 Hello, everyone, and thank you very much for having us. I'll wait a second until we get our presentation here. And well, first, let me introduce iSpeco to you. So iSpeco is a equipment manufacturer. To put it very simply, we manufacture pods for aircraft. However, I'm not sure how this thing should work. Hello. However, we're not just a manufacturer for pods. We also make all the onboard electronics, and we are actually surveyors for ourselves. We used to spend a lot of time in the air. I don't think we have our slides. That's the PDF. Yeah, but it should work. Anyways, yeah. So can you move to the next slide, please? Yeah, so the difference between us is that our pods are fully integrated, non-destructive, and we allow our customers, not us, but our customers to customize them, which ends up having quite a lot of use cases. And I want to look into economics of actual use case. What happens if you have multiple use cases for one scanner? Now it works. Everybody knows that everybody needs data. We're seeing industry 4.0 as a big driver, and 60% of my customers this year they're new to the market. They're usually drone surveyors, ground surveyors, who are moving into aerial market because their customers, cities, power utilities, and railways are always asking them for data because everybody is promising public that they're digitizing, they're doing digital decision making. But a problem that's very simple, that shit in means shit out, applies to digitization. If you have bad data, you really cannot do a digital transformation program. Again, yes. OK. So those of you who are familiar with any kind of aerial operation, when you go from a manned aircraft down to a UAV, you have pros and cons for each of the situations. Every scenario is going to have a peak of performance. When it comes to the UAV market, you are able to go into a much lower cost of entry. You are able to do small sites at a very, very high density, high resolution, but you do not have the same freedom. You don't have the same amount of work that you would have if you had a manned aircraft. What is important here is that what you could collect in a UAV may be incredibly vital. It may be incredibly dense, but it is something that could be collected most likely by a manned aircraft in a matter of minutes on what might have taken you days. So you have to pick your battles, so to speak, where you're going to go with a UAV versus a helicopter or a manned aircraft based on cost and efficiency. What that means is if you have something that is easily accessible and you're able to do large surveys with it, you can perform at high levels. There's a lot of upfront costs that comes with that. On top of the aircraft, you have sensors. They cost a whole lot more money to operate at those scales. On top of the operational costs of maintaining the aircraft, the sensors, the depreciation of value of every one of those assets, including permanent modifications you might have made to this aircraft to cut a hole in it to put a sensor in the middle. Where you have to be very mindful in operations are your fixed costs, variable costs, and additional costs that might not be known to all. You have fixed costs that you can plan for on an operational scale, but the way to increase your efficiency is to increase your work. You can bring down the cost per day, per mile, per hour based on more work. If you do not have a lot of work, that money is just eating away at your aircraft and your sensors. So you also have to plan for variable costs depending on cost of oil, the cost of unforeseen errors or any kind of issue that you might have with your aircraft. On top of the fact that not everybody accounts for down days. If you have bad weather, if you have an issue with your aircraft, it is not making money because it is not in the air. So what we're planning for here and what we're trying to make very apparent is that from a cost ownership perspective, you are going to spend more money in the long run by owning every single one of those assets than by going with a lower cost, more mobile efficiency system like Ispeco. Now, we broke this down based on the US market based on costs from similar vendors and taking it into account, you have all of these costs that you would not be expecting if you were first getting into the industry. This is basically a monthly cost of 22,000 US that if you are working or not, that is coming out of your bank account for that asset. Yeah, so now I want to go into some European numbers and visa factual figures from one of my customers. I have a customer who has a Vux 240 scanner from Regal with an Aplanix AP50 system with two phase one cameras. There's actually a thermal camera in there as well. Didn't want to make it too complicated. Now, this company operates mostly in central Europe and it has 170 suitable days to operate because this system is optimized for power line mapping. So out of the entire 365 days, we need to account that, we need the sun angle to be okay, we need the cloud cover to be okay, not to be too dark, not to be too bright. They need to be able to fly safely, they need to account for rain, which out of 365 days leaves 170, actually useful. Now, interestingly, when we look at actual days of operation, it goes down to 122. In some cases, they couldn't get a permit in time. In other cases, there was an unexpected maintenance problem, helicopter, which resulted in four days of downtime. In other days, they simply planned that weather is gonna be bad, but actually was good. So you will never, ever get 100% utilization from a single sensor. What it means that if you calculate the cost of sensor over a lifespan of four years, and we highly recommend calculating four years and not a lot more because new sensors come to market, customers want better data, more denser data, which means that at some moment, their useful life of your scanner is gonna clog down. This customer used to do approximately 14,030 kilometers a year of power lines per system, which means that capital asset costs on this kilometer alone