Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this second half 2025 presentation for Green Minerals. There's a disclaimer on page 2.

The financial highlights is on the following page. We delivered a result of a negative slightly more than 2 million for the second half of 2025.

This is about 80% below the number for corresponding period last year. When it comes to the full year, it's the same thing there.

It's around 4 million, down from more than 16 million, and around a 75% reduction in in money spent there. The second half underlying EBITDA was around 1.5 million negative, and we expect now, on the current outlook, to be able to exceed the previous and previously announced cost cuts of around 80%.

From that base of 80% cuts, we expect the number to be somewhat lower as of second half of 2026. When it comes to the highlights for the six-month period, it is the most important event had to do with the minority socialist government in Norway that failed to initiate the first licensing round.

Just a brief recap, there is an 80% majority in Parliament that has been overridden by this minority government. The process of doing so has been through closed-door shadow decision-making with two supporting parties of this government, which are the Communist Party and the green activist party.

This shadow deal may delay the first license round for four years. The question here in terms of timing is really how long the current government will remain in office, remains to be seen.

It's a minority government, and obviously, supporting itself on a Communist Party and a green activist party means that it looks from a domestic point of view, at least, that this is a somewhat unstable government coalition. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are opening up, and Norway, which was in the lead when it came to the opening process and the outlook for opening up for actual production of this tremendous resource, has now given away that baton to the US.

The US, through an executive order in April 2025, is now fast-tracking the process for opening up for marine minerals. Indeed, The Metals Company, on the 22nd of January this year, filed an application under this new fast-track framework.

The timeline there is now such that we can probably expect a reply or a finalization of that that application by the end of 2026, which means that The Metals Company should be in position to start maybe second half 2027 or 2028 with the production in in the US. That, by the way, is approximately the same timeline that we had until this minority government delayed it.

What are we doing meanwhile then? We are protecting shareholder value.

We have secured optionality, maintaining the value of the real option that Green Minerals is in terms of starting extracting this resource is really the most important thing for us now. We do this by extending our runway.

We have cut costs, as I said, by a lot, by 80% we're done with, and then we will be looking to cut somewhat more also during 2026. We do this by maintaining competency in the firm and at the same time reducing capacity.

At the same time, we have, of course, turned our eyes to the MOU that we have in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. As we have stated previously, this MOU is with more than one nation-state as a counterparty.

This is a process that is time-consuming to have these various sovereign states agree. We, while we are working on it, and definitely hope that we will get to a situation where we can start to transfer rights from that that license to Green Minerals, we do not want to create any expectations about a swift resolution to to this issue.

The license is, just for the record, is huge. It's more than 70,000 square km.

It's actually slightly bigger than the one that The Metals Company is now applying for in the US, and it has more than 200 million tons of wet nodules in it. $40 million has been spent on exploration on the license.

To put it in perspective, this is a If you look at the size of it, it's about five times Aker BP in terms of license acreage. We'll we'll we'll work on that, as I said, and we will, of course, inform the market about any any developments there.

Also, in the beginning of the second half, we announced that we adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy. This is a strategy that is supporting our operational strategy, as we announced in the press release at the time.

It is there really to prevent any value reduction from debasement of of fiat currencies in in a long-term project like like the one that we are managing here. The initial purchase was executed at a price of 105 or almost $106,000 per Bitcoin, and the P&L on that, as of the 31st of December, is a negative $0.75 million.

We announced further a strategic review on the 11th of December after the surprise decision outside of, how should we say, normal democratic channels that was undertaken late last year. We announced this strategic review with the aim to maximize shareholder value.

We are currently engaging in discussions, and we will, of course, keep you updated if there is any meaningful progress there. No promises made when it comes to any outcome here.

When it comes to this opening process in Norway, what I would like to do is just to make a contribution to the debate that has been around this process of delay. Or actually, it hasn't been much of a debate; it's just been this shadow decision-making in the back rooms in the Parliament.

If there was a debate, I would assume that the green activists and the communists would be talking about environmental concerns as their main objection to this, because there are really no other concerns. This is an industry that will create a tremendous number of jobs in Norway.

It is profitable from the get-go, and seriously profitable as well, as I will show. Just to make a contribution to the environmental concerns, this is how the production system that we have designed, it's the only production system that has been designed for Norwegian waters to the best of our knowledge, and I will show you how this will work.

I think watching the video that we now will show really, should we say, puts the the weight of the evidence back on on the opposition here to explain how this would not be much more environmentally friendly than how mining is done terrestrially today. What you have just seen is a semi-closed loop production system.

There's zero emission to the surrounding environment. Everything that we chew, or the machines chew, on the seabed is being mixed with seawater and transported to the to the bulk carrier.

