Shell plc (LON:SHEL)

AGM 2019

← View all transcripts

May 20, 2019

I'm Chad Holliday. I'm delighted to welcome you to this morning's Annual General Meeting of Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Safety is our highest priority in this meeting. Before we go any further, I'd like to say a few words about safety. If you see anything that you feel is unsafe or have concerns at all, please flag it out to one of the security staff you can see stationed in the room. If there should be a need to evacuate this room during the meeting, there will be an announcement once we are outside the building. Let me start by introducing your board and outside the building. Let me start by introducing your board and saying a few words about the non executive directors who are seeking reelection today. Starting on my right, Ben Van Buren, our Chief Executive Officer followed by Jessica Auel, our Chief Financial Officer on my left, Charlene Wassema, who is standing in for company secretary, Linda Symansky, who's on leave Gerard Clysterly, our Deputy Chair and Senior Holdings. On the row behind me, starting from my right to left, Catherine Hughes from Canada, a member of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee and the Remuneration Committee. Catherine has more than 30 years experience in the oil and gas industry has held a number of senior executive positions, including Executive Vice President of Nexen Incorporated. She was a Non Executive Director of Stata Oil and is currently a Non Executive Director of SNC Laven Group. Sir Nigel Shinewall from the UK, Chair of the Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee and a member of the Remuneration Committee. Sir Nigel has held a number of esteemed senior British diplomatic posts, including ambassador to the U. S, foreign policy and defense advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Head of the UK Cabinet of Office, Defense and Overseas Secretariat and the British Ambassador and permanent representative to the European Union in Brussels. Eileen Goh from Singapore, Chair of our Audit Committee. Eileen is a chartered accountant with qualifications in banking and taxation. She's held various senior management positions with Standard Chartered Bank and Chief Executive Officer of Standard Charter Bank Singapore. Harit Zom, a member of the Audit Committee and member of the Renovation Committee, I believe you know him quite well from his many years in the financial industry and serving as Minister of Finance here in the Netherlands. He's also served as the Chair of the Managing Board of ABN AMRO. Linda Stuntz from the U. S, a member of the Nomination Succession Committee and Corporate Social Responsibility Committee. Linda was founding partner of a law firm in Washington, DC before retiring in January of this year. She also served as Deputy Secretary of the U. S. Department of Energy. She also served as Deputy Secretary of the U. S. Department of Energy. Roberto Stouvola from Brazil, a member of the Audit Committee. Roberto has deep experience working in banking industry and as Chief Executive Officer for Itauy Unibanco Holdings for a number of years. He lives in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He retired in 2017 as CEO of Etowah, but currently serves as Co Chair of Etowah's Board of Directors. Anne Godby here. Anne was elected to the Board at last year's Annual General Meeting and her appointment was effective directly after that meeting. She also serves on our audit committee. Anne is a former CFO and has more than 25 years of experience in financial services sector from a broad range of companies. She's worked her entire career in companies. She's worked her entire career in international business and lived in and or served on boards of 9 different countries. We have arranged to have this meeting webcast today. I welcome everyone joining by webcast. I hope you find it a valuable addition to your information about our company. In accordance with the company's articles of association as stated in notice of meeting, we will be holding this meeting in English, but there will be Dutch translation facilities available if you should need so and if you need a headset, the headsets are available as you came in or ask someone for that if you need it now. With that introduction, I now declare the Annual General Meeting formally open and suggest that with your permission, the notice of convening the meeting is taken as read. I see no objections. With that, we'll start first by a presentation from me describing our company, then I'll turn it over to Ben to describe it in much more depth. Your company does not have the option of doing its part to supply energy to a growing world or reduce the environmental footprint of the world we see today and I'm talking about climate change. It's our obligation as energy company to do both and we will do both. My comments today will all be around that subject, how are we going to do both? The next page has cautionary notes. Last year, when I showed this page, a lot of people groan because you couldn't quite see the print. So, we took your suggestion and we passed out hard copies. It's still a little hard to see the print, but I think some of the footnotes on the other chart will be very helpful to you to refer to. We issued 2 major reports a year that I want to call to your attention. The annual report, the red cover here. I hope you have a chance to read that in advance. And then the yellow report, the sustainability report. In case you don't normally read this report, let me flag this to you a bit. This is the 22nd year we've issued this report. And every year we try to make it better. When you go inside to look at it, you'll find we have an advisory board that critiques the previous year and you'll see our results of their critiques and how we've changed it. We have a number of external parties who've given perspective on what Shell is doing. If you don't normally read this report, I recommend it to you. It's available at shell.comundertheinvestorssection. Shell has a slogan, we have a campaign, it's called Make the Future. It's much more than just a slogan or a campaign. It is the answer to the problem I suggested as I started this presentation. How do we provide energy for a growing world and reduce the environmental footprint? As you see this slogan come up on social media or in advertisements anywhere, I urge you to take a look at it because there will be more information available to you about what your company is doing to make the future. When you came in the room, you saw some videos playing of some young people at Shell Eco Marathons around the world. This is the one of the most exciting events I've ever been to. I've attended 3 of these. These are students in math and engineering and science that care about a better world, designing, building and then racing not for speed, but racing for eco efficiency, the vehicles you see. There's actually one outside in the lobby, if you want to see one up close. But this work certainly will develop hopefully some new engineers that want to join Shell, but even more important, it's awareness of the need and hopefully a lot of young people that will spend their careers or part of their careers making a difference, so we can make the movements we need. Let's talk a little bit about the energy demand and why it's growing. This is a chart of world population for the first half of this century. We're now at 7,600,000,000 people and based on the average spot in this chart by mid century that will grow by 2,000,000,000 people. Already today, we have over a 1,000,000,000 people that don't have access to electricity as we would know it and we have well over 2,500,000,000 people, they're going to cook on a stove tonight with a solid fuel that will the smoke will inevitably hurt their health. As an energy company and a leading energy company, we must respond to this increase in energy and let me put that in a bit of a broader perspective with the next chart. If you'll pardon me, a bit of a personal story. I had the honor to serve the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki Moon, he's now stepped down as Co Chair of Sustainable Energy For All, a major UN effort. And I saw in my interactions with the Secretary General, because he was the chair of our effort, how much time and effort he was putting into this subject. I was sitting next to him one night and I said, with all the problems you have in the world, the wars, all the issues, how can you spend so much time on energy? And he paused and told me a very personal story about growing up as a boy in Korea and how he didn't have electricity in his home. And to study, which was a requirement to get out poverty, he had to study at night with a kerosene lantern. The lantern was kind of dim, it was still hard to see. It put out fumes, it made him cough. He said, but on a night before an exam, my parents would let me use a candle because the candle was brighter and there weren't as many fumes. That building in his childhood led him to conclude as Secretary General that if we could deal with energy access, we could also deal with sanitation, we could deal with water, we could deal with Phantom And he highlighted particularly we could deal with human rights of young girls that have to go out to scavenge for wood, firewood all day and are subject to danger and also can't have an education. So this was very moving to me. He put it all together in a statement you see on the screen. The energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, social equity and environmental sustainability. I think that is extremely meaningful and it's very good guidance for Shell, an energy company. Our work was not taken from this statement, but I think you'll agree with me what Ben will describe