left them at 8.2 euros per kilometer. Now, I'm saying utilization is the key because this customer approached me and asked me very simply, Mantas, can you make my system moveable so I can send it to Latin America and do a little bit of forestry work? What happened? So they've added a new region which has a reverse seasonality. That has expanded usable days from 170 to 300. This is already a very big increase. Obviously, it's not so simple to always transport sensor, so the actual utilization increased by only a fraction of that. It increased about to 160 days because they cannot always send the scanner, they need to keep it and so on, which means that their annual linear kilometers increased by about 4,000 to 18,400. That means the capital cost per kilometer decreased by two euros, which might not seem very, very big difference, but what it actually means, it means that they have additional 147,000 euros saved by simply being able to operate more kilometers. This does not account for a fact that they've actually could have got more profit by simply doing work. This simply means that you save on capital cost because you use the same sensor longer and then you can play with those two euros. It might not be a lot, but it's an extra benefit of 25% of capital cost which your competitors do not have because they're usually operating single system in a single region. Once you go beyond just the utilization and the additional revenue or cost that your competitors are taking in, we can start looking at how we might bring our costs down even more. So as we mentioned earlier, taking out the cost of owning an aircraft and maybe going into a rental market might be viable. In the US market, as we're using an example today, there are over 3,000 base operators inside of the confines of the continental US. All of those allow you to rent an aircraft, take a system like a Speco, and to mount it onto it without any modifications. You now have a system that you can transport across the entire nation and put it on an aircraft that is not yours and operate more days out of the year, operate at a higher efficiency than you would have before at a lower cost on your aircraft rates. When we looked at that in a very specific situation where we were operating and moving across the country, going from Kansas City down into Dallas, if we look at owning that aircraft, we have a project total, and this is on four hour round trip tickets. You're paying for the employees, you're paying for the gas, you're paying for everything on this project, it's coming out to 12,000. You switch that over into a rental space with the Speco system, and you now are at almost a quarter of the cost to do to that project than you would have before. Take that into account with your competitors, not only do you have more capital, you're saving more money. Yeah, so I don't want to make this a sales presentation, so any system might be able to do very similar things, but what you need for that to happen. Jared mentioned very nicely, Cessna 172, $250 an hour, Bell 206, $1,200 per hour. If you're tied in to Bell, you will be too expensive on some projects and you're simply not getting that work. If you're vehicle agnostic and you can move your system between different vehicles, you can get more work by simply being appropriately priced. You need to be able to configure your sensors. If you have oblique phase ones doing power line mapping, you need to be able to turn them into nadir ones when you're doing forestry. Not only that, if every time you want to change a configuration, you need to send it back to vendor, this is gonna cost you 12 weeks and approximately 5,000 to 10,000 euros or dollars for every change you wanna make and it screws up your economy. It needs to be configurable by you. So if you speak to any integration, you ask them, will I be able to change at least minimal parameters, focal lens, focus, sensor orientation by myself? These are not electronic, they do not interact with certificates, you need to be able to do that on your own. Another thing is you need to be able to install non-destructively. If your installation involves removing five seats, installing a server rack and cutting out a window, you will have a very difficult time renting an aircraft out anywhere, which means you are stuck to owning. If you own, it means if you have maintenance, you cannot fly. If your project is different region, you cannot fly. Another thing, it always boils down to people. You need to be able to train your operators to become pro users. They need to be able to change sensor parameters, they need to be able to unscrew, unscrew, change things in the system, not just click a few buttons and stick to watching the screen. And importantly, you need to make sure that if you want to make a move between systems, between aircraft and weekend, that your integrator is capable of doing that. A lot of them are, but you should always ask about it. They will always promise you it will, and then you need to hold them to your word. And now, finally, just comparing a traditional approach versus a speckle. And we can see from the numbers that we did curate, from the information that was provided, there is a competitive advantage. There is another option out there that it goes against the traditional norm of aerial remote sensing, collection, and acquisition. And through less capital, through more efficiency, for more flexibility, and increased ability to upgrade pieces of hardware, pieces of equipment, and to keep your staff trained up and moving on the go making money, there's another solution. And that's it. As I said, we wanted you to carry out one message, flexibility leads to utilization. Utilization of your sensors is absolute key. Having one sensor, one aircraft, and everything tied in together creates an enormous risk. Your customer decides that if they need an increase in resolution, you need to redo the entire system. So flexibility and utilization is key. Thank you very much. Thank you organizers for having us, and we hope you enjoy the show.