THiiiNK 140113 charterer rotor sales teaser 10,25,50,220

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

BenefitsofCharterersinstalling10,25,50and220setsofTHiiiNK rotors

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Retro-Fitting Clean Tech – Flettner Rotors

• Significantfuelreductionc.30%/50%• 27%reductioninCO2 emission• 41%10yearIRR1• 2.5yearpayback*(withfinancing)1• $34.5NPV@10%1

• *Note 4.5yearpaybackcurrentlowfuelprice

Note: 1 – Assumes 220 rotors @ $8m/rotor, 70% debt financed @ 7%, paid down over 10 years

70 investors sound the alarm on climate change…

LONDON, Oct 27 (Reuters) – The United Nations’ shipping agency set global regulations on Thursday to limit the amount of sulfur emissions from vessels and said they would come into force from 2020.A session of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee in London set the new requirements, which will see sulfur emissions fall from the current maximum of 3.5 percent of fuel content to 0.5 percent.The move will add extra costs to the shipping industry at a time when parts of it are going through their worst ever downturn. Analysts estimate the additional costs for the container shipping sector alone could be $35-$40 billion.And some also questioned whether refiners would undertake lengthy and costly investments to produce lower sulfur fuel, and so whether there would be enough produced to meet demand.

Environmental groups welcomed the outcome, as well as the 2020 start date. The IMO had considered the option of delaying introduction of the regulations until 2025.“This is a landmark decision and we are very pleased that the world has bitten the bullet and is now tackling poisonous sulphuric fuel in 2020,” said Bill Hemmings of campaigner Transport & Environment.“This decision reduces the contribution of shipping to the world’s air pollution impact from about 5 percent down to 1.5 percent and will save millions of lives in the coming decades.”The shipping industry is among the world’s biggest sulfur emitters, with sulfur oxide content in heavy fuel oil up to 3,500 times higher than the latest European diesel standards for vehicles.

IMO Sets Regulations to Cut Sulphur Emissions by Ships from 2020October 27, 2016 by Reuters

About 90 percent of world trade is transported by sea.“There will be much to do between now and 2020 to ensure that sufficient quantities of compliant marine fuel of the right quality will indeed be available, and that this radical switch over to cleaner fuels will be implemented smoothly … without distorting shipping markets or having negative impacts on the movement of world trade,” said Simon Bennett, director of policy and external relations with the International Chamber of Shipping association, which also welcomed what it said was the clear decision by IMO member states on the 2020 date. Switzerland-based MSC, the world’s No.2 container line, estimated its own additional annual fuel costs at $2.02 billion. The group said it had invested in energy and environmental protection in recent years..

Refiners will also be affected. Around 3 million barrels per day of high-sulfur fuel oil go into bunker fuel for ships, and most of that will be replaced with lower-sulfur distillates.“The big thing that is unknown is the implementation roadmap. That will determine how disruptive this is going to be,” said Alan Gelder, head of refining research with energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.“The refineries will need to run in a way they have never run before.”Refineries that do not have the ability to convert the fuel oil into higher quality products will struggle to remain profitable as this big outlet for lower-quality fuel disappears.“Refiners will not invest to de-sulphurise fuel oil and there is not enough low-sulfur fuel oil to meet demand from the shipping sector

Maersk pays retrofit costs for chartered-in boxships

• Marsek are keen to drive up the fuel efficiency of their chartered-in fleet• Charter pays the fuel bill and therefore feel the benefit from the savings,

it’s natural that the charter should instigate change• Maersk signed agreements, late 2013, with around nine shipowners to

pay to install fuel-saving technology• Total of 300 vessels on charter to Maersk are being upgraded• Retro-fitting is the only option due to the fact that the majority of the

current fleet not designed for slow steaming and fuel efficiency

Maersk Line is to pay owners of tonnage it charters-in to install fuel-saving technology on vessels that it operates commercially but does not ownBy Craig Eason, Lloyd's List – 19 December 2013

Agreement highlights

Maersk pay for all boxships, including ones chartered in, to be retro-fitted with fuel saving technology

Maersk have the benefits of greater fuel efficiency for the entire fleet and improving relations with ship owners

Shipowners will be will able to secure subsequent charters more easily and charge a high rate but will also have a loyalty to Maersk

[Maersk will continue to receive a proportion of the fuel savings of the vessel even if it is not chartered by Maersk]

