Thank you very much, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Q2 2026 results analyst call.

My name is Dick Richelle, I'm the CEO of Vopak, and I'm joined here by Michiel Gilsing, our CFO. We will guide you through our latest results.

Before we start, I'd like to refer to the disclaimer content of the forward-looking statements, which you are familiar with. I would like to remind you that we make forward-looking statements during the presentation, which involve certain risks and uncertainties.

Accordingly, this disclaimer is applicable to the entire call, including the answers provided to questions during the Q&A session. With that, let's move on to the presentation.

Before diving into the results, I'd like to start off with a brief recap of our strategy, which is anchored by three integrated pillars: improve, grow, and accelerate. The execution of our strategy has been strong.

We have improved our financial and sustainability performance and invested in gas, industrial, and energy transition infrastructure that support evolving needs of our customers. Now let's move to our results.

We delivered a strong first half of the year, driven by healthy, sustained demand for our services, reflected in an occupancy rate of 91%. Proportional EBITDA grew by 5% compared to the first half of 2025.

Our cash conversion remains solid at 74%, resulting in an operating cash return of 15.3% on a 12-month rolling basis. We made good progress on our growth strategy.

In the Netherlands, we secured the continuation of the EemsEnergyTerminal beyond 2027. This is a vital step for enabling European energy security over the coming decade.

We've also taken significant strategic steps in large-scale battery energy storage systems, or BESS. We successfully acquired Green Energy Storage, a battery development company, and reached a final investment decision on two utility-scale projects in the Netherlands with a combined capacity of 350 megawatts.

Now looking at our outlook. On the back of solid operational performance and the anticipated contributions from our growth projects, we're raising the outlook for full-year 2026 for EBITDA and operating free cash flow.

As always, this remains subject to ongoing market uncertainties and currency fluctuations. Last but not least, looking at our shareholder returns, we've introduced an interim dividend with the first payment of 72 cents per share scheduled this September.

Also, we've completed 45% of the €100 million share buyback tranche, which is part of our multi-year share buyback program of up to €500 million. Now let's take a closer look at the breakdown of our results, specifically for the different terminal types we operate.

The diversification of our portfolio across geographies and products has again proven to be a structural strength. In a market that is increasingly volatile, it enables us to meet our customers' evolving needs for energy security, affordability, and sustainability.

We see an overall solid performance across the portfolio with higher results compared to the first half of 2025, when adjusting for the impact of currency translation and divestments. Our strong oil terminal performance was driven by robust activity in key oil hubs like Rotterdam, but also improved results from our oil distribution operations in South Africa.

This more than offset the low activity levels we saw in Fujairah, which was impacted by the challenging geopolitical environment. The chemical segment benefited from the contribution of newly commissioned capacity in the US combined with relatively stable autonomous performance.

Supported by long-term contracts, gas and industrial terminals delivered a stable performance as well and achieved higher throughputs year-to-date. All in all, this has led to a proportional EBITDA of €600 million and a healthy operating cash return of 15.3%.

Over the past few years, energy and manufacturing markets have faced multiple unprecedented shocks. This had and continues to have a profound impact on the balance between energy security, affordability, and sustainability.

Together with our partners, we provide the infrastructure that enables our customers to address these evolving needs. To start with security, recent geopolitical conflicts and trade disruptions have made the need for national energy sovereignty incredibly clear.

A good example of how we play into this is with our Gate LNG terminal in the Netherlands. This terminal provides Northwest Europe with the needed flexibility to import LNG, successfully replacing the historical reliance on single-source pipeline imports.

To give you a sense of scale, this terminal is capable of supplying roughly 1/3 of the Netherlands' national gas consumption, which is primarily used for electricity generation and residential heating. In addition to security of supply, energy affordability is paramount.

Maintaining access to competitively priced power is vital for safeguarding both industries and households against volatile price shocks. Through our global network of strategically located terminals, we connect supply and demand in energy and manufacturing markets.

By facilitating an efficient flow of products, we provide access to diverse, competitively priced global supply sources, lowering the dependence on domestic or single-source production. Our Ridley LPG terminal in Canada, currently under construction, exemplifies this.

