Good, Wednesday morning and welcome to the Q3 presentation for Saga Pure. Special welcome, of course, to those of you who met up here today, but of course also to those following online. Our mission in Saga Pure is still pure growth. We seek out and invest in the companies that contribute to a greener future. Our unique, network and co-location with our biggest owner gives us a very generous deal flow, and we are way beyond 100 different opportunities evaluated so far this year, only invested in a couple. Being listed on the main list of Oslo Stock Exchange also makes the share available to a wide range of investors, both nationally and internationally. Speaking of, I think if we combine the investors we have in the nominee accounts also in Saga Pure, we're close to about 20,000 today.
Our strategy is to combine financial and industrial expertise, both in management and the board. Over the first half of 2021, we had several industry experts join the team, making us very well equipped to evaluate all the opportunities that come our way. One of the key elements we've been working on over the last quarter, besides saying no to most opportunities, has been to continuously refine the tools we have at our disposal, so we can make even better investment decision. Continuous improvement is at the core of what we do as we also keep expanding the team, which we will either in Saga Pure or in our portfolio companies. We invest in everything from startups, IPOs as well as established players.
With the industry knowledge that we have in-house, it also allows us the opportunity to even start up companies ourselves together with other partners. Once invested, we follow up very closely with our portfolio companies, often taking board positions. The team we have in place now gives us a great comfort in going in early in many of the companies we invest in. Being a knowledgeable investor also makes us attractive for a lot of startup companies. I think this is also one of the reasons why we have a great number of private investors. Through our network, through our investments in early stage, we can give them access to investments they otherwise wouldn't have. This makes us relevant for institutional investors. They might not have the specific industry knowledge in-house.
There might not be specific analysis on the field or on the companies that they invest in. I think that makes us a broad appeal for the various investors out there. In terms of how we invest and where we invest, we have a very flexible ticket size. We can go in with a small amount of investment or a large, and we also have a global reach through our extensive network, which we keep expanding. We are also in dialogue with several other investors and funds evaluating interesting investment opportunities together. The green tech sector continued its bumpy ride in the third quarter. In terms of highlights, what surely was a highlight was the options we exercised in Bergen Carbon Solutions. At the time of negotiations, you never know how much an option is worth.
With regards to that company, we know the answer now, a lot. If our results during the last quarter were boring, what does this make this quarter's results of -10? Well, it ain't pretty, but it ain't ugly either. I'll explain. Net profit from operations is, as we pointed out last quarter, very dependent on a few number of our investments, and the development of those investments and the share price the last day of the quarter. With Bergen Carbon Solutions being treated as an associated company, the development of the share price in that company is not reflected in the P&L and not in the net profits.
The return on equity so far this year is 15.4%, and after paying out dividends in the quarter, we still have a comfortable NOK 704 million at the end of the quarter. Last quarter, one of the headlines in one of the financial newspapers in Norway was that Saga Pure had a hidden profit of several hundred millions. For this quarter, we decided to shed some light on those hidden profits. Here you see Bergen Carbon Solutions in terms of how it is booked in our reporting and what the actual market value and development has been. In terms of value and net profit, the difference is NOK 276.5 million.
If we took this into account when calculating the return on equity, the number would not be 15.4, it would be 45.5. Using yesterday's share price, it would be a whopping 70%. We have a lot of different investments. When we have a high ownership share in one of them, either if it performs very well, like the case of BCS, or poorly, those developments will not be reflected in the P&L. As for the key developments, I already mentioned the options we exercised in Bergen Carbon Solutions. We also increased our ownership in Heimdall Power during the quarter. There were some options that were exercised by some of the other owners in the company. We snatched most of those and increased our ownership share to 18.3%.
Post those options exercised and registered, we'll have 17.8% ownership in that company. We also paid dividends and we spent considerable time with our portfolio companies, which will hopefully bring positive results down the road. Speaking of portfolio companies, let's go briefly through the latest development in those. Starting off with Horisont Energi, who are building blue and green ammonia value chains in addition to CO2 capture and storage. They've made good progress over the last quarter, among other things, entering into an important agreement and cooperation with Equinor and Vår Energi. They're firming up the discussions with the infrastructure investors to build this plant up in the north. It's gonna cost a lot, but hopefully there will be some good profits from that plant when it's up and operating as well.
