. In that sense, small further cost reductions are not going to make a major difference.

Then we need to look at our assets where we are actually also preparing this year for a few changes. If you take assets out, then obviously everything related to if those assets, that cost will come down as well.

I spoke earlier about a vessel in the Middle East, the geotechnical vessel, the Pacific Graus. That will be taken out once we have brought the Resilient over from the US to the Middle East.

Obviously, we monitor the situation there very carefully if we want to proceed with that, but this is the plan. The Pacific Graus will absolutely go out this year, latest, I think, September time, but maybe a little bit earlier.

We're also looking at the Explorer beyond lifetime, that vessel, still operating in the Americas, also geotechnical platform, we'll take out in the second half of the year. The date or when we do that is primarily depending on when we don't have work anymore for that vessel.

She's at the moment working, so that's good. We're also looking at taking a geophysical vessel out, the Meridian, this year.

This is another thing that we're going to do and not replacing those vessels with something else. We have a few more vessels that had low utilization also last year and did not change.

For instance, the Equator in the Asia-Pacific, where we're in the process of flagging her Indonesian so that we can deploy her in that country. We're also obviously deploying the Resolve with our Blue Dragon, the new seabed robot, the geotechnical robot, that should also drive utilization up for a vessel like the Resolve.

That just a few indications what we're working on related to cost savings and also changes in assets there. If we talk about market share, yes, we made that comment because we see that competition actually has more idle capacity, vessels alongside.

Fugro is still working against lower pricing, we have seen that in previous crises as well that we managed to keep going, but pricing is under pressure. We see and expect that that will probably increase that pressure a little bit more during the course of the year up till the time that we see activities in wind and oil and gas really stabilizing and increasing again.

We also see that in geotech now coming in, because there's also competition that has less work there, obviously that puts pricing under pressure. That's what we can say about market share and competition and pricing pressure.

Thank you. Very insightful.

Thank you.

Yes, good morning. A question about the oil and gas, which seems to be showing a recovery, and those customers are typically quite cash flow-driven, and with the higher oil and gas prices, they have higher cash flows.

Do you see any signs that they are accelerating things that are in the pipeline that would benefit you? Furthermore, on the wind market, you mentioned that most of the work will be executed in 2030 or installed in 2030, 2031, but obviously your activities are mainly ahead of that.

Can you indicate in what period we should expect the impact for your revenues from these installations?

Luuk, I think everybody's asking three questions, but I will take your two. Oil and gas: we obviously see this market picking up.

I said before as well in the previous announcements full year that we were actually expecting oil and gas to already increase last year. We did not see that because we saw the second half of the year more cash discipline from the oil and gas companies, and therefore keeping the cash in the wallets, to say, postponing things.

We do see projects back on the board. We are not 100% sure how fast these things are going, because yes, oil prices and gas prices are higher.

They also face a lot of challenges, obviously, these companies, they need to get their act together. With a higher oil price for a couple of months, it doesn't mean necessarily that then immediately all these things will move ahead, because yeah, final investment decision is obviously taken with a view of longer-term oil and gas price developments.

It is absolutely helping, and we do see those markets being more buoyant. Also, it's more acceptable to talk about new oil and gas projects because the world starts to realize that this is still on the board for many years to follow.

In that sense, we see a general, yeah, more buoyancy in that market. If you talk about wind and the installations 2030, '31, obviously we know about the conference in Hamburg earlier this year.

There they communicated the nine countries together: 15 GW installation per year from '31 onwards. That means that they need to start doing ground investigation work probably 2 to 3 years before that, you could expect in '27 onwards more activity for Fugro.

The big question mark there, Luuk, is at the moment which parties are starting earlier, because everybody knows that the activity will increase, and this is going to happen for many years to follow, because they set up till 2040 every year 15 GW installation. I still need to see if that's achievable, but having said that, even if it's less than that, that's 3 to 5 times more than what is being done over the last couple of years, enormous uptake.

That means that yeah, in the years to come, maybe already some things this year, as we see with AR7. AR8 is pulled forward because the industry is pushing the UK to launch a new license round to bring more fields to the market, so that is positive.

We see obviously France making strong commitments around additional investments in the wind market, also the Netherlands committed to two additional licenses. There is quite some buoyancy there, but everything takes a little bit of time.

It's not like, okay, this is brought to the market, and then immediately these projects kick off. Having said that, we are executing.

You also saw in our press release a new announcement on a project in Taiwan, which is positive for the development in Asia-Pacific and gives some more confidence that this market is also continuing. For Copenhagen Investment Partners is starting there, and you also see that we are about to execute a large project from AR7, which is also announced there in the press release, which will start during this season this year.

You can see if there are new licenses, then absolutely before even the licenses come to the market, we will work for the governments—RVO, BSH, or Energinet, you name them—or we'll start working for the energy operators to collect more ground investigation work.