This terminal leverages a significant geographic advantage, reducing LPG transit times from Canada's West Coast to Asia to just 10 days compared to 25 days or more from the US Gulf Coast. By reducing these shipping times, the terminal contributes to lower costs for end-consumers in Asia, a region where affordable energy is vital to sustaining economic growth and improving living standards.

Finally, there's an urgent systemic need to decarbonize, not just to meet national emission mandates, but also to provide energy independence from traditional energy sources. Our entry into battery energy storage systems will enable the ongoing electrification of the energy mix while securing the long-term resilience of the power grid.

To summarize, the infrastructure that we own and operate and the projects that we are developing continue to be highly relevant in the fast-evolving landscape of energy and manufacturing markets. With our diversified portfolio of strategically located terminals, we enable the secure, affordable, and sustainable flow of products meeting our customers' evolving needs.

Let's take a look at BESS, because this quarter, we took significant steps in developing energy transition infrastructure with our investments in battery energy storage systems. BESS is today's fastest-growing power technology, driven by the rising penetration of renewables in the energy mix.

The ongoing addition of renewable energy sources creates a structural need for storage to stabilize power grids and to manage source intermittency. As a result, BESS offers significant potential to deploy capital in line with our return ambitions while positioning our portfolio for another frontier of energy storage.

With our investment in this space, we pursue a develop, own, operate strategy for utility-scale batteries connected to high-voltage grids. We will develop projects, which consists of acquiring the land, securing the grid connections and permits, and designing the infrastructure.

From a commercial point of view, we're aiming to lock in the majority of the revenues through tolling agreements, which are comparable to the take-or-pay contracts in our existing business. For the remainder of the capacity, we will benefit from exposure to the market.

We believe our core capabilities provide a competitive edge in the BESS market. We have proven capabilities in infrastructure development, strong relationships with key stakeholders, and experience in developing high-capex projects.

Taking this all into account, we view BESS as an exciting opportunity for future growth. That brings me to the BESS investment commitments we've announced this quarter.

We've committed €371 million for the acquisition of Green Energy Storage and the development of two utility-scale projects in the Netherlands with a combined capacity of 350 megawatts. Through GES, we gain access to proven to a proven BESS development platform and a robust pipeline of projects.

We see this as a crucial step in the development of a BESS of a BESS growth platform. The subsequent projects that we've taken FID on in Veendam and Oosterhout in the Netherlands are expected to come into operation in 2028, after which they will contribute to an attractive cash return that supports our long-term cash return ambition.

These investments mark a significant strategic step that we are excited about. Now let's take a look at other developments in our network this quarter.

Notwithstanding the volatility and uncertainty on the market during Q2, we continue to execute on our growth strategy. In the Netherlands, we secured the continuation of EemsEnergyTerminal for the period 2028 to 2036.

We made good progress on the construction of the fourth tank in the Gate terminal, which is which is expected to be commissioned at the end of Q3 this year. In South Africa, at our Durban terminal, we're expanding the capacity for the storage and handling of diesel.

In India, good progress has been made on the construction of the greenfield terminal for LPG and liquid products in JNPA port in Mumbai. In Canada, at Ridley terminal, we're also making good progress, with more than 90% of the onshore infrastructure now being complete.

Due to adverse weather conditions and marine-related operating constraints, commissioning of the terminal is expected in Q1 2027. As a result of additional resources deployed to support jetty construction activities, the total project costs are now expected to be approximately 1.5 billion Canadian dollars.

For Vopak, our investment is expected to remain unchanged at around €462 million due to favorable foreign currency developments and applicable contractual terms. The project returns remain consistent with those mentioned at the time of the FID.

Far, we've committed a total of €2.3 billion to investments in gas, industrial, and other terminals, as well as energy transition infrastructure. Around €425 million of this €2.3 billion has been committed since the beginning of 2000 of 2026.

We're well-positioned to achieve our ambition of investing €4 billion by 2030, supporting our long-term operating cash return ambition of 13% to 17%. Looking ahead, we remain well-positioned to achieve our long-term ambitions.

We've shown strong business performance in the recent years, which we continued in the first half of 2026. The market indicators for storage demand remain firm, supporting the delivery of growth projects and the resilient performance of our existing business.

This is reflected in our long-term ambitions of operating cash return ambition between 13% to 17% on a rolling 12 months basis. In addition, we're well on track to invest €4 billion growth capex through 2030.