They signed a lot of important agreements with other stakeholders related to that project. With the price development we've seen on CO2 and on the natural gas in Central Europe, all this has made us a lot more excited about the prospects for Horisont Energi going forward. There's Bergen Carbon Solutions. Lots of attention on this company around this time, and there's a reason for that. They developed an exciting technology converting CO2 into valuable carbon nanofiber, which is a super material, which basically improves the key properties of most materials you mix it with. They've strengthened the organization over the quarter. They've started continuous production of carbon nanofibers, also improving on the product quality, and they're being noticed both locally and internationally.
They won a startup award and also were awarded their first commercial contract, which is extremely important for the company. They signed an LOI with a Japanese company to establish a project where they mix these carbon nanofibers into the anode of the battery. Batteries is a massive market, and we are excited about the prospects for BCS to capitalize on those opportunities. Pryme, who are developing a chemical recycling project, recycling plastics, basically, they have a unique technology which they've been working on for a number of years. Over the course of the quarter, the most important event for this company was the announced strategic collaboration agreement with Shell, which enables them to have a good offtake for the pyrolysis oil, and they'll deliver this both to Netherlands and in Germany.
They've also strengthened the board with highly relevant and knowledgeable individuals, and we're pleased to see the progress they're making as they're going closer to the realization of the first plant in 2022. Heimdall Power, we've talked about them earlier also. They have developed the technology to digitalize the electric grid, potentially allowing for lots more power to flow through the cables. The power prices of late has been quite high up on the agenda for a lot of people, so this can potentially reduce the grid costs for the customers. They're also strengthening the organization. They have good progress on the customer dialogues. I mean, these are also very long dialogues with big institutions and grid operators which take time to decide what they want to have.
We're getting good feedback from these grid operators that are now testing these Neurons. We're optimistic about how they will perform in the market. They're also making improvements both to the software and hardware, making the products even more attractive. There's IC Technology. They're developing a solution which addresses one of the really big challenges with hydrogen and especially liquid hydrogen, how to store and distribute large amounts of it, both over time and over distance. Over the last quarter, the company has made two key hires, both the CEO and CTO, and I'm really looking forward to hearing more from ICT and their new CEO later today. There's HYON. At the end of Q2, we acquired about a third of that company. They're developing bunkering solutions or fueling solutions for the maritime sector.
That is one of the missing pieces, so to speak, to allow for a big development of zero emission fuels for the maritime sector. They have gotten off to a good start. They've hired several high competence people, and they've also made good progress on developing the concept for bunkering of these ships. It's going to be really exciting to follow the progress of HYON going forward, with one hand on the steering wheel. With that, we already talked about maritime with HYON. As you know, we have our own maritime industry expert, Jørgen Kopperstad. We plan to make fireside chats into a tradition in Saga Pure. We're starting off with the ocean space.
We'll have a little bit of a scene change also, so I'll move over to a table where Jørgen is waiting, and we'll continue from there. All right, Jørgen, w elcome to the fireside. You had a bit of a interesting journey going over here yesterday f rom the West Coast.
It's okay. I'm here now.
Good. Jørgen, as I mentioned, you live on the West Coast, so please tell us a little bit about yourself, your background.
Thank you, Bjørn. Yes, I'm born on the West Coast of Norway in the maritime environment, and I've always known that my career would be about the maritime industry. It's in my blood. During my education, I fell in love with thermodynamics, and I realized that there are practical alternatives to fossil fuel ships. I also noticed that only minor changes could be made to have major impacts on fuel efficiency of ships and emissions. This made me take a master's degree in renewable energy technology, specializing in numerical approaches to ship energy analysis. This again gave me the opportunity to work in the maritime industry with those issues, energy analysis, performance of fuels, and et c. This was, yeah, this is really interesting. It's something that encourages me a lot.