That's clear, thank you.

Good morning. I have a few questions about the vessel changes.

Obviously, the Explorer and Meridian, you say they will be taken out. What does taken out mean?

Does it mean they'll be sold for parts or sold as whole boats or just destroyed? Also, those two vessels, I believe, are owned and not chartered.

Can you explain some of the thought process behind retiring those vessels, which are owned rather than taking a chartered vessel out of your fleet? Then my next question is also about the Pacific Graus.

You're planning to release that charter later in the year. Do you have to deliver it to a certain location back to the original owner?

In other words, is the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is closed, could that be an issue for you in the future? Then finally, you mentioned that there was a project in Denmark you were working on which impacted earnings in the Marine business in the first quarter.

Do you think that will continue to impact earnings in the second quarter? Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy. Maybe first about the changes there on on the Explorer and the Meridian: those are owned vessels.

I recall discussions started probably more than 10 years ago around retiring the Meridian, then we extended her for 5 years. You go yeah, blocks of 5 years more or less, or 3 years because you need to go from survey to survey.

Special survey every 5 years or an intermediate survey every 3 years, to say, or in in the mid-term between those 5 years. Basically, then there's a there's a judgment call to make: how many millions do you need to invest to get the vessel again on on an accreditation or certification to to be operational?

That is something that over time, when the vessels become too old, become too expensive, and then we need to make a judgment call. We had the Meridian and actually the Explorer already twice on the board to to to take out, it's has been basically, yeah, on the board for a longer time, but we have extended that, basically you squeeze the maximum out of those vessels and and then at some point in time, also to drive utilization up, we want to to have a bit more tightness in that market.

No doubt there will be times that we need to hire probably a a third-party vessel then again if we need to ramp ramp up, but that's possible because we have also the equipment to put on on temporary vessels if we need to. Explorer is obviously geotech, Meridian is geophysics, so that's important to know.

Pacific Graus, Strait of Hormuz: I need to check where we need to deliver that vessel. I think in the region, but I I need to confirm that, Jeremy.

I don't know, cuz it has been a few years ago that we hired that. I thought it came out of the region, but something to be confirmed.

Then Denmark, you want to answer that, Barbara?

We're nearing completion there on the Denmark project.

Sure. Thank you very much, and Barbara, all the best for the future.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Good morning, everyone. Especially thanks to Barbara for all her contributions to Fugro.

Let me say a couple of words on the on the working capital. I have a question.

The reason is related to what what, let me say, if you speak about 17% at the end of the quarter, what percentage was caused by the by the decline of, let me say, by the decline of the payables compared to the first quarter of 2025? To get to get an idea about how the split's between, let me say, the activities in the in the month of March and the and the payable adjustments, as I see it.

The second question is about US, as you or about Americas, in fact. You see a strong development of order intake.

When is it being executed, do you think? Because it it looks like that the that the relation between, let me say, revenues and and backlog is, yeah, is quite quite high in my view at this moment.

Is it being executed, let me say, in the coming months, or is it being executed for later, let me say, second half of 2026? That were my two questions.

Thank you, Quirijn. Maybe first on working capital, Barbara?

I can say, Quirijn, and thanks for your kind words, that the payable decrease was a major component, actually. If you look at the delta between year-end and quarter-end, it's mostly in the receivables, and that have gone up.

As I mentioned, these are very young receivables, we don't see a deterioration. If you compare to last year, where really the step-up is, if you like, is there no longer the payables dues, and those were unwound, and partially that is related to the lower CapEx.

As we mentioned, we went from €100 to €30 million, and there were some personnel expenses in there. That is really by far the biggest component is the unwind of the payables.

You're right to say that it is high, that's why we say we bring it back. We did see an absolute decrease in receivables quarter-on-quarter.

However, not to the same effect as the revenue drop, and that's why also the percentage went up. There's a couple of factors there.

The factor of high CapEx last year will also remain because last year was high, and this year will be significantly lower. We'll see that effect, to a certain extent, working through.

If we talk about US, Americas in general, and the backlog increasing and then when it's being executed: well, quite clearly you have seen also not necessarily high activity executed then in the first quarter, you're right. That has to do with some delays in the startup of these projects.

We do expect in the coming quarters that these things will continue to kick off. We have a lot of things in the backlog, especially also in the land business and nearshore business, that will really start in the second and the third quarter.

A good example is we're doing some work for some of the islands there for actually security purposes of the US, some survey work. We could not mobilize the equipment, it's just an anecdote, because there was no military plane available to mobilize the equipment that was obliged to that area because of the conflict in the Middle East.

You can't really come up with these things in advance, but this is just a consequence of what can happen in the world if you have conflicts like that. That project is now being mobilized, but it was delayed because we would initially start already in the first quarter.