later of our strategic ambitions and what I'll comment on now is very much in line with this and what a difference your company can make in the world and we thank you for investing in this company because without your investment, we couldn't possibly make happen. The 3 strategic ambitions will be covered in much more depth by Ben, but I want to focus on the 1 in the center, world class investment case. If we can't earn you a good return on your money, a good dividend, a good equity return at the top of our industry, we can attract your investment and we can't accomplish the goals that we knew to as a company. So recognize your Board of Directors and your management has that very much on target and we know that must happen for us to accomplish our objectives. Let me put energy transition in a bit of context. That's probably not the picture you expected to see on the screen. That's a 1920 Ford. I think looking back in history of energy transition can be instructive to what we must do in the future. In 190 8, when Mr. Ford was making his first cars, he concluded that he needed to make his engine that would run on ethanol and gasoline because he wasn't sure which fuel would win. In fact at that point in time, you could buy ethanol actually made from potatoes cheaper than you could buy gasoline. Even out to 1925, he made a major speech and he declared ethanol the fuel of the future. Well, Mr. Ford with Shell 2nd generation ethanol and other productions, maybe a century later you might be right. So, it's sometimes hard to call these transitions perfectly. Go back to 1800s, our primary source of energy in the world was wood and biomass. Also around 1800s, there was some farmers in the Pennsylvania state in the U. S, they're out looking at their spring and they saw some oil bubbling up by the side. They weren't sure what to do with this peculiar substance, so they elected to bottle it and sell it for medicine. I don't have a report on how successful their medicine business was, but I want to stress to you, it was not obvious the potential of oral at that point in time. So the message here is many of the different possibilities for making the future, we're not totally sure what that's going to be. But as they've looked at this history, 2 things I would suggest you take away from it. One, historically energy transitions have taken a long time, perhaps a century or more. And second, we have to work on a number of alternatives to find that combination that will make the difference. Now the reality, ladies and gentlemen, is we don't have a century to avoid the most significant impacts of climate change, we must make close to net carbon 0 by mid this century. We only have a few decades to make a difference and that's why this work is so important and why so important that we can't go with the speed we have in the past. So, I'd like to share with you four examples of what your company is doing that's moving so much faster to make a difference in the world than we ever would have thought possible before. Let's look at the first one. Starship. Starship is a truck, which we have developed in cooperation with Airflow Truck Company. Now, let me quickly put your mind at rest, we're not getting in the truck business. So, your money is secure. But making one truck was important, because we believe from our lubricants organization that this could make a tremendous difference in efficiency and with the airflow design that you see in this picture, we thought it could really make a difference for transportation, which is a big user of energy. So we built one truck, only 1 and that's all we intend to build and we ran it from the Atlantic Ocean to across to the Pacific Ocean in the U. S. And we said what kind of freight ton efficiency, which is how you measure trucks. Did this truck perform versus the average in the U. S. Fleet? 248% better than the average in the U. S. Fleet. If we just adopt a design that we've actually made today that I just talked about, it can make a tremendous difference in the world. We are encouraged that more truck manufacturers have more interest in shell lubricants and how they can use them and are even considering adopting this design going forward. The next example comes closer to the internal of shale and it's called catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that improves a chemical reaction, makes it move faster, makes it go to completion. We use them extensively in our processes, but we have a business that actually sells catalysts to others and it's actually we sell more than we actually make. So, we're having a real important impact in the world. We have about 200 people that work in R and D that are making these catalysts. But it takes 7 years from first discovery of a catalyst before that catalyst is commercial. So our team looked at how we could speed that up and the picture you see here kind of depicts that. The idea is we run a lot of samples at the same time rather than running 1, we run 30 or 40 samples at the same time to see how fast we can get it commercialized quicker to make a difference in energy efficiency in the world. We have now reduced our average time from 7 years to 3 years, a major accomplishment by your company. The next example is around artificial intelligence, No doubt you've heard that term sometimes called AI. It's actually a deep learning algorithm. So, it's a system that once it does something, it learns from that, remembers to do it the next time. We are using it in improving drilling they think it they think it could improve the effectiveness on a project. 5 months to a standard establishment, this is amazing timing. The last example is an autonomous ship. No doubt you've heard about autonomous cars and the debate when will autonomous cars be safe enough during our roads. Your company is using autonomous ships today. There is an example of one here, but they really range in size from 1 meter to 24 meters depending on the application. We use them to explore the seabed. It can be for exploration and production. It also can be for sliding of an offshore windmill. As a result of using this technology, we've taken the time to do one of these surveys from 120 days to 30 days. We do it with less energy and we do it in a more safe manner. What you can take away from these four examples is your company is working at a much faster pace than we ever have before to deliver energy solutions that can de provide energy for the growing population, but at the same time reduce environmental footprint and meet the Paris goals of climate change. In closing, I'd like to focus on one topic and that's trust. If you read the annual report, the Red Book, what you saw is the letter from the Board of Directors was all about building trust in Shell, because we think it's so important and so essential to what we do as a company. It is the backbone of the strong social license to operate ambition that we have. What we promised you in that letter and what I promise you again today, Every time the 30,000,000 time today we fill up a vehicle with fuel or every 16 secondtions refuel airplane or deliver LNG to a power plant so you can have clean electricity. We're determined to earn your trust every time. And if we ever fail, we'll admit it and we'll learn from it and we'll make it right. Trust is what you should feel very good about with this company and we look forward to earning that today and all the days in the future. Let me turn it over to Ben to give you more information about our company. Thank you. Well, thanks very much, Chad. And I would also like to offer you my personal warm welcome to today's event. And as you know, our strategic ambitions are to deliver a world class investment case, to thrive in the energy transition and to maintain a strong societal license to operate. Now Chet has just given you some insights into our approach, particularly on maintaining your company's strong societal license to operate. So let me concentrate a little bit more on the other two strategic ambitions. So in 2018, we had very good performance from all our businesses, and we continue to transform Shell into a simpler company that can deliver higher returns. So we delivered almost US31 $1,000,000,000 in organic free cash flow. We paid an all cash dividend. We covered our interest expense. We reduced gearing. We bought back shares, and we completed a $30,000,000,000 divestment program even as we at the same time maintained capital discipline. We made commitments to you, our shareholders, and we have shown that we are a company that delivers on those commitments. And our progress towards a world class investment case is running alongside progress towards thriving in the energy transition and maintaining a strong societal license to operate. Many of you are already aware of our recent commitment to set short term targets to reduce the net carbon footprint of the energy products that we sell. And many of you know about the intensity targets we now have for methane emissions. So that's to maintain methane emissions intensity below 0.2% of our oil and gas production by 2025. And these are examples of your company showing leadership, behaving as a responsible company and acting to adapt to changing customer needs as the global energy transition unfolds towards a lower carbon future. I'll give you a bit more detail in the next few minutes, but let me start with a summary of our 2018 financial highlights. And I'm sure it will not have escaped you that 2018 was a year of significant oil price volatility. But in spite of all of this, we saw our businesses deliver. And that delivery translated to a current cost of supply earnings, excluding identified items, of over $21,000,000,000 We delivered a free cash flow of more than 39,000,000,000 dollars and the return on average capital