Also, during our during our full-year results in February this year, we announced a shareholder distributions program of around €1.7 billion through year-end 2030, consistent consisting of progressive dividends and a multi-year share buyback program. With that, I'd like to hand it over to Michiel to give more details on the Q2 2026 results.

Michiel?

Thank you, Dick. Also from my side, good morning to all of you.

As Dick mentioned, we have had a strong performance in the first half year of 2026. We reported a healthy occupancy rate, increased our EBITDA, and further improved our free cash flow generation.

These results highlight the strength of our well-diversified portfolio, particularly in times of increased uncertainty and volatility. Simultaneously, we continued to invest in attractive and accretive growth projects while returning value to our shareholders.

Let's take a closer look at the performance of the portfolio. Our operating cash return on a 12 months rolling basis slightly increased to 15.3% compared to 15.2% in the first half of 2025.

This reflects the structural, ongoing trend of improved cash generation. Demand for our services remained strong, which is reflected in an occupancy rate of 91%.

Our operating free cash flow decreased slightly compared to the first half of 2025. As we will highlight throughout the presentation, this is primarily driven by adverse currency translation effects, divestment impact, and specific material one-off recorded in the first half of 2025.

Moving to our business unit performance overview. Here, we can see the impact of currency translation and divestments on a year-on-year basis, which amounts to €20 million.

A large part of this growth can be explained by the strong EBITDA contribution of €19 million from our growth projects, particularly in the US, China, and India. Taking into account the €22 million related to the one-off out of 2025, we arrive at an autonomous growth of approximately 5% for the whole portfolio.

The performance across the existing network was strong, primarily driven by strong oil markets, which benefited our Europoort oil hub terminal in the Netherlands and oil distribution terminal in South Africa, partly offset by the weaker performance in Asia and the Middle East due to geopolitical tensions. The performance of the other BUs is primarily driven by lower claims of our captive insurer.

We are continuously focused on generating predictable, growing cash flows to create value for our shareholders. In the first half of 2026, we showed a further improvement in our EBITDA to cash conversion, which is now around 74%.

This improvement was driven by decreased operating capex and IFRS 16 lease expenses compared to the first half of 2025. The 2.4% decrease in EBITDA was therefore partially offset by higher cash conversion, leading to a decrease in operating free cash flow of 1.6%.

If we subtract from the operating free cash flow the taxes and financing costs, we arrive at the proportional free cash flow, which would be available for shareholders. Based on the €370 million of free cash flow generated in the first six months of this year and the existing market cap or actual market cap at the end of Q2, our free cash flow yield currently stands at around 12%.

This yield is supporting our robust shareholder distributions in a period of increased growth investments. A brief reminder on the capital allocation framework.

Our capital allocation framework consists of four distinct pillars. Aiming to maintain a robust balance sheet is our first priority.

Second priority, distribute value to shareholders via a progressive dividend. Thirdly, invest in attractive growth opportunities.

Last but not least, deliver additional shareholder value through a multi-year share buyback program of up to €500 million through year-end 2030. Moving on to our first priority of the capital allocation, the balance sheet.

Our proportional leverage, which reflects the economic share of the joint venture debt, increased to 2.87 times, reflecting a ramp-up of our growth investments. If we exclude the impact of assets under construction, which do not contribute yet to our EBITDA, the proportional leverage of the running assets is at 2.70, which has remained stable over the last years.

Our ambition for the proportional leverage range is still between 2.5 and 3 times. To facilitate the development of growth opportunities that enhance our operating cash return, Vopak's proportional leverage may temporarily fluctuate between 3 and 3.5 times during the construction period, which can last 2 to 3 years in our business.

This is all in line with our disciplined capital allocation framework. Moving on to the second pillar of our capital allocation policy, our progressive dividend.

As disclosed in our full-year 2025 results, we are increasing the payment frequency of our dividends with the introduction of an interim dividend. We will pay out our first interim dividend of 72 cents per share on 24th of September 2026.

This amount of 72 cents is equal to 40% of the prior year final dividend, which was €1.80. This is all in line with our progressive dividend policy under which we intend to grow the dividend per share by at least 5% per year.

The annual dividend growth rate of the last five years has been close to 10%. The third priority of our capital allocation policy is investing in growth opportunities, which are a key part of our value creation.