Also, there is no noise along the riser system, the noise at any point in this production system is lower than the natural environment around it. This is as environmentally friendly as as mining gets.

For those who want to dig into it, I would encourage you to to read and watch terrestrial mining, and you will understand. Going back to Green Minerals targets, markets we chosen, and so on, we are certainly pleased to see the development in in our target metals, which is copper as number one and cobalt as number two.

When it comes to copper, we have, for some time actually, shown this slide showing the mismatch between a four- or five-fold increase in exploration spend versus the actual finds made in copper. What this tells you is that, terrestrially, you just don't find any meaningful copper deposits anymore.

We need to think alternatively in order to find the copper that society needs, and in particular, amongst this or amidst this major wave of electrification that we're seeing over the next 20 to 30 years, and the deep sea is one such alternative that can supply meaningful amounts of the shortfall of copper that we're seeing. Mind you, since the last time we showed this slide, the copper price is up with around 60%.

Norway has a significant resource on a global scale, and I think what the the green environmentalists and what the green activists and and the communists might have overlooked is that there's been a lot of research done by Norwegian authorities on the shelf. We're talking about 20 years of research.

I don't know of any industry in Norway that has been this well researched and documented before startup. Saying that we don't know what we're going to is de facto wrong.

We can only look at the data and the amount of data that has been gathered so far. When it comes to the resource, estimated at 38 million tons for copper, which is almost twice global production, and for cobalt, we're talking about six times annual global production.

The copper amount, by the way, is close to the the resources that China estimate that they have. This is a really significant number.

When it comes to the mapping of this, as I said, 20 years of research, it's a well-mapped area, also in terms of concrete potential production sites. This is, I would say, really And I think the the authorities in terms of energy department and the shelf directorate, I think, would agree that we are we are ready to start this now with the documentation that we have.

Indeed, it's just a matter of pushing the button, we'll see when that happens. When it comes to the first licensing round, just want to note that all the priority areas that Green Minerals nominated has been included in the first license round, and it contains 386 blocks that have been suggested then for for announcement.

When it comes to license award, or this opening process followed the timeline very accurately until this minority socialist government came into power then. The license award was originally expected to be late in the first quarter this year, and now, of course, it has been postponed until further notice.

When it comes to the economics of this, just want to reiterate, and I do that because most of the questions that we get actually now around deep-sea mining is not around environmental concerns anymore, although I understand that there are parties that this minority government is dependent on that think this is the main issue. Actually, most of the questions we get are of techno-economic nature, also from the NGOs.

There's been a lot of skepticism that this could be profitable at all. I believe this is when it comes to this question, I I feel we are on our on on our home turf, and we can quickly answer that question, as I said, by saying that, yes, definitely, this is very profitable.

Traditional mining can't simply compare. It has to do with no infrastructure investment needed.

In terrestrial projects, they will run into the billions of dollars if you find a new meaningful copper copper resource, and also on the capex as such, it will be more than 30% lower. One of the main benefits we have is, of course, the management of the ore grade that we produce, where we can easily There's no sunk cost in the mine, we can easily pick up the equipment and leave for the next site whenever we feel the ore grade is is not optimal anymore.

When it comes to environmental, I'm not going to repeat what I said after the video, but I would encourage anyone to to watch the video and really think about what you're seeing. We are talking about probably more than a 90% reduction in environmental footprint in terms of producing these these metals.

It's quite the opposite of what the green activists and the communists, who, as far as I know, they have not been out on the shelf, there's been no research done, but it's it's it's quite the opposite of the concerns that they have. This is both environmentally friendly, it will create thousands of jobs for Norway, and it will contribute significantly to the tax coffers of Norway from from the get-go.

This slide illustrates it further on the basis of a $10,000 copper price and copper only, that means we have not factored in a second round of processing for cobalt. On copper only, we're talking about around $175 million in annual EBITDA on a company level for Green Minerals.

On the project level, this EBITDA would be far higher, to the tune of more than $300 million. Now, if we add the if if we were to adjust these numbers for the current copper price, we would be talking about almost $500 million in EBI- in EBITDA for one production system for on on a company level then.

Of course, Green Minerals can handle more than one production system. This is just a matter of capital availability, $1 to $1.2 billion per system, and we envision that there would be a handful of of production systems operating on the Norwegian continental shelf.

We are, to the best of our knowledge, the only company with such a system in in place. As you understand, these are significant numbers.

When it comes to the timeline, by the way, this is the timeline before this surprise shadow decision-making in the in in the back rooms in the Parliament. As at the moment, there is actually no timeline until we get clarity on on political clarity then in terms of when to start up.

As I said, everything is ready, it is just this pushing the button. Whenever that button is pushed, it wouldn't take many months for licenses to be awarded and for us to be out there doing the final work in preparation for for production.