EconomicsTotal retro fit cost: $750mCost per ship: $2.5m

SavingsFuel savings: 3%Average fuel consumption: 70 tonnes/daySaving: 117,600 tonnes pa

$82.5m pa

IRR 10%Payback 6.1NPV @10% $10.6

Introduction

The shipping industry is experiencing a period of profound legislative change and transformation85% of world trade by volume is carried by sea. Globally, shipping consumes the equivalent of 6.9 million barrels of oil a day, or 75% of the daily output of Saudi Arabia (Source: OPEC), the world’s largest producer

The industry emits 1.2 billiontonnes of CO2 annually (global total power generation emits 10 billion tonnes), expected to rise by a minimum of 30% by 2020

The soot particles (black carbon) emitted from ships are significantly contributing to the blackening of the polar ice fields and accelerating the melting process (one of the greatest concerns of global warming).

A recent study by the American Chemical Society’s journal,Environmental Science, suggests that shipping is responsible (due to the particulate matter emissions) for as much as 60,000 premature deaths from heart disease and lung-related cancers every year, with a predicted increase of 45% in the next five years.

It is estimated that 4 large container ships emit as much sulphur oxide as the entire world fleet of 1 billion cars

- Green - Clean- Cheap- Powerful

Rotating Cylinders – Flettner Rotors

6

The Flettner Rotor overview

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

Harnessing wind using aircraft wing principals – 13x power of a sail

Wind passing a rotating cylinder creates lift – ‘Magnus Effect’

A cylinder on a ship can use this ‘lift’ force to propel the vessel

Original and current day testing on very large ships – fuel savings of c.15-25%

Proven 1920’s science; war, cheap fuel and shipping inertia killed it…

THiiiNK rotors are 50% more efficient than closest competitor

Multiple order discount

8

THiiiNK offers up to a 20% discount on large orders*

§ Rotor cost: $10m§ Yearly savings: £2.7m§ 10% allocated to Charterer: $(0.3m)

§ Running costs: $(0.5m)§ Total yearly savings for owner: $1.9m

§ Years for payback: 3.9§ 10 yr IRR: 25%

(Assuming 70%% rotor financing, 7% interest and debt payback over 10 years)

Normal rotor payback

§ Rotor cost: $8m§ Yearly fuel savings: £2.7m§ 10% allocated to Charterer: $0.2m

§ Running costs: $(0.5m)§ Total yearly savings for owner: $1.9m

§ Years for payback: 2.5§ 10 yr IRR: 41%

(Assuming 70%% rotor financing, 7% interest and debt payback over 10 years)

Discounted rotor payback

…Enabling even larger returnsNote: the fuel price in this presentation is kept at conservative average of $702 per ton” as much as $900+ are expected?

Expected returns based on typical LR2 / Aframax

Flettner rotor with THiiiNKSail© design…

…increases the Magnus effect that propels the ship, improving overall rotor efficiency by 50%

Normal Flettner Rotors

Propulsion

THiiiNKsail©

THiiiNK Flettner Rotors

Foldable for bridges

Hydraulic hinge

Increased Propulsion

…fitted on a ship within a 2 week docking cycle…

THiiiNK patent

Foldable THiiiNK patent

9

Magus Effects in Flettner Rotors

10

§ Flettner rotors use the same Magnus effect that is seen in the football and tennis topspin examples

§ The rotating cylinders moving through the air will cause the air to slow down on one side and also speed up on the other

§ This causes a pressure difference between the two sides, similar to an airplane wing, which in turn creates a force

§ Wind blowing across spinning Flettner rotors will cause this same effect – the resulting force propels the ship

Air is slowed downHigh pressure

Magnus force propels the ship in this direction

Air attempts to move from high pressure to low pressure creating the Magnus force

Air moves more quicklyLow pressure

Magnus effect & Flettner rotors

Effects of the THiiiNKSail© flap

§ THiiiNK has developed an innovative flap (THiiiNKSail©) design

§ Increases efficiency of a standard Flettner Rotor by over 50%

§ THiiiNK patents protect the IP for the THiiiNKSail©

With flap –increased force

since no turbulent air

Without flap –turbulent air in rotor

wake

Rotor ship –original ship built by German engineer Anton Flettner, that used the Magnus effect to propel it

Flettner Rotor Flettner Rotor – top down

Market drivers – why will ship owners buy them?