You fell in love with thermodynamics?
Yes, I did. [crosstalk]
Let's take that later. I've dedicated my career to the removal of those 1.1 billion tons of CO2 from shipping. That is my burning desire, to remove those.
Okay. I guess you've owned a lot of boats yourself also?
Yeah, you can say so, but.
You know how many?
Boats? A few. I have only one, but it needs some fixing.
I see. Well, you've also been working in the maritime industry in Norway. What role does Norway as a nation has in this field, especially with regards to zero emissions, and what impact are we making?
Norway have always been a front runner on maritime industry. It's a maritime nation. I also think that it's important to recall that this transition that we're talking about today beyond going to hydrogen and etc , it's not the first transition we've seen in the maritime industry. We went from sails to steam, and from steam to fossil fuels or fuel oil, etc , and from fuel oil to diesel electric, and now we have batteries, and we're talking about hydrogen and ammonia and its derivatives. This is simply the next step.
We're going full circle. We started out zero-emission and now we're kind of back to the start.
Funny thing that. It's also important to notice that Norway is really a front-runner on battery technology. If you look at the order books until 2026, Norway have ordered more vessels, more seagoing vessels on batteries than the rest of Europe, or the rest of the world if you take out Europe. Norway is really, like, in the front when it comes to zero-emission technologies for ships and I think we should utilize that for also implementing hydrogen and ammonia propulsion lines. That's important
We can afford it, right?
Yes, we can. There is a really strong political drive in Norway to do so. We have several pilot projects. For example, the Norled ferry, which will commence operation early next year, and we have Bodø Lofoten. That's a game changer, Bjørn. It's massive. It's a seagoing vessel, four-hour transition from Bodø to Lofoten in harsh weather conditions. It will consume approximately seven tons, that's the estimates for, of hydrogen each day. Let's look at those numbers. We today have an overall hydrogen production of 20 tons of liquid hydrogen in Europe, and that's from three different facilities, and Bodø Lofoten will consume seven of those. That points out the needed investments in that industry.
Gets me excited about liquid hydrogen and hopefully also ICT. We established we can be very proud of ourselves in Norway. What about outside? What's happening globally? Are there any initiatives that's worth mentioning? Any countries that are in the lead? What's happening out there?
Let's look at it. In 2019, 6% of the new builds, ordered new builds, were ordered with new fuel lines, primarily LNG. In 2020, this doubled to 12%. I, of course, hope for another doubling in 2021, but we know that that's not going to happen. This going zero emission thing is not only a Norwegian thing. For example, in California, we have the Water-Go-Round project, which is a fast ferry passenger vessel going on compressed hydrogen. We have Havila Kystruten, which is prepared for liquid hydrogen. We have Maersk, who have ordered new vessels prepared for methanol. We can keep going for hours and hours.
There is projects all over and harbors, countries and other stakeholders are setting their targets for when they are to be zero emission.
Let's talk about CO2. I mean, no sector gets a free pass, certainly not the maritime sector. How big of a CO2 problem is the maritime industry?
Shipping stands for about 3% of the overall emissions. That's an interesting number 'cause shipping also stands for 90% of the world trade. Three percent maybe sounds little, but it also corresponds to 1.1 billion tons of CO2, or 1.1 billion. How much is that actually? We can try to compare it to something else. Let's look at the Northern Lights projects. That's a major investment for Norway.
That's a big CO2 storage project, right?
Yes, absolutely. It's very big. You would need 733 such projects to tackle the emissions from shipping. 733. Would you like another example? It's shocking, and it's also kind of a business opportunity. That's what I'm getting. It's massive. That's huge.
Yeah, absolutely. You obviously need to go to zero emission to tackle that. What are the targets to reduce the CO2 now?
The target is IMO are aiming at a 40% reduction in CO2 intensity by 2040. An overall reduction of 50% within 2050. You also have, like, the Norwegian Shipowners' Association, which have said that we will not order any fossil fuel ships after 2030. You have several such stakeholders who have different targets.