When it comes to the value in this company, of course, at the moment, this is a waiting game. I just want to highlight this slide to show you that there are significant there's a significant value in terms of data and technology that has been added to to to to to shareholder value in Green Minerals over these years that we have been preparing for this.

The number can be pinpointed, as we see it, at more than $70 million. Of course, we need a decision in order to start to monetize this, but I think it's worthwhile knowing that we believe we have a a development cost or value of more than $70 million in in our computers and not shown then, of course, in in the balance sheet, but which is an underlying value here for for the shareholders.

We need a decision, though. When it comes to the Bitcoin treasury strategy, it's the reason we we decided to to to adopt it is that it is an attractive alternative to the to traditional fiat in this area era of both monetary and fiscal expansion.

There is a real inflation risk versus our future future capital expenditure. Now, actually, more than ever because of this delay and and risk on on the timeline.

It's a hedge against the debasement of of fiat currencies then, and it's well-suited for a company like Green Minerals with such a long project horizon. Then when it's when it comes to the numbers, one production system is $1 to $1.2 billion.

The better part of this, of course, would be financed by debt. The Bitcoin strategy is aimed at being a part-financing for the equity portion of a $1.2 billion production system.

Then again, as I said, we when starting up, I think there are good reasons to believe that there will be more than one production system out on the Norwegian continental shelf. In summary, on the 9th of January 2024, the Parliament, the Norwegian Parliament, voted with an 80% majority to open up for deep-sea mining in Norway.

This de-risked the business case for Green Minerals. The current minority socialist government has now delayed the first license round through shadow decision-making amidst the budget negotiations for 2026.

Let me just add, this, of course, has nothing to do with the budget. This is a the democratic process through the opening process that has been going on for six years has been followed.

There has been data gathering, there has been hearing rounds, and there has been a proper democratic political process in in the Parliament that has led to an 80% majority. What has happened here in terms of this shadow dealmaking is is not a part, I would say, of this democratic process.

This has no business being in the in in a budget negotiation with sort of shotgun tactics from communists and and green environmentalists. That's another issue, and but I think a a concern when it comes to Norway and political and and a very relevant concern for business when it comes to deciding on really large capital expenditure and long-term projects in in Norway.

We need stability, and we need visibility, and that is hard to get with the current political situation in Norway. Let's hope that will change.

We have more than 50-year history for successful resource management within oil and gas before this, we we trust that that will be sort of a guiding light also for the political level in our society going forward. Meanwhile then, other jurisdictions opening up, and it's it's really encouraging to see how, in particular, the US administration is fast-tracking access to this major resource now.

Also in that context, could just add, Norway is, of course, not aligned with NATO interests in terms of this socialist delay, and it is not aligned with in particular US interest and US actions on on the same resource now. That's that's a topic of concern, I think, for Norway going forward.

Anyway, production concept developed, as I showed. Mining infrastructure in Nordics well-developed.

The processing, we've done the work there, and there's good news in terms of co-processing with terrestrial resources. I showed you the economics; it's tremendous, and also in terms of jobs, this will be a large industry in Norway.

It's really a pity that this shotgun tactics from really small political small and, I would say, insignificant really in terms of votes, political parties in in in Norway, and a lack of political leadership to stand against such pressure. Anyway, we have secured multiyear optionality through in-kind commitment from the founders in terms of running this company at a minimum of cost, and also, we were able to, through the support of our larger shareholders, to raise capital even after the first delay last year.

I think I will leave it with that, only underline no promises made. We are dependent on on political decisions, both when it comes to Clarion-Clipperton Zone and Norway.

We are doing our best to penetrate these processes, to exert any influence we may have, and we are not sitting still, I can I can promise that, although no promises can be made as to the outcome of this. With that, I would like to open up for would like to open up for Q&A.

We have one question here, which is, 'Can you comment on the maturity of the discussions referred to in the report and whether they are exploratory or more structured in nature?' What I can say is that we launched the strategic strategic review in around mid-December.

As you will imagine, we are not many weeks into it, it is too early to really comment on any on any progress there. These are processes that I personally would have experience with and would assume would take some time.

Anything anything can happen, and so, but currently, we're involved, and I don't think I will give you any more color than that other than saying that there is no there can be no certainty as to if and any outcome of of the the meetings we're currently having. Then there is another question here, which is, 'Could you elaborate your treasury strategy with respect to Bitcoin accumulation or strain in current market volatility?

What is your forward guidance on this strategy? You have significant shareholder base that invested in you because you lead in such decision within Northern Europe.'

That may be worthwhile commenting on again, although we have been commenting on it both when we did it in the first call and and also what I said now. Just to make this very clear.

First and foremost, I would like to encourage everybody to read the press release when we announced this. In this press release, you will see that the Bitcoin treasury strategy is a supporting strategy for the mining operations in Green Minerals.