We have the ambition to invest €4 billion on a proportional basis by 2030 to grow our base in gas and industrial terminals and to accelerate towards energy transition infrastructure. At this point, we have already committed around €2.3 billion to growth investments since 2022, of which around €650 million has been commissioned and is already contributing to our results.

Around €1.7 billion of growth projects are currently under construction, with close to €1 billion of them delivered during 2026 and 2027. In addition, for 2028 and beyond, another €700 million of projects are expected to come into operation.

These projects will be delivered in line with the provided capex to EBITDA multiple and will support our long-term operating cash return ambition of between 13% and 17%. That brings me to the outlook for the full-year 2026.

As mentioned by Dick, the market indicators for storage remain firm. Supporting the delivery of growth projects and the resilient performance of our existing business are moving in the right direction.

This gives us the confidence to increase our full-year 2026 outlook with proportional operating free cash flow projected at around €820 million and proportional EBITDA expected to range between €1.18 billion and €1.22 billion. Bringing it all together in this slide, we had a strong first half year of 2026 with solid cash generation and a portfolio that remains well-positioned to cater for increased volatility in the market.

In addition, we continue investing in attractive growth opportunities while returning value to our shareholders with the recent addition of an interim dividend payment. With that, I hand over back to Dick.

Thank you, Michiel. With that, I'd like to ask the operator to please open the line for the question and answers.

Good morning, gentlemen. Three questions for me.

First, on the Middle East, you didn't say too much about the financial impact from the ongoing war there. Obviously, you mentioned the oil market was performing quite strongly.

I was just wondering if you think, net-net, do you think the Middle East situation is actually having a net positive impact to your business at the moment? The second question is just on Ridley.

Does the additional capex spend on the jetty come with additional revenue associated with that? Then thirdly, just on the guidance, could you maybe split out what's driving the upgrade to the guidance?

I notice you changed your FX assumptions. How much does that play a role?

Thank you.

Let me start with the first question on the Middle East. Net-net, the Middle East impact, well, it's a bit of a balance indeed between negative impacts, especially around the Middle East and in the Middle East.

There are also some positive impacts, although it's sometimes very hard to see what is actually directly related to the Middle East or indirectly related to the Middle East. Our assessment of the second quarter was that the impact is maximum €5 million negative for our results.

If I combine that a bit with your third question, obviously, we continuously look at the developments in the Middle East. We update our outlook effectively every month with all the business units involved.

When the crisis started at the end of February and we did the outlook in Q1, we were more negative on the potential impact of the conflict. I think that's a thing we have seen basically everywhere in the market because the recovery of certain markets have been stronger than maybe people expected at that time.

Overall, we see a lower impact over 2026 of the Middle East conflict. Secondly, we see a stronger performance of our existing assets, independent from the Middle East.

We still see growth coming in in the second half of the year, and that combination has basically provided us with sufficient confidence to increase the guidance for the rest of the year, both for EBITDA as well as for free cash flow. Then on the Ridley side, well, it's effectively we have a contractual arrangement in place with AltaGas, of which I can't disclose too much, but effectively, if you look at the capex overrun or capex increase, effectively that's not leading to a lot of additional capital from our side.

Effectively, we're basically investing the same amount as we announced during final investment decision. It also doesn't trigger any additional revenues.

What is quite clear in our mind is that the location has become more attractive, and so there's more expansion opportunities, especially with the Middle East conflict still existing. The opportunity for Canada to supply to Asia to the Asia market will be more favorable, and as a result, the position of Prince Rupert as an export location will be more beneficial going forward.

We hope that there is an opportunity for us to further expand the facility, that the volumes at the start will be relatively strong, and definitely we should be able to make, let's say, the multiples we have given to the market at FID.

Very clear. Thank you very much.

Morning, all. Thijs Berkelder, ABN AMRO Oddo BHF.

Congrats with the better-than-expected performance. Can you explain maybe the strong rise in the Dutch JV results, and can you explain what this means in terms of uptick for these terminals?

I guess these are the gas terminals, what it means for the uptick in proportional EBITDA reporting on these Dutch JVs? Then a second question is on corporate costs.

They are much lower than usual, probably due to lower usage of your captive insurance, but maybe also because of maybe a bit of accounting change in terms of bonus accruals. Explanation there also is welcome.