Now, that's quite ambitious because I read that the emissions from 2008, which is kind of the set point, have risen 33%. It's 33% up, and then we have to reduce even more. It's kind of a big challenge.
Yes.
What is the sector doing then to reduce emissions and meet the targets by the International Maritime Organization? What are they doing? What do they want to do?
I think that's also, of course, very interesting 'cause they're, like, picking the lowest apples from the tree, the lowest hanging fruits, or actually they're more picking them from the ground. They are slowing down speed.
Slowing down speed?
Yeah. That's the easiest. If you are to reduce your fuel consumption from a car or a vessel or anything, slow down speed. That's what they're doing. They're slowing down speed, and their vessels are performing better. The need for trade is still the same, or actually it's increasing. We've for sure seen that the last year.
It's good for the shipbuilders.
Yeah. They're building more ships, and the emissions have went up in overall.
We've established that the maritime sector, they have a significant impact on the CO2 emissions. I mean, CO2 is one thing. I'm interested also in energy. What are we talking about in terms of energy volume, kilowatt hours or a different term? Also hydrogen, what is needed then if we want to decarbonize this in terms of volume?
I will leave that answer with two words, 11 exajoules.
11 exajoules? What does that mean? Can you translate that?
Yes, I'll try. Okay. If you assume that, an average Norwegian household consumes about 20,000 kWh each year. That's, yeah, I'm not sure if that's the average, but let's say that. You would need 150 million such households to represent the energy consumption from shipping.
150 Million, so it's big.
Yeah. Really big.
If we're now saying that we want to go zero-emission, what are we then talking about in terms of tons of hydrogen or ammonia, whatever?
Well, let's look at it, Bjørn. You know, hydrogen is like a major component or an important component of all of the zero emission fuels, most of them. You would need 46 million tons of green hydrogen produced annually to replace fossil fuels from ships. That is, some of it will be used for ammonia, and some of it for methanol, some of it will be used purely as hydrogen. 46 million tons. That's according to IRENA.
Gets me excited. In terms of the various zero emission fuels out there, I mean, which one are being implemented? Which one will suit for which application?
I dare to say, Bjørn, that we will for sure see a combination, and it's dependent on your operational profile. It depends how you will use your ships. For example, batteries, they are fantastic. They're really efficient, and you can apply them for many various applications, but they're also very heavy. Even though their heaviness is improved by 10x , you, it's still not possible to use them purely for the deep sea applications. You have compressed hydrogen, which can be a bit more lighter than batteries, but they're not as efficient. They're not toxic. Liquid hydrogen is, you can store even more energy by use of liquid hydrogen than compressed hydrogen, and it's still not toxic. You have ammonia, which you can store even more energy than from liquid hydrogen, but it's toxic.
Methanol, which can be compared to LNG, it can be used for many of the LNG applications, but it's not CO2 free, but it can be carbon neutral or net zero, so to say. It depends on your application. We've already seen a real fuel mix today. For example, car ferries are running on batteries in Norway today, most of the new built car ferries. We have seen that, as I mentioned earlier, we have Havila Kystruten, which have ordered hydrogen-prepared coastal ferries, and Maersk who have done similarities with methanol and the Seas project. There is a mix in the orders and there have also been a mix previously. We have had heavy fuel oil, LNG, diesel oil, etc . I'm sure there will be a mix.
You wouldn't place all your money on one bet here?
No, absolutely not.
Okay. Besides, the industry's own ambitions stand, what are the most important regulations to kind of squeeze the industry into the right path?
Absolutely. I would like to look at regulations as a set of tools. It's a toolbox that the authorities can use to monitor and control the emissions from shipping. IMO, for example, now have implemented new measures that will take place from 2023, which will control the emissions from shipping. Let me have an example. If you are to order this glass transported from Shanghai to Rotterdam, from 2023, the ship owners or the shipping companies will have to document the real CO2 footprint of doing so. Not only will they have to document it, but the cap around the CO2 emissions will be strengthened. Some have said that these new measures are useless, and from 2023, they are not, they are maybe a bit conservative, but they will be strengthened.