Thanks.

Yes, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

Barbara, all the best for the future to you. I have two questions.

First one coming back on the US backlog as a follow-up: could you, because the evolution is quite positive, disclose some kind of percentage to what extent the backlog composition is firm, signed orders, and then quotes with high award potential? That's the first question on the US backlog.

Then on the regional performance: I know on a quarterly basis you do not disclose profits per region, but could you shed some more light on the evolution of the profitability of the different regions in the first quarter, what the trends were per region, were they above [expectations?] ?

Thank you.

Sorry, the last question, you were dropping out a little bit, Kristof. Could you repeat that?

Safe. On the regional performance, that you do not disclose regional profit margins or regional profits on a quarterly basis, but could you give some more color on the evolution of the profitability during the first quarter of the different regions, and which one went according to plan, and which one were better or disappointing?

Maybe I can comment on this last question before going to the other one. I think what I can say about Q1, Q1 is always the lowest seasons, and as a project business, there's quite a lot of pluses and minuses in the regions.

I think if you look at also the backlog and the composition, that is a good representation, and I think it goes too far now to qualify that further, because it's only one quarter in the year. Okay.

Then

your question around backlog: that depends a little bit. If you look at the €1.4 billion roughly for the next 12 months, then there's roughly around 65% is firm and others are highly likely prospects.

If we talk about obviously different periods, the remainder of the year or the next three months, there are different percentages involved. Specifically around the US, I don't have that split from how much is firm or highly prospects.

No, well, what we can say there is that obviously you see a strong increase in the backlog in the Americas. That's also related to traveling from a lower base after the offshore wind drop last year.

Having said that, on the AI, the data centers, and the SMRs, that looks very very positively and encouraging, I would say. This is mainly on the land and the marine asset integrity side of the business.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Couple of smaller questions.

Can you quantify the impact of the late arrival of the vessel in Denmark on the Q1 result roughly? Second question: you sold office in Hong Kong, cashed in €13 million.

Did you also account for a book profit in Q1, and is that included in your reported adjusted EBITDA? Third question is on your activities around Cyprus.

Are these activities hampered or ongoing?

Maybe I will take the last question there, Thijs. Cyprus: we have seen some impact.

We could, for instance, not do a crew change in the place that we wanted to do, we had to deviate to a different port. There was some impact, minimal, but some impact there.

Before I hand over to Barbara for the book profit there, maybe first on the Denmark side: that was the Fugro Resolve that we basically mobilized for that with ROVs on board. That had to do with, maybe a bit more color, with the Aquarius that we sent over to the US to serve the large Brazilian contract, the Dweller that moved over to the US.

The Aquarius is already working there in Brazil, albeit the Aquarius is in a dry dock at the moment, so that's also good to mention, unfortunately a bit longer than expected. That has some impact on the first quarter as well.

The Resolve in Denmark basically was mobilized last minute, had some issues, and then we had some permit issues from Total that took a bit longer, it had a couple of million impact there in the region. That's what I can say on the Resolve.

Then maybe to Barbara?

The sale of the building in Hong Kong was indeed included in the EBITDA and the EBIT as booked as other income.

What kind of book profit should we think of?

It's in the cash flow, right? It's less.

It's

around €10 million.

€10 million book profit or €10 million proceeds or both?

Both.

Thanks.

I have one question. For me it's a little bit unclear why, let me say, your revenues were a little bit down, okay, but not dramatic, it's 2% organically, and you had realized massive cost savings.

I understand that it's partly to blame because of low pricing in certain projects. To what extent it's also related to extra cost?

Can you give me some idea, some flavor on how you can explain that? Cost savings, as you told, €10 million, let me say €120 million in full year, combined with revenues 2% organically down, that should lead to higher earnings.

Is there maybe a good explanation for that?

There's a couple of factors, and if I can answer that question: so first of all, historically, Q1 EBIT is low, and the margin is low. The EBIT margin now is protected as a result of the cost savings on the personnel cost and other operating expenses.

I think we should not forget that we had a revenue drop of €427 million last year, we adjusted the cost base to the new reality. The cost base did decrease quarter-on-quarter as demonstrated by, as you say, a flat EBIT with a €32 million revenue drop.

Within that, the cost savings are included, and that is what we can say. Then in there is indeed additional operational issues, as we just explained, and there is also the Hong Kong building that was there, plus we had limited impact of the conflict in the Middle East.

However, based on the millions of EBIT, that is still in Q1 a couple of million. There's a couple of pluses and minuses that are playing a role in the EBIT, but the cost savings are definitely there, otherwise, the EBIT would have been much lower.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you so much for participating in this call. If you have any other questions or remarks, you know where to find me.

Thank you. Have a good day.