Related to that, is there any impact already or expected for next year of the new pension system in the Netherlands? Third question is on and that's simply a reporting question.

I missed the slide on the breakdown of proportional EBITDA per product type. Can you provide us with the proportional EBITDAs per product type in hard numbers, please?

I have a couple of other questions, but let's start here.

Let me start with the first question on the Dutch JVs. Indeed, strong rise.

One of the main reason here is obviously we had quite some technical challenges, if you may recall, during 2025 at our terminal in Eemshaven, the EemsEnergyTerminal. That was solved effectively, the technical challenge, beginning of this year, and as a result, you see quite a bit of an uptick in the results of that joint venture.

That is the main reason for, let's say, the better performance of the Dutch joint ventures. On your second question, the corporate cost, indeed, less cost in the captive because we had less damages than we had last year, so that's quite a change.

On the other hand, we're quite focused on making sure that we are efficient and effective as a company. What you may have noticed that over time, effectively, if you look at corporate costs, which is a combination of the global office as well as our global IT department, that cost has come down quite a bit as well, and the cash out of that has been reduced due to several measures.

If you go back to 2021, 2022, approximately 20% or even above 20% of our free cash flow were corporate costs. Now we're sort of at around 11%, 12%, which is still an ambition to go below the 10%, on one hand by making sure that the efficiency still is being driven, and on the other hand, obviously we want to grow our free cash flow and create economies of scale with an efficient and effective global model.

That's on the second question. On the third question, the new pension system is not going to have any impact on the results for next year, so that's neutral.

There was already a strong disconnect between the pension fund and the company in terms of accounting impact. By the way, also nothing changed what you said in the second question on our bonus accruals.

They are still the same as we applied them in previous years. The last question on providing that information, we will do that after the call to you.

Coming back on the JV results in terms of proportional EBITDA, is there also a similar jump in proportional EBITDA for the Dutch gas terminals then? Because they have the same technical challenges which have been solved.

Should be, but let us check on the exact numbers, Thijs, and then we will provide that to you.

Because the uptick is stronger, I think, much stronger than previously guided, in my view. Then coming back on Middle East effects, you shortly mentioned Fujairah.

Can you really explain what is currently happening in Fujairah, in India, and the rest of Asia? Your aggregated occupancy rate for the region goes down to 88%, but probably Fujairah is well below that 88%, and maybe a view on the structural role of Fujairah going forward.

It seems with South Africa so strong now that part of the clients maybe now are using South Africa as a kind of intermediate hub instead of locations like Fujairah. Can you maybe make more explicit what is currently happening in the LPG flows into India?

Hey, morning, Thijs. Maybe a few things on I think, first, Fujairah.

First and foremost, our people and assets are safe. That has been quite a sensitive period during some moments in Q2.

Let's not forget, first of all, that Fujairah is outside of the Strait of Hormuz, but the current activity for products that are flowing into Fujairah that come from the Arabian Gulf, have to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, is limited. Actual activity levels are relatively low, and that is indeed one of the reasons for the drop in occupancy in Asia-Middle East.

It's a large capacity, indeed that's where the drop sits. It also has to do with the fact that during the first phase of the conflict, some capacity was damaged and had to be taken out of service.

That's capacity that is also taken into account when you take a look at that lower occupancy. I think that's roughly Fujairah.

Maybe to immediately add to that, what do we how do we look at maybe the longer-term perspective of Fujairah and the role of South Africa. I believe, with everything going on and if we talk to people in the region, the strategic importance of Fujairah going forward, assuming that there is some sort of a normalization in the conflict, is going to be very, very important because, as I said, it is located out of the Strait of Hormuz.

Both from an UAE perspective, but also from a Saudi point of view, it continues to be a highly attractive location to export and therefore also use it as a trading location of all the products that are traded and produced in the Arabian Gulf. We have land available and are in active discussions with multiple people on what could be done in the medium to long term with the land that we have available.

Second of all, we have a jetty. We have an own jetty in Fujairah that makes the location in the port of Fujairah, our location, also quite attractive.

That is, I think, for a later moment. For now, we just have to wait for the moment that things will stabilize before we can fully concentrate on that.

While it stabilizes, yes, we go through a bit of a rough period because it's obviously the activity level is just extremely low. We need to continue with the efforts that we have to keep our people and the assets safe.