employed, according to the new definition, for the full year was 8.7%. Now we also continue to move gearing down. We declared dividends of almost $16,000,000,000 in 2018. And as you are aware, we paid our dividends fully in cash. And at the same time, we bought back some $4,500,000,000 worth of shares as part of our $25,000,000,000 share buyback program. So this is what I would call delivery. Now I would like to reassure you that our cash priorities have not changed. So we remain disciplined in our cash allocation and reducing our net debt remains our first priority, and ongoing divestment proceeds will continue to help to achieve this. We want to continue to strengthen our balance sheet with AA credit rating equivalent credit metrics. And then with the cash flow from our operations, we will fund our capital program, our dividend payment, our interest expense. And then surplus cash will be used to fund our buyback program and reduce debt further if we want to do that. That's what we have been doing, and that's what we will continue to do. And the success of this approach can be seen in the material improvement in your company's cash flow generation. So as I said earlier already, 2018, we were able to deliver free cash flow of around US39 $1,000,000,000 And of this US31 $1,000,000,000 was so called organic free cash flow. So that's the cash flow that excludes the effects of divestments and acquisitions. And based on our outlook, we believe we have the free cash flow to continue this track record of delivery. Now before I go further, I must emphasize, as I always do, that this delivery is built upon something that is fundamental to the success of your company and as a matter is the foundation of any success, and that is our performance on health, safety and the environment, because safety is critical in order for us to achieve our strategic ambitions. We must all be safe if Shell is to be a world class investment case. I will come back to that in a moment. We will answer that question, sir, when you have a chance to address me at the microphone. We must be safe if Shell is to maintain its societal license to operate. But at the same time, I regret that our HSSE performance was mixed in 2018. So there is more work to do because sadly, 2 of our contractor colleagues died during 2018, and no loss of life is ever acceptable. And we must ensure that such deaths do not happen in the future. The long term trend, as you can see on this chart, still shows improvement, but slipping backwards in 2018 just emphasizes how hard won these improvements have been. In other areas, our HSSE performance was actually more encouraging. So for example, process safety was an area of improvement. And I'm glad to report that we achieved in 2018 our best ever performance when it comes to process safety. But while we strive to prevent incidents, that may still occur and we must learn from them. And for certain incidents, this involves deep causal reflective learning throughout the organization up to and including the executive committee that I lead. And our collective learning efforts through 2018 identified the need to improve in a number of areas. So we are significantly sharpening up our learnings from incidents process. We are introducing new approaches to HSSE risk assessment. We are also assessing the exception process in our HSSE and social performance control framework. And we will refresh how we handle the molding of contracts. The molding of contracts governs which HSSE management system applies to which contractor goal 0, to be goal 0 each and every day. Now before I move further into details of non HSE performance in our business or HSE performance in our business, I would like to pause and talk a little bit about last year's AGM. As some of you may remember, we had representatives from the Global Union, Industrial All, that attended our AGM last year and have followed with letters of allegations sometimes related to our HSSE performance and standards pertaining to Tunisia, Brazil, Uganda, Trinidad and Tobago and Nigeria. Now I can assure you Shell has done a very thorough investigation regarding those allegations with teams from different departments, and we found all these allegations to be unsubstantiated. We have responded to Industrial with very detailed information and in a timely manner with country specific outcomes of the investigations that we have conducted. At the same time, we are also committed to improve on service contractor management building on the good progress that we have made in the last few years, and we will continue to engage with unions at a local level. Now continuing on the topic of HSZ performance, let me give you an update on NAM, the fifty-fifty joint venture with ExxonMobil here in the Netherlands. NAM is an independent venture. Shell fully understands that the earthquake situation deeply concerns local communities in Groningen. And in 2018, NAM, the shareholders and the government of the Netherlands reached what I think was a very important agreement. So the government, together with Nam, are working diligently to translate that agreement into law. But at the same time, we're not waiting for that process. We are putting the agreement already into action. And the government has assumed full legal responsibility over the production instruction, so they determine what gets produced, but also safety and seismicity. And the Groningen partners will continue to share the cost associated with any earthquakes that have happened and will happen. And Jean Nederland expects that the NAM can pay for any earthquake related cost under all scenarios. Before we move on, I would like to acknowledge the legal case that is related to OPL245 in Nigeria. That case is still ongoing. It's a live case. So I hope you will appreciate that we will not be able to take any questions on this today. But I would like to reiterate that based on all the information that is available to us, including the information of the Milan public prosecutors case, we do not believe there is a basis to convict Kjell or any of the 4 former employees in relation to LPL-two forty five, and we will vigorously defend our case. And we're also aware on an investigation by the Dutch public prosecutor, which is ongoing. And as appropriate, we will provide updates as this matter progresses. Now I would like to move on, give you some more insights into how your company is seeking to make progress on our second strategic objective, which is thriving in the energy transition to a lower carbon future. First of all, your company fully supports the Paris Agreement. In your company, the net carbon footprint ambition that we have is fully consistent with the Paris Agreement. We aim to reduce the net carbon footprint of the energy products that we sell by around half by 2,050 and by around 20% by 2,035. That's an interim ambition. And we will do this in line with society because both energy demand and energy supply must evolve together. No business can survive unless it sells things that people actually need and want and buy. So it's all about being a world class investment case also far into the future. I would like to give you an example of one of the business opportunities that we are investing in as Shell is on this journey of the energy transition and its transformation. And this example is also an opportunity with that will help your company make progress towards its net carbon footprint ambition and being a world class investment case at the same time. I want to set out in some detail for you the moves that we are making in the power sector. We intend to be involved at almost every stage of the sector, so from generating electricity, from buying to selling it and supplying it to And actually And actually, we see that as playing to our strengths. We see a significant opportunity to use the power of our brands and our global customer base to supply not only electricity, but also what we call adjacent services. So think of car charging, home based battery storage, smart energy users optimization. And having a large customer base alongside clean power generation assets will give your company the opportunity to trade, to integrate and to optimize. And we can benefit from a world class experience and infrastructure when it comes to energy trading. We are you may not know it, but we are already one of the top 3 power wholesalers in the United States today for years actually. So this strategy means that we will need to make investments in storage, in different kinds of low carbon power generation like wind and solar but also gas. Now it doesn't mean that we plan to own all the plants that generate the power that we sell, but instead we will complement much as we do also in our products. We complement our supply by buying power from 3rd party suppliers to remain we have talked about, I would also like to highlight an initiative that your company has only recently announced, And that's an initiative to turn to nature, through what we sometimes call nature based solutions or NBS. So on the 8th April this year, we announced a program to invest at least $300,000,000 in natural ecosystems. So in the Netherlands and later this year, also in the U. K, Shell is offering motorists carbon neutral driving with Shell fuels. By offering carbon offsets, we are serving we are giving customers the opportunity to support the protection and the restoration of forests and wetlands that absorb carbon. A recent paper produced by a number of expert bodies, including the Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International, estimated that protecting and creating forests and grasslands and wetlands could reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 11,000,000,000 tonnes by the year 2030. That's only an estimate, but it is equivalent to the