We have already seen that from 2023, ship owners would have to scrap or modify their ships to be in line with those new regulations. That's only the IMO. You also have the European Union, which has implemented shipping into its Emissions Trading System, which means that you would have to buy carbon quotas if you are emitting more CO2 than you're allowed to. To ensure that importers not are importing their way out of the CO2 fees, they have added the CBAM system, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which puts limits for the imported goods at the same as you would have done inside Europe.
Let's say everything is in place then, regulations, capital, enthusiasm, and all of that stuff. What are the remaining hurdles if everything else has been taken care of?
I believe then that most of the technology is there. We have analyzed the whole value chain, so we have like a brief overview of the technology space. I can point at mainly three issues, so to say. First of all, it's a chicken and egg issue. As I mentioned earlier, only a Vestfjorden project will consume seven tons of hydrogen, which is almost half of the overall liquid hydrogen produced in Europe today. That's gray, very emitting hydrogen. We would need infrastructure up and running quickly. It's interesting then to see that Enova has granted funding for 15 pre-projects along the Norwegian coasts, which aims at developing this hydrogen infrastructure. This is about to get there now. We have like a cooperation between public funding, private funding, and the industry, which is about to develop this infrastructure.
It's also important, the second one, standards. If you order a ship today, it's difficult to say what it would cost. Would you order a ship if you didn't know what it costs? There are no standards, or there are some, but they are premature. If you order ships, I think it's necessary to have the standards up and going before you really hit the markets.
The last one, the third point is, think out of the box. I don't believe that the future value chains, the zero emission value chains will be very similar to the ones we have today. I see that many of the studies, the ongoing studies or the reports, they assume that the value chains are similar. You have to think out of the box. Maybe you don't need to sail from Shanghai to Rotterdam, one stop. Maybe you can stop fueling midway. That's, yeah, roughly.
On a high-end station, of course.
Yeah, on a high-end station. We will make sure that that will be possible.
You said most parts of the value chain are in place. I mean, what parts are still missing?
Yeah. As I mentioned, we analyzed this, and that's where HYON comes in, 'cause we saw that there are few or no commercially available technologies for bunkering of hydrogen. That's why we invested in HYON, 'cause we saw that they already had done significant work in developing so. As I mentioned, infrastructure and the needed production capacity of zero emission fuels. That's why we invested in Horisont Energi, right? Thirdly, I would like to also point at ICT, which we'll present next, I think. They have this technology that, yeah, I would like to call it a game changer.
As I mentioned earlier, that's large words, right? As I mentioned earlier, many of the reports and the studies which are to, like, highlight the market forecast for 2015, etc , they have assumptions and limitations. ICT's technology moves those limitations, which enables you to store more liquid hydrogen inside your vessel than what's been previously possible.
Moving the boundaries of possible. I like that. Well, with that, I think we'll wrap up this session. Thank you very much, Jørgen, for your contributions.
Thank you.
We'll move on to a presentation. We'll do a little bit of a scene change again. We'll move on to a presentation by Leiv Låte, which is the newly appointed CEO of ICT. Leiv, this is a bit of a flying start, isn't it?
It is. I've been here for a week now, so this is a flying start.
All right. There you go.
Thank you, Bjørn. We are in a green transition. Going from oil fuels to green energy is challenging, but it is possible. We believe that hydrogen can contribute to a significant removal of emissions in the long term. Today's immature technologies puts a limit on the use of liquid hydrogen, as a competitive fuel. Our technology is a game changer. It's a game changer for storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen.
Today's production of liquid hydrogen is about 350 tons per day. The highest limitation for further use is immaturity of technology and lack of infrastructure for both transportation and local distribution. According to IRENA, 10% of the marine fuel will be liquid hydrogen in 2050. That corresponds to 4.6 million tons. This is by use of today's technology. We believe that this can increase significantly in the years to come. From statistics from marine shipping, we have calculated the average amount of fuel of ships going from Shanghai to Rotterdam. The amount of fuel, we have then converted that amount of energy into how much hydrogen is needed to sail the same distance without any refueling on the ways.