I think to your question about South Africa, we don't see yet an impact that all of a sudden South Africa is already playing a kind of a hub function because of the fact that products are flowing by and hence it's being used as a staging point. We don't see that yet.

What we have seen in South Africa is just a very strong fuel distribution market. We were able to cater for quite some additional volumes, and our spot business in South Africa has done really well in Q2.

Again, too early to say what it will do in the longer term, but still healthy and hence we're also investing in the expansion over there. Whether it's taking over as an alternative to Fujairah, I think that's not something that we foresee at this moment.

Then maybe on India and the impact of the conflict on India, India has been struggling to find the necessary LPG for the country, but have found ways to either get product minimal product out of the Middle East, as well as source LPG from different locations. That is still that is first of all having an impact on the results in Q2 because the activity levels have been lower than what we would have expected, and that continues to be like that, I think, for the remainder of this year, again depending a bit on how the flows of the Middle East for LPG will recover.

I hope that provides you with a bit of color.

One add-on remark on your statements on Fujairah. I think the Iranian leadership has defined Fujairah as inside the Strait of Hormuz regarding their toll zone.

That's to be [chuckles] discussed upon with Oman, probably, that has been my understanding. If you just go by the

I'm not into that part of the definition. I'm just referring to physically, geographically where it's located, and it's always good to remind everyone it is on the east side of the Emirates.

It's in that sense outside of the Strait of Hormuz. That doesn't say anything about whether it can be reached with rockets or drones.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thijs, on your EBITDA question for the joint ventures, it is a combination of EemsEnergy and also better results at the Gate terminal, but predominantly EemsEnergy, but also some positive impact of the Gate terminal.

Yes, good morning to all and also on behalf of myself, congratulations on the strong performance in Q2 despite all the turbulence globally. On the comments you made in the report on the chemicals and oil, but particularly chemicals, the performance, it looks to have been quite strong.

Do you see that as maybe a structural turn to the positive, or is it more a consequence of all the disruptions globally that you may have seen a temporary lift in activity levels in the chemicals? Because if I understand correctly, that was kind of the weak spot over the past, let's say, quarters.

That's my first question. The second question, on the contract renewal discussions, also given the quite satisfactory level of occupancy, despite the disruptions here and there.

The third question I have is, on the let's say on the EBITDA run rate, and also appreciating your lift in the full-year guidance. Now with 305 or so in Q2, what kind of assumptions do you foresee why would it drop below 300, particularly because of the additions of this 300 million in projects that come on stream somewhere in the second half?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me that, given where you are now and the run rate going forward in the second half, it appears that let's say 300 million should be some kind of a bottom level in EBITDA on the quarterly rate. Thanks.

Hey, Dirk. Maybe I'll take the first two, and then Michiel will take your last question.

On the chemical side, indeed we've seen a bit of an uptick in Q2, and that's more on the temporary side than that it's a structural, fundamental change in that market. Because of a lot of the disruptions, we've seen a bit of spot inquiries in both Singapore as well as, to a certain extent, in Belgium.

That's what we've seen, but that's quite temporary, I would say. I think the only location which is kind of benefiting in terms of activity level and therefore ancillary revenues for us is the US.

Because the US, no matter how you look at it from a petrochemical point of view, is and has been quite a competitive producer. We see that in Deer Park mostly, that was a relatively healthy performance.

I think that's on chemicals. On the contract renewals, yeah, it's a very I understand the question.

With 91% occupancy, it's a very regional discussion. We see healthy opportunities for renewals in some products in, for instance, ARA, in Europoort for oil.

We see it for some products in Asia as well, in Singapore and in Pengerang. It may not surprise you that if you then talk about potential contract renewals in Fujairah, we don't have the strongest hand over there to go through those discussions.

It's a bit of a mixed bag, but I think that's all been taken into account when we also talk about outlook. Maybe with that, over to Michiel for the outlook and some of the assumptions there on the run rate.

Yeah.

Clearly, let's say the EBITDA run rate has been quite strong in the first half year. In the second half, what we assumed, effectively obviously we will add, let's say, some of the growth there, but the major impact there is Q4, when we bring the Gate terminal tank 4 on stream, so that's one quarter of additional growth.