combined emissions of the United States and the European Union, so very, very significant. Now I'm sure some will say and I'm sure we will hear it today as well, simply replace all road transported battery powered vehicles, much better. But according to the International Energy Agency, at the same time that the world will grow the number of electric cars from 3,000,000 to 280,000,000, the number of petrol cars will grow from 1,000,000,000 to 1,700,000,000. Cars will grow from €1,000,000,000 to €1,700,000,000 So yes, switching to battery electric cars is happening. It's absolutely essential, but traditionally fueled cars will be around for decades to come. And this initiative to work with nature can help address that reality. Now of course, we are aware of the debate that has ensued in the Netherlands. I read it with a lot of interest following that announcement. But we are confident that our approach offers an immediate step towards Paris right now. Now and moves like this is also the reason why we were able to announce the first of our short term targets on the net carbon footprint. And these targets, as you may know, are now linked to executive remuneration. We developed these targets through extensive collaboration with institutional investors working on behalf of Climate Action 100 plus and I think that's a major step forward. But Shell also wants to contribute to society in other ways and help contribute to solve some of the world's largest challenges like those set out in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. And as we are an energy supplier and energy improves people's life, stepping up and providing people access to energy is simply the right thing to do for a company like us. So your company has an ambition. And that ambition is by 2,030, we want to provide a reliable electricity supply to 100,000,000 people in the developing world who do not have it today. And if you succeed, 100 1,000,000 more people will then have power to improve their lives and the lives of those around them. So that is how Shell is making progress towards each of its strategic ambitions. Jed has spoken about trust that lies at the heart of our societal license to operate. I've spoken about our financial delivery, business delivery, our financial discipline, cash priorities, our dedication to strong HSSE performance, and all of this adds up to real progress towards being a world class investment case for you, our shareholders. I've also spoken about our approach to thriving in the energy transition by taking the opportunities to be found within that transition and changing the mix in what your company sells to move in step with our customers as our customers and global society make progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. And it's by following our strategy achieving these three strategic ambitions that, Kjell, your company can be a world class investment case, not just today, but long into the future. Thank you very much. And with that, I would like to hand back to Chad to start the Q and A off this morning. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ben. I'd like to make the comment that the Board of Directors supports everything in Ben's presentation this morning. It's very important to us. Now let's come to the part of the meeting where you have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. As you've seen the notice of meeting, most resolutions are mainly of a routine nature. To ensure our orderly discussion, I will take questions in this order. First, all questions or comments of a general or operational nature, including those about climate change, energy transition, and all questions and comments about our strategy, including the net carbon footprint will come under resolution number 1. And this also concerns our annual report of accounts. For efficiency, where possible, we will link multiple questions on the same topic together, so we can more effectively answer your questions and have a more productive meeting. From time to time, I will ask my fellow directors to help me and answer the questions, but I would suggest you direct all your questions to me as Chair of the meeting and also give us your name before you ask the first question. The voting will take place in the white paper poll card, which if you're entitled to vote, you're handed at registration and we ask that you deposit these poll cards in the boxes, they're very clearly marked in the room. Our company's If you have a question to ask, I'd like you to gather at the designation points, you figured it out very fast, I can see. And when you make your statement, try to be as concise as possible and we will because sure you will answer your questions because we want to give everyone a chance to speak. There is one thing I would like to update you on and that's Resolution number 22, the last one in the pack. This was presented by shareholders. It's a group called Follow This. Perhaps some of you are familiar with the group that had a climate change proposal. After further conversations with the company to understand the commitments that Ben just described and we've put in place, they concluded they wanted to withdraw that proposal. The proper procedure to withdraw a proposal for a PLC, which is what this meeting is being convened under is all proposers need to sign a statement saying they want it taken off the ballot. In this case, it was 137 proposers and follow this felt so strongly about taking it off the ballot. They got all 137 to ask for withdrawal. Your Board of Directors has considered this, as chair of this meeting, I've considered this. We feel out of respect for Follow This and the action they've taken, we should take it off the proposal as an actual voting resolution. Let me stress, if you have any comment to make around climate change or any aspect of that resolution, you can do it now under Resolution number 1. So if I don't see objections, we will suspend with voting on Resolution 22. I see no objections. So let's get to our questions. Microphone number 1. My name is Mitchel Van Aeche. I work for Robeco. And today, I speak on behalf of Robeco and also on behalf of Actium, Aegon Asset Management, APG, BMO Global Asset Management, Border to Coast Pension Partnership, ERAF, PEKKI BEPEN Schundienste, PEKKIEM, Kemper Capital Management, NNIP, Reibobank Pension Fund, as we have Behar and Demen. A year ago, I attended this AGM to urge Shell to keep pace with its climate ambition. On behalf of a large group of institutional investors, we asked Shell to do 3 things: firstly, to translate their long term climate ambition into concrete short term goals secondly, to clearly report on the progress of its net carbon footprint and thirdly, to integrate Shell's climate ambition into the long term remuneration program. A year later, we acknowledged the substantial progress that has been made on these three areas. Last December, Shell, together with representatives of their and transparency for shareholders by translating the long term and transparency for shareholders by translating the long term ambition into shorter term goals, by integrating it into the long term remuneration plan and through a clear reporting framework. Shell has shown leadership in the oil and gas industry by making these concrete commitments. Yet we also recognize that for Shell to succeed in the energy transition, other industry participants need to follow suit and that a level of playing field needs to be created. It is therefore good to see that some peers in the sector start to follow Shell's ambition. We are encouraged by these first steps made by Shell moving forward with the climate ambition. We're also encouraged that the framework for change is the product of a dialogue between the company and its shareholders. We think this is a promising glimpse of the potential of constructive dialogue between the company and its shareholders and how it can lead to positive change. Yet at the same time, we need to recognize that this is only a starting point. Continuous improvement is required to meet your 2,050 ambition. We understand that the short term targets will have to ramp up over the coming years. Unfortunately, the road to Shell's ambition to meet Paris cannot be captured in a simple formula. The net carbon footprint will not follow a linear path towards halving the NTF over the next 30 years. Success will depend on a set of moving parts, including regulation, changes in energy demand and changes in technology. Therefore, it remains difficult for investors to judge several items, including questions that render discussion, namely how much of the NCF reduction is within direct scope of management and how much is dependent on external factors. We're also aware that the Sky scenario is a leading scenario to underpin Shell's NCEF ambition. But what will the NCEF outcome be under other scenarios? Under which circumstances will Shell decide to pick up pace or to slow down along with society? It is understandable that these questions can only be answered with time as the journey is just beginning, with many variables still unknown. Shell needs time to build up a track record of meeting and investors need time to understand the complexities of scenario planning and the NCF methodology. Having said that, we encourage Shell to make further progress in providing clarity to the market on these questions. To maintain their leadership in the sector, there is no time for complacency. We hope to see our expectations exceeded again next year. With this in mind, it is therefore extremely important that Shell continues its dialogue with investors on these important topics. We would like to stress that in order to keep a leadership position in this sector, an increasing level of effort and ambition will be needed. We also expect the