11

Fuel savingRising fuel prices

Fuel saving bonuses from charterHigher charter rates

34% ROCE for ship ownersCompetitive advantage

Regulation1.2bn tonnes of CO2 annually from shipsExpected to rise by >30% to 50% by 2020

Pressure to control bad emissionsPermitted emissions limit to be reduced by 2020

Control areas to be expanded to total OceanGlobal sulphur 0.5 limits just ratified by law October 26 2016

PULL

FA

CTO

RS

PUSH

FA

CTO

RS

SHIP OWNER

Analysts estimate the additional costs for the container shipping sector alone could be $35-$40 billion per year

Upcoming maritime regulations…

§ New international regulations addressing ships’ energy efficiency were introduced Jan 2013§ Stricter sulphur requirements expanding the current sea areas affected will be enforced in 2015 and then globally in 2020

‒ MGO (clean fuel), which ships must use in these areas, currently costs 70% more than standard IFO380 ($350 per tonne)‒ the increasing regulations force ship owners to run the cleaner fuel much more often‒ this can substantially increase the average fuel cost per year for a ship

§ In the longer run, the ability to navigate these regulatory waters is likely to be a key commercial differentiator§ Global CO2 emission tax is also expected to come in 2020, which all ship owners will have to pay when using Clean Fuel

Note: 1 – Assumes annual fuel consumption of 16,000 tonnes, IFO380 average cost of $650 per tonne, MGO cost of $950 per tonne. Additional yearly cost shown does not include CO2 tax

Typical additional cost per year for LR2 owner having to use MGO due to regulation1

0% 5% 10% 15% 25%% of journey using MGO

$0m $0.2m $0.5m $0.7m $1.2mTypical additional yearly cost

Source: DNV

Bunkercostswillraise$1.2mextrapershipp.a.iffailuretoreact

…to push fuel prices and shipping costs up

Source: Amec & UK Chamber of Shipping

New sulphur limits expected to drive an increase in fuel prices

a 10% increase in fuel prices could see a $1m rise in annual fuel costs for LR2 charters1

Figure 3.2 Assumed fuel prices (€/tonne) as a function of fuel sulphur content (%)

Note: 1 – Assuming current $650 per tonne fuel cost, and 16,000 tonnes annual fuel usage for LR2s

Retro fitting THiiiNK rotors vs. new build

14

Benefits of fitting THiiiNK rotors massively outweigh purchasing new more efficient ships

Retrofit Newbuild

Cost $8m $59m

Productiontime 6months 18-24months

Fuelsaving 25-40% 10-15%

IRR 41% 6-10%Annualfuelsaving c.$1.9m1 c.$1.2m

• For the cost of one new ship c.7 ships can be fitted with rotors

• Magnifying the saving across the fleet (c.$13.3m vs c.$1.2m)

• THiiiNK rotors have potential to achieve fuel saving of up to 50%

• Note: the fuel price in this presentation is kept at conservative average of $702 per ton” as much as $900+ are expected?

Note: 1 – Solved for 27% fuel saving

1. Regulatory drivers

15

• International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulation states ships travelling to emission control areas (ECA) are required to burn a cleaner, 50% more expensive MGO fuel vs conventional fuel‒ equivalent to c.$1.2m extra cost pa if 25% of journey on MGO

• ECA emissions limit is to be reduced even further by 2015 further prompting vessel owners to increase their use of cleaner fuels

• ECA is expected to possibly increase in size over the next 4 years

• Global (ex-ECA) limits on total Ocean are now to come into effect as early as 2020‒ potentially c.$5m+ extra cost pa if 100% of journey on MGO

• Most vessel owners will be looking for ways to reduce the impact of having to use the more expensive fuel to comply with regulation

• Exhaust gas cleaning systems, or ‘scrubbers’, have been predicted to cost in excess of US$2 million per engine if fitted on board larger ships – though these are have not been proven technically, environmentally, or economically viable yet

IMO bunker sulphur content timetable2010 Emission Control Area ( ECA ) limit reduced to 1% (from 1.5%)

2012 Global limit reduced to 3.5% (from 4.5%)

2015 ECA limit reduced to 0.1%

2015 -2017 Global CO2 tax implemented to help reduced emissions ce by 30%

2020 Global limit to 0.5% sulphur TOTAL OCEAN now mandatory

2016 Global limit to 0.5% ratified by UN IMO November 26 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

$/mt

Forecast bunker prices

IFO 380 MGO premium CO2 surcharge

Current and future global ECAs

Economics: 10 sets of rotors @ $10m

16

Yearly fuel savings calculation ($m)