We can use that amount of hydrogen to calculate the weight, the size of the hydrogen tank needed for that boat to sail. We compare, then we do a comparison of the tank with the ship size. We conclude that about 60%-65% of ships are addressable to the liquid hydrogen market. These numbers is the same as 28 million tons of liquid hydrogen. If we compare the Enova estimates with ICT estimates showing introduction of new technologies and using new technologies, we can see that we are able to stretch the conservative Enova estimates up towards the ICT way of thinking or estimates by the use of new technology. New technology can be more effective production of hydrogen, can be liquefaction, can be transport or storage.
We believe that it's possible to produce more than the IRENA says. Liquid hydrogen comes with a set of positive benefits with all but also with some limitations. Most of the negative properties is connected to the negative or to long-term storage and transport of liquid hydrogen. ICT has put a lot of effort into overcome the negative properties of hydrogen. We can start with we have an active cooling system or a smart cooling system. The smart cooling system means that we have a constant low temperature and pressure, means that we have a low boil-off in the storage tanks. A low boil-off allows us to transport and store liquid hydrogen over a long time and at long distances at sea.
The low pressure in the tanks allows us to design the tanks with lower weights than traditional tanks. Traditional tanks also need some expansion volume. They are often only filled 70%-80% of the total capacity of the tank. ICT does not need to think about that. I will come back to that in the next slide. Due to the low pressure in the tanks, a prismatic design can be used. It can have a free form, or the tanks can be free-formed, and this can be used to utilize the whole tank or the whole hull of a ship, for example, to optimize the amount of hydrogen in the ship. How can liquid hydrogen tanks have some benefits? We have to go into Jørgen's favorite thermodynamics.
If we start at the figure at the right side, we see density of hydrogen as a function of pressure. The blue line represent compressed hydrogen. If you compress hydrogen, the higher the pressure, the higher the density. The opposite is the case for the liquid hydrogen. When we fill up the containers or the tanks, both conventional systems and ICT tanks are filled at atmospheric pressure. The difference between those is that the conventional tanks, they don't have the smart cooling system that ICT has. Over time, they will start the boil-off will start, the pressure will build up. What happens when the pressure builds up? What happens is that the density falls down or is reduced.
When the density is reduced, the volume or the fluid takes more space, and they need that expansion volume they have set off. ICT, with its cooling system, is operated at a constant low pressure, constant low temperature, and then they can utilize the whole tank volume. If we compare ICT's solution to other tank system, we can see that there are several advantages. The low pressure reduces the wall thickness and reduces weight. It increases the competitiveness towards other tanks. The high mass efficiency factor is also a positive thing. Mass efficiency factor is the weight of hydrogen divided by total weight of tank, including hydrogen. Due to ICT's low tank weight, its high density of hydrogen and no spare volume or no expansion volume, the efficiency factor is way above the other tanks.
The heat flux is a measure of how much heat goes into the tank. The ICT heat flux is approximately one-fourth of the competitors. That means that the tank is very suitable for storage of hydrogen over long time. ICT is a Trondheim-based company founded in 2009. It is based on 30 years of experience from the LNG industry. All the information, all the technology is then transferred into hydrogen. We have five patents today, and we have three under way. There are two different concepts in the technology. The membrane tank concept used for large tanks and vessels. In this case, for example, the hull of the ship will be used as a structure support, and the membrane is coated on the walls of the hull.
We have the fuel and transportable tank systems without membrane. The fuel tank also includes an evaporator system. The different signs can be employed to a wide range of tanks and sizes from less than a cubic meter up to 400,000 cubic meters with different types of technologies. We can use it from trucks and ferries up to the huge car carriers and onshore storage tanks. The membrane tank is constructed with two barriers and leak detection in both. The boil-off gas is used as a cooling medium to ensure the low temperature. It's a modular design and construction, which means compartment rooms or tank can take any form. By use of membrane technology in the hull, the hull is used as the structural support. It's just coated on, as I said.