Green Minerals is a deep-sea mining company. What the future will bring in terms of operation, we'll see.

Maybe it will be a mining company, but it is at least within within that space. Green Minerals is not a Bitcoin company.

We have not been set up to buy buy and hold Bitcoin. This is not our our our strategy; this is not the objective or the mission of of the company.

The Bitcoin treasury strategy is a supporting strategy. Now, the two important considerations, I think, for shareholders who are looking for exposure to Bitcoin through us, if that is what you do, that is, number one, take this into consideration.

Number two, be aware that the larger shareholders in this company and the board strongly believes that there is real option value that is far higher than what this company is priced to in the market today. I showed you some numbers.

With the current copper price, this company, on only one project on a company level, would probably turn in $500 million per year in EBITDA, and the company is valued to next to nothing in in the market today. This is something that you need to take into account.

This company and its larger shareholders and the board will not dilute the value of the real option that we have in mining. The Bitcoin treasury strategy is supposed to be supportive and accretive to that value, okay?

That means that we have a certain a certain limits to what we can do when it comes to issuing equity to buy Bitcoin. I know that a Bitcoin company wouldn't be probably too concerned about this, but we are.

We have certain, call it, limitations then to how much share yeah, how much capital we would issue in order just to hold Bitcoin. You need to see that against the real option value of of of of the mining operations in in the company.

Then finally, this is also a matter of appetite in the market. When we announced this strategy, there was a large appetite to to invest in or there was a large appetite to have exposure then to Bitcoin through listed equities.

Shortly after we announced it, that appetite vanished. That happened pretty quickly.

Of course, we are not going to force anything here. I have seen companies seemingly having a strategy of just issuing more equity at any sort of more or less looks like any cost in order to be able to add Bitcoin.

We don't really think like that. It needs to be, as I said, value accretive.

With the appetite gone, we are not going to to to put it like that, we're not going to try to force an elephant through a keyhole. Provided that the appetite is there, provided that we can do this at the pricing that we feel is favorable, all things considered, we would certainly like to build on our Bitcoin holding.

We're going to do this in a very very measured way, and but like to build on that holding. Also, we need to keep an eye, of course, on the underlying mining projects that we've had, because there is a decision that has come between we adopted the strategy and now, and that is this minority socialist government delay of mining in Norway.

For us, as I said, it's the the the capital need is really what is underlying also the the ambition for the size of of the Bitcoin holdings. I hope that answers it fully.

There are many considerations, but I think a key key element here is that this board and this company's larger shareholders will not do make decisions that dilute the value of the current shareholders. That doesn't make any sense.

There is another question, 'Based on the current cost base, do you feel the company has sufficient runway to complete the strategic review without forcing a dilutive financing?' That's a it's a good question, and one that I maybe should have commented on more when we looked at the financial numbers.

Let me emphasize this: Green Minerals has a very solid financial position. In the beginning of last year, following this this yeah, this minority socialist government and its various whims, we were able to raise additional capital from our larger shareholders, and also, we managed to to forge a deal with the founders of the company, where the founders are basically taking the brunt of the costs on at their their own expense.

We have the mechanics we use for this is that we have an equity-for-salary arrangement. There are options that have been awarded to various team members, and these are key people for the company.

You will not find the the normal costs that you would need to take to have these people employed with the company, you will not find them going forward. Although we have a, in absolute terms, small capital base, we have a very solid financial position.

What we said when we did this last year, and what we promised our shareholders, what we would be able to run the company or we would be able to keep the real option alive for them for five years. We certainly hope and we believe and with also the industry globally being now led by the US, not Norway, we believe that Norway as a as a country or as a NATO country sitting on the second largest resource globally on this will be yeah, will be maneuvered into starting extracting this resource.

That's the plan: maintain the real option value, extend the runway with a multiyear runway. As I said, the way it looks now, we are able to cut costs even further than what we announced at the time.

We you're going to see a good bit above an 80% cost cut for for Green Minerals. Just to complete the answer, the question was about completing the strategic review, and there the answer is definitely.

That should be that should be over within this time period. If we check, is anything on mail?

Let's give it another few seconds. Please feel free to ask.

At the current, as this is now sort of a little bit of a waiting game and we are currently working on the strategic review, as I said, we we believe that we are or we are planning to do semiannual updates as sort of set updates. These are more or less for you to be able to ask questions.

Of course, if anything happens in between, we will announce it. To just announce these numbers quarterly, they are very There's a high degree of visibility on our numbers.

It doesn't it doesn't really make much sense. Please feel free to call.

If there are no other questions, we will be back with our first-half report. You will be able to to ask again then.

If nothing happens before then, we will see you in August. Thank you very much.

Thanks for your attention.