Rotor cost ($m)Cost of rotors

Days at sea per vessel p.a.:Fleet fuel consump. p.a. (tons):% saved

Total fuel saved (tons):Weighted average fuel price ($/ton):Yearly fuel savings ($m)

250126,060

27%34,036

70223.9

Lubrication oil savings per year ($m): 0.6

Total yearly savings ($m): 26.6

Running costs ($m): 5.3

100

Rotor owner saving: $19m (dependent on exact charter terms)

Payback: 3.9 years (70% rotor financing paid down over 10 years)

IRR: 25%NPV: $24.1m (@10%)

+

=

-

Example 10 year IRR for LR2 / Aframax fleet

Yearly CO2 emission saving ($m): 2.2+

Rotor owner savings ($m): 18.9

% journey time on bunker fuel vs achieved fuel saving % rotor financed* vs fuel price

* Financed at 7% interest pa with 10yr pay off period

Economic HighlightsCash cost 30

Debt financed (70%) 70

Ship owner share ($m): 2.4-

=

§Average fuel price of $702‒bunker price estimate of $650 per ton‒25% of 250 days spent on low emission fuel (32% mark up on bunker fuel)

§Assumes a conservative CO2 tax rate of $20/ton due to be introduced globally in 2020§Yearly savings could potentially be substantially higher if vessel route is optimised for rotor use, and if greater % of journey time requires use of more expensive cleaner fuel

Assumptions

Rotor % fuel saving Rotor % fuel saving

25% 23% 25% 27% 29% 31%

65% 15% 21% 27% 32% 38%

70% 14% 20% 26% 31% 37%

75% 13% 19% 25% 30% 36%

80% 12% 18% 24% 29% 35%

85% 11% 17% 23% 28% 34%

% o

f jou

rney

on

bunk

er fu

el

Fuel price Fuel price per tonne (US$)

25% 600 625 650 675 700

50% 16% 17% 19% 20% 22%

60% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25%

70% 20% 22% 25% 27% 29%

80% 25% 28% 31% 34% 38%

90% 36% 41% 47% 53% 58%

% o

f rot

or c

ost

finan

ced

Economics: 25 sets of rotors @ $9m

17





250315,150

27%85,091

70259.7




225


Payback: 3.1 years (70% rotor financing paid down over 10 years)

IRR: 32%NPV: $84m (@10%)

+

=

-









=


§Assumes a conservative CO2 tax rate of $20/ton due to be introduced globally in 2020§Yearly savings could potentially be substantially higher if vessel route is optimised for rotor use, and if greater % of journey time requires use of more expensive cleaner fuelNote: the fuel price in this presentation is kept at conservative average of $702 per ton” as much as $900+ are expected?

Assumptions


32% 23% 25% 27% 29% 31%

65% 21% 28% 34% 40% 47%

70% 21% 27% 33% 39% 45%

75% 20% 26% 32% 38% 44%

80% 19% 25% 31% 37% 43%

85% 18% 24% 30% 36% 42%

% o

f jou

rney

on

bunk

er fu

el


32% 600 625 650 675 700

50% 21% 22% 24% 26% 27%

60% 23% 25% 27% 29% 31%

70% 27% 30% 32% 35% 37%

80% 35% 38% 42% 45% 49%

90% 53% 60% 66% 73% 79%

% o

f rot

or c

ost

finan

ced

Economics: 50 sets of rotors @ $8.5m

18





250630,300

27%170,181

702119.5




425


Payback: 2.8 years (70% financing paid down over 10 years)

IRR: 37%NPV: $192m (@10%)

+

=

-









=



Assumptions


37% 23% 25% 27% 29% 31%

65% 25% 32% 39% 45% 52%

70% 25% 31% 38% 44% 50%

75% 24% 30% 37% 43% 49%

80% 23% 29% 36% 42% 48%

85% 22% 28% 35% 41% 47%

% o

f jou

rney

on

bunk

er fu

el


37% 600 625 650 675 700

50% 23% 25% 27% 28% 30%

60% 26% 29% 31% 33% 35%

70% 31% 34% 37% 39% 42%

80% 40% 44% 48% 51% 55%

90% 64% 71% 78% 85% 92%

% o

f rot

or c

ost

finan

ced

Economics: 220 sets of rotors @ $8 m

19





2502,773,320

27%170,181

702525.7




1,760


Payback: 2.5 years (70% financing paid down over 10 years)