Here we see, as also Bjørn showed, an example of a hydrogen carrier. This can also be used for LNG. It can be used for both, and it has a cooling system inside. We can see how the hull is utilized. The whole hull is utilized by optimizing the volume of the boat. We have AiP approval in principle from DNV for this system already. The fuel tank concept is here illustrated by a container. In this case, the whole system is designed by ICT. It also includes the structural support. The evaporator ensures that the customer has its hydrogen at to the fuel cells at the correct temperature, the correct pressure, and the correct flow rate. The containers will be designed for transportation on road and railways as well.
This is an example of a customer initiated project. They wanted us to look at how we can put a tank on the deck of a fast ferry and compare the weight to conventional methods. We have compared the weight of ICT solution to compressed hydrogen tank and to a liquid hydrogen tank. By comparing the weight with a liquid hydrogen tank, we can see that the difference in weight represent approximately 75 passengers, each of them 80 kg. By comparing it to compressed hydrogen, we can see an even higher difference. We have about 200 passengers in difference in weight. ICT is always the lighter one.
Here we have a large potential within several market segments, so we can use our applications from small trucks up to large carriers or large onshore storage tanks, and we use different technologies for these applications. The way forward. We have already had an approval in principle for DNV for the membrane tank. We are in the process of the same AIP with the DNV for the fuel tank. We are about to construct a demonstration tank in Trondheim today, and that will be tested during the next half year. We are about to freeze the design for the evaporator system. That will be constructed and tested during next year. We have a lot of customer contacts, both in Norway and in other countries worldwide.
The next step now is proof of concept. It is building organization. It is to have a tank installation together with a customer and to look at a huge membrane project, abroad. Thank you.
Thanks a lot, Leiv. Really interesting prospects for this technology. With that, we'll move on to the summary and outlook. As we have seen, the green correction that we have seen over the course of 2021 seems to be quieting down a little bit. The bumpy road is still bumpy, but it seems that there is some light at the end of the tunnel. With all that's happening now in terms of politics, regulations, and so forth, we are still optimistic, and even more so about the green technologies going forward. We are, as I mentioned, evaluating a number of interesting investment opportunities also together with other really good investors.
We have a good solid cash position, which enables us to be opportunistic in the market that we currently are in. We are also in dialogue with individuals that can play an important role both in Saga Pure as well as our portfolio companies. With that, it's time to move over to our Q&A session. It will be hosted by Espen Lundaas, our CFO, and there will be opportunity to ask questions to both Leiv, Jørgen, and myself. We'll do a little bit of scene change for that also.
Okay, Bjørn, we have received a few questions online. The first one goes to you. Do you only invest in companies case by case trying to pick the winners, or do you invest according to some plan for how the future portfolio should look like?
That's a very good question. I think it's a little bit of both. If there is a great opportunity coming our way, we obviously invest in that. Of course, now that we have a number of portfolio companies we are working actively with, we see both their hopes and worries for the future, both their pros and cons, and we try to take that into account as we view the market space. We have a lot of interesting dialogues in the team discussing what potential benefits we can have in investing in a company that also helps our current investment. It's a little bit of both, actually.
Thank you. Could you see yourself investing in and managing a group of companies with up- and downstream synergies like a green Aker ASA-like, or do you only plan on finding the winners and help them individually to success?
For the time being, we are looking for the winners, the winning technologies. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, I mean, our philosophy in Saga Pure is continuous improvement, continuous change. Where we will be one or two years from now, that's difficult to say now. If that is a direction we would want to take, if that makes sense for the company, then we'll take that direction. For the time being, we're more looking for specific companies that will take an important role in their field. In also having the opportunity of starting up companies ourselves, I think we have a little bit of both on that one also.