Board to continue an open discussion with all stakeholders, including investors, academics and regulators. Lastly, we would like to thank the Board and the management for their open constructive stance towards shareholders. We look forward to continuing our dialogue over the coming years and count on the continuation of your leading role in the sector. Thank you very much. Very clear report and we've enjoyed working with you. Let's see if there's couple more questions or comments on climate we could take now, then I'll ask Ben to respond to them. Is there a climate comment here? Well, a couple of comments. I can start with the climate comments if you want to. If you could do your climate part of your comment, then I will do one more climate here. Then Ben, if you could respond to that, that would be okay? Please. Good morning. My name is Robert Vreken of WeKoneQ, Public Affairs and Investor Relations. And I advise corporations and the government, the top of it, on finance and sustainability. I always appreciate the dialogue with Mr. Van Burden and Mr. Holiday. And yours surprise me every year, so I have to challenge you again. Shell is one of the greenest oil companies or energy companies in the world, and we appreciate it. However, within the coming years, 1,000,000 plants and animals will disappear, and that will ruin the whole climate on Earth. So you have to speed up. And there are easy solutions. The 20 largest ships in the world are more polluting than all the cars in the world. And if Shell, together with all the other oil companies, provide them with clean diesel that will have an enormous impact on the environment. That's the best thing to do. Give the 100 largest ships in the world clean energy, clean diesel. Furthermore, you are aware and also Mr. Holiday that you're talking about energy, about 100,000,000,000 people in the world don't have electricity or light. And it costs with the Waka Waka, it's your personal solar panel, it costs only €5,000,000,000 to provide them with clean energy. It's a very cheap, easy solution. You talked about water. Well, you are aware of about the circular shower. It saves 80% on water and gas. That is a very easy solution, which helps the society. Furthermore, cushion heating will save 90% on heating in houses and offices compared to normal heating. And it's a very quick win, and it's a very easy solution. I would like to have Shell to become the major battery supplier in the world because you have so much money that you invest in R and D that it's very easy for you to become the largest supplier in batteries and the most green batteries. Furthermore, green gas, that's not LNG, but it's green gas, should be developed rapidly with Shell. And last thing, the forests should be improved. The forest plant should be much quicker, much faster. And I think that Shell can support that. So we'll take one more for microphone 1, then Ben will respond to all three questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling me. My name is Adam Matthews, and I'm the Director of Ethics and Engagement for the Church of England Pensions Board. I'm also the Climate Action 100 Initiative Co Lead for Shell with Sylvia Van Varve and Savers of Rubico. The Church of England Pensions Board together with other institution investors speaking today is a supporter of Climate Action 100, the collaborative engagement initiative of 300 institution investors and more representing more than 30 $3,000,000,000,000 in assets under management, which encourages ambitious action on climate change. I'm also a board member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change from Europe. My comments fall into 2 areas: leadership and lobbying. On leadership, I'd like to acknowledge that Shell's commitments that form the basis of the joint statement between Shell and Climate Action 100 are transforming the debate between investors and oil and gas companies on climate. Shell's approach is beginning to demonstrate that it is possible to have a business strategy that's aligned with the need to transition to a low carbon economy, while also ensuring that the company is financially successful, builds on and develops its core competencies and effectively manages the policy and economic risks faced by the business. This is it is putting in place a strategy intended to make Shell a more resilient business. Shell's approach also establishes important principles: clarity of purpose, accountability to investors and wider society, and an internal accountability for delivery through inclusion of climate change targets in remuneration. This was a groundbreaking agreement from December last year that required vision from both the company, the board and investors to align our long term interests to manage a complicated multi decadal transition. We believe that the joint statement presents a framework for other oil and gas companies and would strongly encourage them to follow suit, specifically an outlining of targets covering all emissions including Scope 3. While we applaud Shell's leadership, we continue to require further action. We expect a full set of measurable targets by next year linked to executive pay as well as continued efforts by Shell to provide clarity on the alignment of its ambitions and scenarios with the Paris Agreement and capital deployment. Based upon the joint statement, I'm pleased that, following this resolution was withdrawn at Shell, as I believe we have a framework for a continued engagement between investors and the company as well as a mechanism to review our ambition as we move forward. Turning to corporate climate lobbying. Too often this has been an obstacle to progress on policy and regulation. It's been an important source of risk for companies with commitments to responsible business behavior and the goals of the Paris Agreement. This is undermined when a company resources lobbying or industry associations that are not aligned with their core corporate commitments and values. We therefore strongly support Shell's commitments on lobbying and very pleased with the quality of the Industry Association memberships review. This is an evolving area and one where we expect to have further discussions with the company and look forward to those discussions as you take forward your initial review of 19 associations that were assessed 9 of which you put under review. In concluding, I reiterate our support for the joint statement between Climate Action 100 and Shell and would suggest the joint message is sent from this AGM to others within the oil and gas sector and to investors that have yet to embrace an approach that addresses Thanks very much, Chairman Thanks very much, Chairman. The first and the third comment, I actually take very much as recognition and endorsement that we are on the right track. But at the same time, I also very much realize that this is just the beginning of a long process. In no way would I like to give the impression that we know exactly how everything is going to play out. We have done our piece now and we can just move on and do other things. There will be surprises on the way. There will be unforeseen things that will happen in the next decade decades. And we will have to continue to dialogue with you and other shareholder groups to understand how we can further enhance the things that we are doing in line with your expectations as asset managers, owners of our company to live up to society's expectation. We welcome that. We have always said we really embrace Paris. We embrace the challenge. We believe that we can thrive in a world that will look completely different in a new future of energy. But we also believe that this is just a little bit more complex than what companies like us need to do. So it needs a much broader engagement. It needs indeed a level playing field. It needs from every aspect of society, including government, NGOs, customers, academia, etcetera, etcetera. But I'm very happy that over the last few years, if I just go back a few AGMs, the dialogue has moved on from accusations, insinuations, unrealistic claims and statements, the one where we really try to figure out what is the right thing to do, even though we might not know all the answers and everything for the next 30 years. So I would like to give you our reassurance that we will stay in dialogue with our shareholders on this important matter. I think we have very good format now to do that formally, informally, etcetera. We will continue to show leadership. I cannot speak on behalf of my industry peers, but I can tell you that we are deeply engaged in our industry also to understand how we can progress our thinking to create a level playing field because we are you may think of us as a large company, but in relation to the energy system, we are tiny. So we have to make sure that actually more people sign on to the way of thinking that guides our strategy. And therefore, I look forward to that continued dialogue. The trade associations, I think, yes, absolutely right. It we will again also continue to progress that dialogue. We want to not only do the right thing and be seen doing the right thing, but also influence in the right way. And I'm very happy that you've acknowledged that indeed that is an effort that has created waves. I can tell you the feedback I get confirms that as well that we are indeed making a difference. And I think that's helpful and that is good. It means that indeed we can despite our actually quite small size, we can punch a little bit above our weight. In terms of Mr. Freakin's comments on energy and indeed sulfur in energy, I can reassure you that that has been a long running objective our company to improve the quality of our fuels, particularly on sulfur. We were a leading company with desulfurization of middle distillates in the early '90s. Since then, we have invested more than $1,000,000,000 in desulfurizing products. We will continue to do that in our facilities. And particularly for shipping, of course, it's not just low sulfur diesel. It is also liquefied natural gas, which is totally sulfur free that we see as a very important fuel for the future as well. You've given a lot of examples on what sort of products society can adopt to indeed reduce the carbon footprint of the utility that society needs And we will do our piece in that. It may not involve selling Waka Waka, but it will involve decarbonizing the energy that we sell and delivering better products in line with what I think is our key business model. So you can be assured also in that area Mr. Vreken, we will continue to show leadership. Would you like to finish with your questions, please? Yes. Well, I just gave you a few examples, which can be included in your presentation. I'm talking about quick wins. You don't have to sell Waka Baka. You can give them away. Seika Feibertseman, the CEO of DSM, gives everyone a Waka Baka where ever he goes. He gave one at the AGM to Robert Rautz, your former CEO. And it's a signal, it's a very easy signal, a symbol that with your own solar personal solar panel, Shell is working on it worldwide. It's the cheapest investment for you to help people worldwide, poor people. Furthermore, the circular shower reduces water usage and energy usage with 80%. And due to the fact we will lose 1,000,000 plants and animals in the world, we have to speed up. We have to speed up enormously. Shell was aware 40 years ago what the impact would be of climate change. And now we are nearly there. We will lose 1,000,000 plants and animals. So these are two examples, very easy examples, very easy to implement in your presentation, and that will help to change our society with an enormous speed. I'm talking about easy solutions, not about the difficult things. Thank you so much. Did you have any other topics you wanted to bring up now or hold it for later? I'll hold it for later. Thank you very much. Microphone number 1. Good morning. My name is Ilham Rawat. I'm a bit short and this mic is a bit high. My name is Ilham Rawat. I represent Friends of the Earth Mozambique. So I've come quite a long way. And I'm specifically asking about Shell's agreement to purchase liquid natural gas from Anadarko's Mozambique LNG project, concession area 1. So I think to give an introduction, Mozambique has already been devastatingly affected by climate change as we have seen most recently with Cyclone Idai and Cyclone Kness, which killed nearly 1,000 people and displaced over 1,000,000 and irreversibly destroyed entire cities. There's no room whatsoever for any work that will contribute to climate change further if we're talking about net carbon or 0 carbon or not. So I just want to my first question is about the commitments to carbon reduction and to reduction of GHD emissions. And I want to quote from the environmental impact assessment that Anadarko made about climate change. And it says that the direct opposite of this will happen. And according to the EIA, Chapter 12 Onshore EIA and Mitigation. Page 18, it is evident that by 2022, the first full year of operations of the LNG facility, greenhouse gas emissions from the project could account for nearly 10% of Mozambique's national greenhouse gas emissions. Also Page 18, the project is estimated to emit approximately 30,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year during full operation of 6 LNG trains, the project emissions will increase the level of Mozambique's GHG emissions by 9.4%. On Page 20, the duration of the impact is regarded as permanent as science has indicated that the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere said to range between 105 100 years long after the project is being completed. Okay. The second issue I want to raise is that of the massive human rights violations that are being caused by Anadarko's project. It has already caused human rights violations and environmental devastation even before operations have begun. Thousands of people from communities in the area have been forcefully removed and lost their homes and land. Conversation has been inadequate or non existent, and the public participation process is massively flawed as communities are not able to speak freely in meetings as there are always government officials present. So furthermore, the environmental impact assessment itself mentions these major problems that the project will cause, many of which cannot be mitigated. So there are also very specific questions with regards to the process of the EIA. Firstly, Anadarko has not worked with 1 single NGO in the gas region, which it is not paid. Hence, there's been no independent public participation with civil society. And secondly, Anadarko is failing dismally at its phased plan for resettlement. So my questions are: first question with regard to the carbon emissions. How does this devastating climate impact that Anadarko has admitted that is going to be caused by the Mozambique LNG project. How does this climate change impact align with your claimed goals of decarbonization and lowering of greenhouse emissions? And then my second question with regards to the environmental impact assessment. You shall aware of these problems that the Mozambique LNG project is going to cause? And if so, has it done any of its own assessments or taken steps to rectify these problems? If Shell is not aware of these problems, does that mean that Shell is relying solely on the word of Anadarko to ensure that there are no social environmental damages from the project of which is one of the biggest purchases? Thank you. Thank you for your question. Ben, could you answer that one, please? Thank you very much for your two questions, and thank you for traveling a long distance to be here. I think your first question is quite an important question actually, which is going also to the heart of a debate that is going on. What actually is carbon footprint? And what about scope 1 and 2 and 3 emissions, etcetera? I'm sure that the point that you make is absolutely correct that indeed if an LNG project comes under development in a country with relatively low industrialization levels, then of course, the emissions from that project will be very significant in relation to the emissions that are already there in Mozambique. So the so called scope 12 emissions of that project will be real and will indeed be significant in the Mozambican context. However, if you take into account the fact that the natural gas that is being produced will go around the world will be used in many cases to replace coal, then the reduction in Scope 3 emissions is actually quite substantial. And if you look at the sum total, the increases in Mozambique and the reductions in the rest of the world, I'm pretty confident that the contribution of the Mozambican project to climate change, which is a global phenomenon, is actually positive. Now the problem with that point, of course, is that many aspects of current governance of Paris looks at the country by country emissions. So Mozambique will probably only take into account the scope 1 and 2 emissions that it signs up for reducing, not so much what benefits their products deliver to a country like China perhaps where the LNG may replace coal, which is exactly one of the challenges that we tried to address. When we came up with our net carbon footprint concept, we very much tried to address that. So yes, indeed, if we end up buying LNG from Mozambique LNG and sell it, we will take into account the emissions in Mozambique in the footprint of the LNG that we sell. So we will take account of everything, not just the emissions of the product, but also the emissions that were created when making the product. And we therefore take an all in view and say, if our products cannot reduce the total footprint that they have on the world, not only in using but also in producing, not only when they are produced by us but also when they are produced by others, we are not doing the right thing. And if you take a clear look and I invite you to take a look at the material that we have published on net carbon footprint, you will find back that that is indeed the way we account for our emissions. On the matter that you talk about yes, no, please go ahead. Mr. Maikon for me thank you. So you basically said that the increasing carbon emissions in Mozambique is are you saying that the increasing carbon emissions in Mozambique that is going to affect the Mozambican people and contribute directly to climate change in Mozambique is okay because it will benefit the rest of the world and your customers with their carbon footprint? Because it seems like what you're saying is that you recognize that there are going to be massive carbon emissions in Mozambique, but it doesn't matter because in the global scale, and when you mentioned China, it's going to ultimately decrease carbon emissions. Can you just explain how Mozambican people are basically just pawns for this? I think you are suggesting something which is actually quite incorrect. I hope that indeed it is common knowledge by now that climate change is a global phenomenon and that therefore climate change to the extent that it is caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions actually doesn't really matter where the greenhouse gas emissions come from. As long as they are there, they affect the world. I'm not a climate expert, so I cannot make categoric statements, but I would like to venture the idea that any effect of climate change in Mozambique is probably more caused by the emissions of other countries than the emissions that happen in Mozambique themselves. You should have a look at the EIA. It will tell you differently. On