IRR: 41%NPV: $192m (@10%)

+

=

-







Debt financed (70%) 1,232


=



Assumptions


41% 23% 25% 27% 29% 31%

65% 30% 37% 44% 50% 57%

70% 29% 36% 43% 49% 56%

75% 28% 35% 41% 48% 55%

80% 27% 34% 40% 47% 53%

85% 26% 33% 39% 46% 52%

% o

f jou

rney

on

bunk

er fu

el


41% 600 625 650 675 700

50% 26% 28% 30% 32% 33%

60% 30% 32% 34% 37% 39%

70% 36% 39% 41% 44% 47%

80% 47% 51% 55% 59% 63%

90% 76% 83% 91% 99% 106%

% o

f rot

or c

ost

finan

ced

Delivery and cash flow of 220 set of rotors

20

($m) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2027 2028

Sets of rotors delivered 30 50 100 40 Cumulative sets of rotors 30 80 180 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Rotors cost (72) (120) (240) (96)Running cost (17) (46) (104) (127) (127) (127) (127) (127) (127) (127)Yearly savings 89 239 537 656 656 656 656 656 656 656 Share for Ship owner (8) (21) (48) (59) (59) (59) (59) (59) (59) (59)Loan repayment (17) (45) (101) (123) (123) (123) (123) (123) (123) (123)Interest payment (12) (30) (66) (75) (66) (58) (49) (40) (32) (23)Remaining loan 151 386 846 946 823 700 577 454 330 207 Yearly cash flow (72) (85) (144) 121 272 280 289 297 306 315 323 Cumulative cash flow (72) (157) (301) (180) 92 372 661 958 1,265 1,579 1,903

§ Due to the docking cycle of ships it is presumed that the rotor installation will happen over the course of 4 years

§ Ship owners incentivised to have the rotors by being rewarded with 10% of the fuel savings

§ Purchases are 50% financed by the EIB and 20% by their own bank with assumed 7% interest

§ Positive cash flows by 2020

§ Rotor cost return by 2021

§ Yearly savings could potentially be substantially higher if vessel route is optimised for rotor use and if greater use of more expensive cleaner fuel is assumed (see next page)

LR2 / Aframax case study – Projected cash flows with 70% finance

Possible situation on termination of charter agreement

21

§ Assumption that all vessels with more than 2 years left on charter have rotors installed @ $8m per set

§ 2 year charter terminates and is not renegotiated

§ Rotors remain on vessels and the power output of the rotors is sold to the next charterer @ 0.13 USD/kWh

§ Ship owner will save money on lubrication - c. $0.1m pa

§ Ship owner will continue to receive 10% of the fuel savings – c. $0.2m pa

§ Rotor owner positive income – c. $1m pa

($m) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Cost of rotors (2.4)Total saving whilst chartered 1.9 1.9 Sale of Power 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Saving on CO2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Running costs of rotors (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)Financing (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6)Cash flow (2.4) 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 Cumlative cashflow (2.4) (1.5) (0.5) 0.5 1.5 2.6 3.6 4.8 5.9 7.1 8.4

Originalcharter Secondarycharter

With

70%

fin

ance

IRR 40%

Yearsforpayback 2.5years

NPV@10% $4.1m

With

out

finance

IRR 19%

Yearsforpayback 4.3

NPV@10% $3.4m

LR2 / Aframax case study

Additional benefits for purchasing rotors

22

§ 27% saved using rotors is conservative estimate – 50%+ theoretically possible

§ Higher savings due to greater % of time spent using more expensive low emission fuel

§ Increases in fuel prices that are widely expected due to incoming regulations

§ Transparent measurement of per KW cost of rotor power

§ Extensive "green" branding potential

§ Increased competitive advantage under rising fuel prices

Rotor economics model does not take into account:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Economics for purchasing a rotor: route assumptions

23

§ Rotor fuel savings are calculated through complex simulations of the THiiiNK rotors that take into account multiple different factors such as‒ Journey distance and time‒ Wind & weather conditions‒ Ship type‒ Main engine usage / vessel speed

§ For a typical journey assuming average wind conditions and normal engine usage, the THiiiNK Flap has been calculated to generate 27% fuel savings‒ c.50% more fuel savings than a standard Flettner rotor