Thank you. Last question: Could you give us a sneak peek of what your vision for Saga looks like in five years-10 years, and how to get there?
It looks great, and it looks green. I mean, our target is to help the green transition. We have a fantastic team in place now. We will continue to grow that team to what size we haven't decided yet, and the same applies for Saga Pure. The most important thing is that we make good investment decisions, that we have fun at work, that we can provide real shareholder value to our shareholders. I'm not going to try to predict, at least not publicly, where we will be in four or five years, but I'm sure we'll be at a just as good and even better place than where we are now.
Thank you. That was the last question we had online. I don't know if there are any questions from the people that are present.
Heimdall, can you add any flavor on the progress there? Like which markets are you targeting? How far are you from kind of reaching the big milestones, etc ? I mean, I guess particularly Europe is of interest. Is that just my take or do you share the same view?
Well, Europe is the home market for Heimdall. With the development we've seen over the last half a year, and even for a much longer time if you follow this space, there are lots of opportunities. Heimdall is already engaged in several countries in Europe. It's a company at an early stage, so it's important to also maintain focus both on the technologies and to get some good successes in, which will enable you to have a much stronger product sales argument as you move into other markets. Obviously, the company is also registering what is happening outside of Europe with the grid issues we've seen across the world, especially in the U.S. and other markets.
They're not just having the myopic view of what's happening in Europe. It's certainly more of a scouting stage on what's happening outside with the focus on succeeding in Europe. It's a well-capitalized company. It's a great team in place. They're increasing that significantly also. As I mentioned, we have high expectations for Heimdall going forward.
Thank you.
You mentioned game changer and you did also for ICT. Can maybe you Jørgen can give some color on what specifically is it that makes this a game changer? Because I think it's kind of difficult for many investors to understand, you know, liquid hydrogen and then there's ICT. What's the actual difference and what's the game changer between the two? F rom a ship design point of view maybe.
Will do. I think we'll start with where we are today. Today, we're primarily using circular thermos tanks, which is what we know from the LNG industry. You have those circular things placed in the middle of the hull of the vessel, which takes a lot of space. They're not using or utilizing the space sufficiently, and you also have limits in how much cryogenic liquids you can store inside of those due to the evaporation of liquids. You may correct me, Leiv, or have other inputs too, but I think there is primarily two keynotes that we need to look at when it comes to ICT. It's the active cooling process, which allows you to increase the filling rate significantly, compared to those tanks that you have today.
You can use or utilize the space in the vessel much more sufficiently. If you have a vessel, and don't think about changing that vessel, but if you are to use the space sufficiently, you will have more capacity, significantly more capacity. We dare to say 10%-40% more if you use ICT's technology. That's what I call a game changer. In addition, the cooling system also reduces the boil-off significantly. That means that you can have it stored over a long time without too much loss.
You mentioned dialogues from around the world. What kind of players are contacting you?
We are talking to initiatives and projects in Norway. We are talking to huge facilities in like Korea and Japan and Australia. We're talking to carrier producers. There's a lot of interest around the world actually. Yeah.
We received some few questions at the end here for ICT. Do you feel that your technology is superior enough to capture the market from Hexagon Purus and other competitors that has a head start in commercialization?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hexagon, they have compressed hydrogen, don't they? It's another thing. We are into the liquid hydrogen, so we can store much more hydrogen in another way than they do. We are not saying that. I think there's room for both. I think there will be both compressed hydrogen, there will be liquid hydrogen, there will be ammonia and methanol. It's a mix of those fuels, but there is room for everybody in the future.
Also a question, related to ICT. Isn't it a problem to keep the liquid hydrogen so cold using a lot of energy?
It is. It is an energy intensive. When you have it cold, when it is first that cold, it is not too intensive to keep it cold. Of course it's -253 degrees , so it costs a lot of energy to liquefy it. Okay. I think that's it.
I think, with that, we'll wrap up the session. If you have any other questions to our speakers or myself, don't hesitate to send us an email, and we'll address you as soon as we can. Thanks for following the webcast, and have a great day, everyone.