We also factor in that the conflict in Iran between Iran and the US in that region of the Middle East will take longer than expected. That is still obviously quite volatile.

We don't know exactly where it ends, we factored that into our outlook as well. If the conflict would be over quite soon, well, and the impact is far less than what we expect, then obviously we will end at the higher end of the range.

If the conflict worsens and, well, there is still a risk that the conflict worsens because also around the Suez Canal there might be challenges going forward, then there is still a risk that we end up at the lower end of the range. That's how we looked at it from an outlook point of view.

Thanks.

Thanks for clarifying.

You're welcome.

Good morning, gentlemen. Two questions, please, on the growth projects.

I think the run rate from the EBITDA contribution from growth projects increased to 19 million in the first half. I think previously your guidance included around 35 million for the full year.

Is that still a relevant number to use, or has that now increased? I think, Michiel, you highlighted the fourth tank of Gate LNG coming online in Q4.

How do you see that contribution from growth projects for the full-year guidance? Then the second question, on the battery energy storage investments of 371 million, is it fair to assume that amount is spent all today?

I was wondering if you can give an indication on what the EBITDA contribution and the returns will be. I think from your slides, you talk about less than eight times EBITDA from 2028 and beyond, but maybe a bit more guidance on how we should model that investment.

Thank you very much.

The second question, the 371, it's not all spent today, it will be spent over time. It is basically we will be constructing projects in the coming 1.5, close to two years, that's effectively happening.

That cash out goes partly in '26, mainly in '27, and then maybe the last part in '28. Then in '28, these projects are going to contribute.

Multiples are indeed quite close to the eight times, if you assume eight times, then it's a doable number for us. We have always given a range of six to eight times for, let's say, any energy transition investments.

That's where these investments are. In terms of EBITDA, that will also be very close to the free cash flow multiple because operating capex for these sites will be relatively low.

Then on the run rate, well, effectively we had 35 million, we expect a bit of a higher contribution of growth to 45 million. That's what we factor in now as growth contribution for the full year.

Very clear. Thank you very much.

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

I have three. Apologies beforehand if I repeat some questions because I got kicked out of the call quite a few times.

My first one is, yeah, on the strong second-quarter performance and then the upwardly revised outlook for the year. I was just wondering what assumptions regarding the duration of the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict are baked into the up guidance, and what events, side effects would you take into account or would you consider relevant in revising your outlook downwards?

Secondly, on Ridley, you commented about a delay, amongst others, linked to adverse weather conditions. The in-service date is now foreseen in the second year-half of 2027.

I know you do not give guidance or outlook statements on '27 yet, but could you give a hint on what the impact could be on incremental free cash flow or proportional EBITDA versus 2026 guidance linked to this delay? Then finally, on AVTL, on India and LPG, we see the proportional occupancy rates in coming down in your reporting.

Is the full impact there of the disturbed LPG flows already reflected in the numbers, or can we still expect a deterioration going forward? Thank you.

Christophe, I'll take a few and Michiel will take a few. Good morning to you.

I think, first, our assumption on where the conflict, how long the conflict will continue, as Michiel already indicated in the previous question, we expect on the outlook for the conflict to be around until the end of the year, or at least not to be materially resolved by the end of the year, let's call it like that. I think that's the way we've taken it into account.

I think the reason still why we therefore feel there's some uncertainty for that second half of the year is that the impact of lower activity levels will always take a little bit of time before that kicks in. That's where a bit cautious, especially on the Fujairah side, for that second half of the year.

I think that's one. I think is there a I think your second question, or at least a sub-question on the first, was is there a why would you revise that number downwards?

I think it's very hard to obviously exactly quantify what the outlook will what the impact of that Middle East will look like, and how it can all of a sudden be substantially different from how we are calculating it today. In that case, you have to look at I would say physical damage that is higher than what we see today in a terminal like Fujairah, and I think much more supply chain impact directly for the flows that are currently substituting some of the product that is coming out of the Middle East.

I think we've taken a reasonable assumption in that, but obviously it's such a volatile and uncertain situation that it's very hard to predict exactly how that will work. I think we have a cushion, but we also haven't been in situations like this a lot of times before to really be able to assess exactly what the impact will be.

We need to be cautious a bit on that side.