(assuming normal rotor provides 18% fuel savings‒ E-Ship 1 reported 25% fuel savings, with over 15% of

these coming from the installed Flettner rotors§ It is expected that THiiiNK rotor owners will attempt to

maximise fuel savings achievable by choosing charter routes with optimum conditions

Rotor fuel savings

§ Cleaner more expensive fuel is required to be used by law when a ship is sailing within specific restricted zones (ECA)‒ ECA are typically along the coast lines such as the

USA, and also in regions like the North Sea‒ Greater fuel savings can be achieved if the ship’s

chartered route involves more time in ECA zones§ The amount of time spent in an ECA zone can vary

depending on the specific charter route the ship has to take or where they dock

§ The base payback model now assumes a 100%/100% split between non ECA and ECA journey time

Permitted emissions limit to be reduced by 2020Control areas to be expanded to total Ocean

Global sulphur 0.5 limits just ratified by law October 26 2016

Note: 1 – Efficient Aframax Design Providing Solutions For Emissions Legislation (Sox And Nox) – Wartsila, Oct 2012

Fuel consumption

Summary

24

§ Installed within standard vessel docking cycle

§ Benefits for both the charterer and shipowner

§ 2.5 year payback

§ $192m NPV @10% discount rate for 220 ship fleet

§ 2,396,148 ton CO2 reduction for 220 ship fleet

§ Avoidance of future environmental taxes

§ Marketing advantages for having a green fleet

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

APPENDIX

Technology validation – proven but NOT YET perfected

26

§ First modern commercial cargo ship to utilise wind for propulsion

§ Uses four Flettner rotorsails developed by wind turbine manufacturer Enercon

§ The ship made its first voyage with cargo in August 2010

§ THiiiNK rotors c.50% more efficient due to patented flap design

25% fuel savings – 15-20% attributed to the rotors~

Saving equivalent to 1700 tons of fuel~

Complete more than 170,000 nautical miles since 2010~

Still transports Enercon wind turbines around the world~

Enercon to start work on commercialisation rotors

E-Ship 1

A press release by Enercon in July 2013 stated:

THiiiNK Flettner Rotor

Folding Flettner Rotor Wing§ The Flettner Rotor is a large upright cylinder that rotates creating a magnus effect

when wind passes around it, creating thrust

§ THiiiNK has developed a Rotor with a special sail design flap (THiiiNKSail©) that increases efficiency of a standard Flettner Rotor by over 50%

§ THiiiNK also has developed and patented technologies that allow the rotor to be hydraulically folded down onto the ship allowing passage under bridges, access to ports and ease of loading and unloading

§ THiiiNK patents protect the IP for the THiiiNKSail© and the folding mechanism

Production

27

§ The production of THiiiNK’s rotor is undertaken by a committed group of world class industrial suppliers

§ Key strong relationships with main subcontractors have been developed and maintained by THiiiNK’s management for 3 years

§ Based on THiiiNK’s proven technology, individual parts comprising a rotor installation have been designed for THiiiNK by these subcontractors

§ All parties have been involved in the R&D and testing processes from an early stage involving significant supplier investments

§ Cost commitments have been verified and pre-production agreements are in place

THiiiNK Flettner Rotor

§ Folding process uses 2 hydraulic cylinders

§ Operates similar to any normal crane – standard parts from sub contractor catalogue

§ Cylinders are powered by the same hydraulic PowerPack used to drive the rotor motors if hydraulic

Folding/liftingmechanism

Aspects of a THiiiNKsail© rotor

Motor & PowerPack§ The Hydraulic PowerPack is situated on the vessel’s deck and is responsible

for driving the the complete rotor system, (motor)*, flap positioning including folding mechanism * Not if electric

§ PowerPack utilises power from a ship’s generator to pressurise hydraulic fluid that drives the rotor system, the system can also be all electric driven

Main rotor & flap§ The main rotor is continually spun via the electric or hydraulic motor. The

Magnus effect is created when the wind hits the rotor creating thrust driving the vessel forward

§ The THiiiNK designed flap (THiiiNKsail©) increases the efficiency of this effect, by dramatically increasing lift and up wind performance

Folding mechanism§ A THiiiNK customised folding mechanism is used to allow the rotors to be lowered

onto the vessel’s deck in order to pass through bridges and access all ports

Deck reinforcement structure§ The ship’s deck requires reinforcements to install the rotors and to cope with

the additional stress when they are driving the vessel or being lowered via the folding mechanism