the matter of Anadarko, we, of course, take interest in how industry develop. We do not take direct accountability of how our competitors execute their projects, but we do take interest in how they develop their projects, and we will also do something similar for other sources of supply that we buy from. So have you are you doing any are you taking any steps to rectify the issues that the EIA says they're going to cause? Or are you doing any of your own assessments? Are you basing your project solely on Anadarko's assessment? That's what I asked. I hope you can appreciate it. We cannot take account of Anadarko's actions and assessments. We do take into account the footprint of the Anadarko project is that if that happens to be the project that we are buying from as we do all other projects that we purchase from, not just LNG projects, also refineries and other suppliers. Thank you. Thank you very much for your questions. Number 2? Good morning, Mr. Holiday and Mr. Van Burden. Firstly, I'd like to welcome your words and Mr. Van Burden's recent speech and the publication on the Shell website, where you said that where you go wrong, you'll admit it, learn from it and make it right. It's simple, but it's a good thing to say. I'd like to remind you that in 2015, I stood actually right here asking about Shell's deal for Nigeria's OPL 2 45 oil block. And Mr. Van Burden reassured the investors in the room that this deal was transparent, held no significant risk and was morally okay. Since that day, my organization, Global Witness, has published leaked Shell e mails showing that former Mi6 agents Shell employed to be their experts on the ground in Nigeria explained to the company's executives, including high level ones such as former head of upstream Malcolm Brindad, that its $1,100,000,000 payment for the block would flow through the hands of Dan Esette, the former oil minister and a convicted money launderer, and then into the pockets of senior Nigerian officials, including the then President Good luck Jonathan. Only after those revelations that we published in 2017 did Shell admit that its new it knew its payment would actually flow to Tete at least. Shell's offices have been since raided by Dutch and Italian police. And as you mentioned, Shell's now on trial for international corruption charges in Milan alongside the 4 former staff, including Malcolm Brinded. And on top of this, the company has now announced that it expects to face Dutch criminal charges. As you didn't mention, but I think it's relevant, 2 middlemen involved in the deal have already been convicted of international corruption charges and sentenced to 4 year jail terms in Milan. The court also ruled that management of Shell and I quote, was fully aware of the fact that part of the $1,100,000,000 paid would be used to enumerate Nigerian public officials who had a role in this affair. The judge went on to say, This did not involve a mere connivance, but a conscious attachment to a predatory project to the detriment of the Nigerian state. Now that doesn't bind obviously the ruling on Shell and the ongoing trial, but I think it's noteworthy. And it's a view that Nigeria now seems to share as they suing Shell for 1,000,000,000 of dollars in the British courts and seeking to cancel Shell's license for OPL-two fifty five according to their court filings. Moreover, Global Witness and our partners hired independent experts in this last year to examine Shell's contracts, valuation and development plan for this license and discovered that in fact Shell's production sharing agreement for the block involves no production sharing at all. Instead, the contract resembles a military era contract not handed out to international oil companies since the Abacha era in the 1990s. And the sweetheart contract terms and tax breaks in that deal are estimated to cut Nigeria's expected revenues by $4,500,000,000 compared to Shell's previously agreed terms for the same license. It's $6,000,000,000 compared to Nigeria's model production for sharing contract in place at the time. This is all assuming a future oil price of $70 a barrel. And to put that in context, that's twice Nigeria's federal health and education budgets combined. Those tax breaks effectively freed up the cash that funded the $1,100,000,000 payment that's alleged to have funded this bribery scheme. Our research also identified that Mr. Wetzlar, the Integrated Gas and New Energy's Director, was briefed on these extraordinary contract terms, while he has also now been named in Nigeria's court filings for his role in the deal. So I think it's important to note there are current Shell employees who are being named in these cases as well now. Just days before the deal was signed, Nigeria's most senior civil servant in the Department of Petroleum protested this deal, calling it highly prejudicial to the interests of Nigeria in a letter to the President and the Attorney General. He was overruled by ministers who are now accused of taking bribes in this case. And while I note your comment to admit when you went wrong didn't have the caveat that the company doesn't wish to comment on criminal prosecution, I accept you won't want to comment on an ongoing trial. The case does nevertheless raise a number of governance and financial risks that could and should be addressed by the management immediately. So first, I'd like to ask what the expected financial impact of the criminal cases are against the company, the financial impact of the possible cancellation of the OPL-two fifty five license, the loss of reserves and the loss of the $30,500,000,000 CapEx project that's associated with it. I'd like to ask secondly, if you could shed some more light on the special committee you mentioned last year at this AGM that had been set up by the Board to look into this case and what activities that committee has carried out in its findings? And thirdly, I'd like to ask whether Mr. Brindez's continued role alongside Mr. Wetzlar and other current Shell staff as a trustee of the Shell Foundation and whether that sends the right tone from the top from the company on anti corruption. I note that these are separate companies, but these are your employees sitting alongside those accused of corruption in a Shell branded body. And lastly, would the Board care to correct Mr. Van Burden's statement that this case posed no risk and it was morally okay? And how will the Board be ensuring that no such misleading statements are made to shareholders in the future? How will you admit to wrongdoing here? Will you learn from your mistakes? And will you try to make it right? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Let me first go back to the legal case itself. As you quite said, we cannot comment at this point in time. That's why Ben referred to it in his opening statement. So I don't want to comment on any aspects of it that you point out. When it comes to Mr. Wetzler, Mr. Britton serving on the Fischel Foundation Board, that's a decision of the Board, but we fully support that. We say there's absolutely no reason why they can't serve very effectively on the Board. You don't have some accused of corruption should be suspended from a body like that. I've given you my statement, sir. Okay. I see absolutely no reason that these 2 highly individuals shouldn't serve on that foundation board if that's the decision the board wants to make. I want to take your point about the special litigation committee that we formed because it is an important part of the Board's process to study everything you've talked about. Linda Stuntz is the Chair of that special committee. Linda, could I get you to comment on the committee's process and the job it does for the Board? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your question. As Ben has advised, we cannot discuss details of this because of pending litigation beyond the disclosures already made publicly by the company. But I want to assure you and all shareholders that the Board takes this matter extremely seriously. As you understand properly, the Board formed a special committee. It established that special committee to address this litigation and in all of its dimensions and help it stay informed of the developments, which are quite complex, as I know you're aware. I chair that committee with the dubious privilege of being the only lawyer on the board at this point in time, but I'm ably assisted by the Chairman of the full board as well as the Chair of the Audit Committee so that we can ensure that disclosures are taken into full account. We have met on occasion independently with outside legal counsel. We are regularly advised by inside legal counsel. We meet frequently. We do our best to stay abreast of developments in this matter and to make sure that the board is aware and we do take it quite seriously. Thank you. Number 1? Good morning. My name is Armand Kerstin, Verenging Van Efecte Busitters European Investors. I want to ask questions about 3 specific points, but I have a, in our view, smaller prelim remark on remuneration. The three issues are the return potential of the New Energies business. The second point will be about the share buyback program. And the third point will be about the risk of underinvesting on CapEx. First, the prelim remark I spoke about. Whilst we have a great deal of appreciation for the fact that there is now a very specific move towards within the remuneration policy also attaching remuneration elements to climate aspects. We notice 2 things. 