Maybe on Ridley, on 2027, effectively what you well, we indeed don't give any outlook for '27 or beyond, but if you look at the capex investment we're going to make, then obviously you can apply a certain multiple over that capex, which, by top of my head, we gave 6.5, around 6.5 times EBITDA. Please note that for this investment, let's say, the free cash flow might be higher than the EBITDA due to lease income.

That is an accounting requirement, effectively free cash flow will exceed the EBITDA, EBITDA plus, let's say, the lease income will make free cash flow, so that's at 6.5 times. If you take, let's say, somewhat of a delay and with an expected relatively quick ramp-up of the volumes, that's at least what is expected, you would think that at least 3/4 of that cash flow I just mentioned should land in 2027.

That's where we are today. Yeah.

I hope that gives a bit more clear picture.

Michiel, as a follow-up, because I read in the press release an in-service date somewhere in the second year-half, how do you then come up with 3/4 of cash flow landing in 2027?

There is some part of it, a smaller part, which will be commissioned in July indeed, there is an additional investment. The major investment goes into operation Q1, and then indeed there is a smaller investment of which our share is around €35 million, that comes online in July.

You're right. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

Then maybe on India?

Maybe on India, I think your question was, what is then the expectation for the second half of the year in terms of volumes in India? It's hard first to make a comment on the India entity, as it is a listed entity specifically.

If you take a look at where the flows are going, it's just quite erratic, I would almost say, for India. It takes some time for India to get the necessary LPG volumes to replace the ones that are missing from the Middle East.

That's what you see as an impact already, I think, in Q2. I think as long as the conflict continues, we have to get used to for the remainder of the year to that type of activity level in India when it gets to LPG.

I think the other part of India, chemicals and some of the oil products, continues to be quite healthy.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Sorry, typed the wrong numbers. Three add-on questions.

Can you maybe explain what the potential impact is of the opening of the Impala oil terminal in the Port of Rotterdam for what kind of impact you expect for your oil products operations in the port? Secondly, can you give an update on the outages in Mexico, what is happening there?

Third question is on you published for the first time for an interim dividend. What is the policy there being looked at in interim dividend, let's say in percentage of full-year dividend?

Is there any read-through from interim dividend towards full-year dividend?

Maybe on Impala first, Thijs. That terminal, the former HES terminal, is still in the process of being taken into operation, and quite some work has been put in.

We're trying to follow that closely where we can, and obviously stay close to our customers to make sure that we secure the right type of customers at our location. I think it's important to realize how strong the contract portfolio of the Europoort particularly is, with 25% of the entire Europoort is, in fact, industrial terminal capacity with a big refinery and everything associated to it.

There's a big crude position as well, if you add the capacity at the MOT. We're comfortable with the position that we have and the position that we have been able to build over many years.

Obviously, when a new competitor comes in into play, which by the way is owned by a trader, it's always a bit yeah, it remains to be seen how attractive that will be also for other people to pick up capacity at a terminal that is owned by a trader, in this case Trafigura. Let's see, but we are ready and need to be ready and alert for when it comes into operation.

I think the second one, outages in Mexico, not sure particularly what you're referring to, but is that the ullage that we have or the available capacity in Veracruz?

Yeah. Correct.

Currently no indication that that capacity will be picked up by new customers, and the complexity sits also in the way Mexico runs their fuel deficit and fuel pricing. It's very hard for importers in general to build an attractive economic case for import and then selling diesel or gasoline into Mexico because the prices have been kept relatively low and the international prices are relatively high.

That's the simple math that makes it just very hard already for existing operations, let alone if you try to get a new customer in. What we are doing is preparing part of the capacity to swap that into chemical and other part of the storage, which is quite successful because there's enough market demand we expect for that.

The remainder of the capacity, yeah, we just have to be a bit patient to see if and when that market situation becomes attractive and customers would be willing to pick it up. Then Michiel will talk about the interim dividend.

The interim dividend indeed, what I said is around 40% of the previous dividend. By purpose, we looked at several other companies on the market, which we deemed comparable in terms of cash flows, and we thought that it's quite common practice to pay out 40%.

We don't want to give any indication for the final dividend as a result of our interim dividend. The final dividend will still be in line with our policy, at least a 5% increase, and that will be determined once we have the final year results.

For now, we take around 40% of the previous dividend as interim dividend.

Okay. Thanks very much.

You're welcome.