THiiiNKsail©

Flettner Rotors

PowerPack

Foldable

28

Retrofit strengthening

Hydraulic hinge

Rotor system overviewRotor system overview

Deck fitting

Rotor fold actuator

THiiiNKSAIL©

29

Folding THiiiNKsail©

Folding/lifting mechanism

Foldable End cap

Mast

Rotor

Folding THiiiNKsail©

BLADT or Huisman are responsible for manufacturing the rotor mast and the FLAP hinge and will also perform the final assembly…

30

Key subcontractor parts

Example complex drilling vessel that Huisman & BLADT would typically manufacture all parts for in house

(except for hull and engine) and then assemble

Final assemblyRotor mast

FLAP hinge fabrication

Swiss-German-Danish AAA Supply chain with global reach & Service

SC

31

§ All subcontracts will deliver their individual components for final assembly by Huisman in the Netherlands or BLADT in Denmark

§ The vessel will simultaneously be prepared with deck strengthening and deployment of the rotor control systems

§ Note: The supply chain partners can assemble anywhere in the world USA or CHINA where Huisman as example has facilities

Process

FINAL ASSEMBLYGER

SWISWI

GER

GERGER

Swiss-German-Danish Supply chain overview

NED

FINAL ASSEMBLY DK

Swiss-German-Danish Supply chain overview

Basic Flettner know-how is widely available - achieves fuel savings up to 25% - barriers to utilisation (pervious Q)

have prevented commercialisation

THiiiNKIP protected rotors are c.50% more effective - achieve fuel savings up to 40% - undisputed premium product

– economics dictate little value in compromising

Q Howclosecouldcompetitorsbetobringingsomethingtomarket?E-ship? Enercon have produced only

modern scale Flettner ship (E-ship) - produced as a marketing exercise to promote

clean-energy wind turbines - relatively basic Flettner technology - Enercon is a turbine business

rotors = significant strategic shift - X E-ship Engineering team now works for ThiiiNK

Competitors exist, but only for basic Flettner technology - IP barriers to use THiiiNKtechnology - R&D barriers to create alternatives to THiiiNK

(EUR 20-30m/ 2-3 years) - start-ups have been seen (Magnus) but little progress

32

The obvious Questions

Savings achievable for existing shipping routs / voyage durations - seasonal average wind direction and force

Additional savings (up to 50% fuel savings) achievable if: - course optimisation for winds - longer voyage durations

Additional performance via computer algorithm optimisation - triangulating wind forecasts, ship destination, tides voyage length - incremental at-sea data required for implementation

Q What happens if thewindisnotblowing therightway?

33

The obvious Questions

34

Disclaimer and Confidentiality/Non-Disclosure Agreement

The Confidential Business Plan, supporting revenue and financial projections, (referred to in whole as the “Business Plan”) of THiiiNK Holding Switzerland AG (referred to as the “Company”) does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities.

2)Receipt and acceptance of the Business Plan shall constitute an agreement by the Recipient that, among other things, the Business Plan shall not in any manner whatsoever be copied, reproduced, modified, or distributed to any third party, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the Company.

3)All information contained herein shall be kept confidential by the Recipient, and that the Recipient shall not reveal or disclose to any third party without written consent of the Company the information that has been made available to the Recipient.

4)The Recipient shall return all copies of the Business Plan immediately upon request of the Company.

5)This Business Plan contains proprietary and confidential information regarding the Company and is based on information deemed by the Company to be reliable.

6)In furnishing the Business Plan, the Company undertakes no obligation to provide Recipients of the Business Plan with access to any additional information or to update this Business Plan or to correct any inaccuracies that may be contained herein.

7)In addition, certain estimates and projections prepared by the Company are presented in this Business Plan. Such estimates and projections are subject to significant economic, business, and other uncertainties beyond the control of the Company. Although such projections are believed to be realistic, no representations can be made as to their attainability.

8)While the information set forth herein are deemed by the Company to be accurate, the Company shall not beheld liable for the accuracy of, or omissions from this Business Plan, and for any other written or oral communication transmitted to the Recipient and any other party in the course of its evaluation of transactions involving the Company.

THiiiNK 140113 charterer rotor sales teaser 10,25,50,220

Economy & Finance

Transcript of THiiiNK 140113 charterer rotor sales teaser 10,25,50,220