1 is that that part, I. E, making already part of that dependent on climate targets happens prior to the review that will be to the general meeting of the remuneration policy in 2020. So on that particular issue, there has not been the approval or the adoption by the general meeting. And that specifically, we find that interesting because if you look at the particular point, there is only limited assurance on NCF targets. So it's very, very difficult to get any specific assurance on such targets. And that means that in part where you then whatever you call it, but basically attach remuneration specifics to climate goals, of course, it can appear to be a little bit wishy washy. The return potential on new energy businesses. We have indeed with great pleasure seen but Shell says the return prospects for the power business, the new energies business are very, very good. In fact, you say we can aim for 8% to 12% return over the next 3 years. In very specific terms, we would like to ask, can you give this meeting your word on the record that you will pull the plug on those businesses if in this 3 year term, we clearly see that the range for the returns is a bit overly ambitious, 8% to 12%. So we would like to see that you say, well, we've given it this term. If we don't get there, we will stop prospects for the new energies business for power, the prospects for the New Energies business for power, then why do you only invest 10% into that business and not a greater part since it is apparently so attractive? The second point, Shell's Scharbach program. To put it very bluntly, but you know VEB is always trying to be very outspoken. We think the program is flawed, and it's set up in a way that destroys value. We would like to recommend or to ask that instead of doing the share buyback program, you reconsider it and you do that in favor of increasing regular dividends or you pay a super dividend. And the reason we say that is that if you look at the buyback program, you say the current $25,000,000,000 buyback program is subject to further progress in debt reduction and oil price conditions. And in our view, the implication of this is that Shell does buy back shares when conditions are favorable and hence valuations are high and that likely leads to subpar buyback returns. So there we have a very clear plea, if you will, to Shell, withdraw it and consider paying regular dividends or a super dividend instead. Finally, risk of underinvesting. We have appreciation really of 4 Shell's improvements in the returns on capital, the cost efficiencies and the deleveraging of the balance sheet. That's really been impressive. We do feel, however, that in part, that is almost a reaction, if you will, to the fact that a former CEO or various former CEOs were overspending significantly on CapEx, and that was leading to significant value destruction. And then my question quite simply, if you look at the reserve replacement, it stood at 27% 53% in 20172018 respectively. We are aware that this number is negatively impacted by divestments, but we do wonder if these are percentages investors should get used to or do you want to grow this number to 100% because if not, Shell is shrinking each year? Thank you. Thank you for a very complete set of questions. Let me answer you in 3 ways. First, in early June, the management team will have a full investor presentation to update on a number of topics you've talked about. It is going to be webcast. So I believe a proper time would be to answer many of those questions there. For today, what Jessica, I'd like to ask you to respond to the financial questions that were asked and the allocation of resources and returns type questions, including the insurance of the net carbon footprint calculation, if I understood it right. And if I could ask our Chair of our Gerard, if you would speak to the compensation questions that were asked. Jessica, do you go first? Great. Thank you, sir, for your question. In terms of the return potential of our New Energies business, I think we've framed that more in terms of our expectations and our aspirations rather than a certainty. I would go back to the presentation that Chad made that highlighted the uncertainties around energy transition. And back in 1910, 1920, there was uncertainty in terms of what would be the winning fuel. That's a bit where we are today. We don't know exactly how the energy transition will take place. What we do know is that power will be an increasing portion of the energy system and to the extent we want to thrive in the energy transition then we believe we need to move materially in the power business. But we want to do that with wisdom. We want to do it with the right pace. And we need to do it in a way that's creating value for our shareholders. But it's not just value for our shareholders because if we achieve 8% to 12%, it also demonstrates that we're provide products and services that the world will need for having more energy and lower carbon energy. We have strengths we are leveraging. We are already in the power sector materially in the U. S, but also around the world. So we are not starting kind of from flat footed, if you will. We do have a strong position that we are trying to leverage. We are taking very targeted positions and we're testing hypotheses. If those hypotheses prove to not be valid, what was the language used, will we pull the plug, We will. That's the job of management is to set a strategy and try and execute that strategy. But if that strategy is not succeeding then absolutely we'll need to redirect our efforts. And my expectation is that will need to happen because there is so much uncertainty around how this energy transition will take place. On the maybe I'll stick with investment. I'll go to your capital question and are we under investing and what is the reserve replacement ratio indicate for investors and should that cause some concern? I don't believe there should be any concern around our reserve replacement ratio. And traditionally, that has been a way for investors and society to have a sense of what the future potential of an oil and gas company looks like. For our company and our portfolio that is not the best measure of understanding the nature of the resources that we have and the likely play out of those resources over time. And I think a good data point to underscore the point I'm making is to take a look at the cash flow from operations we've generated over the last couple of years. So while we've had potentially a relatively low reserve replacement ratio because of the way we have shaped the company and the nature of our portfolio, the quality of the barrels that we produce are the highest in the sector. And therefore, for every barrel, we're getting more value than we did in the past. So it's not just volume, but it's also the quality of the barrel. And we have consciously reshaped our portfolio to have the highest quality barrels and therefore we're generating significant cash flow for every barrel we produce and we have the expectation to have that strength going forward as well. On the share buyback program, there are different views in terms of the best way of returning cash to shareholders. We believe we have the right strategy for a number of reasons. First of all, it was a firm commitment we made with the BG transaction and it's very important for us to legally, but also principally achieve the commitments that we made with that transaction and we indicated we would do $25,000,000,000 in share buybacks. I would also point out we're the largest dividend payer in the world at $16,000,000,000 in dividends a year. That's a substantial amount. And with that, we also have one of the highest dividend yields in the moment in time, given the absolute moment in time given the absolute amount that we currently pay today and the yields that dividend is achieving. So the buyback program I think is the right choice for our capital structure. Through time it also increases the free cash flow per share available to shareholders going forward. And we believe that this will set us up to be a more resilient company and ultimately a better able to provide increasing distributions to shareholders through time. Thank you. Erik? Thank you for your question. Let me start at the beginning. You refer correctly to the fact that next year, we will have an update of the policy for a vote at the AGM. And in order to prepare for that policy update, we had already a year long an extensive exchange with all our institutional shareholders on the ideas to come to a convergence of ideas on how to incorporate a measure for energy transition in the LTIP. And a couple of things became very clear. First of all, NCF itself is a fairly new concept on which there is no industry standard, on which there is no external auditing body. And therefore, a couple of things became evident. First of all, whenever we would include energy transition in the LTIP, it should, at a start, only occupy a small part as a percentage of the total KPIs in the LTIP, number 1. Secondly, because the trajectory of and I think Chet and Ben alluded to that, will be volatile in the beginning because of the inclusion of Scope 3. We should not only and it could as well go up in the early years as that it could go down. We should also include not only the NCF measure for which we have targets, but also a number of the enablers that should drive future NCF reduction. And the 3 enablers that we have chosen are the ramp up of our power business, the progress with our biofuels and the progress on our nature based solutions program. And so when we will judge the total progress on energy transition, NCF, which is at that moment more an internal assessment being verified by external experts, but not audited, it doesn't expand, is only a small part of what is a small part in the LTIP, if you get my point. The other elements will be progress on the power business for which we have a target, which is measurable. And like with the other targets, which we also do in the short term incentive plan, we don't This was the achievement. Therefore, that shall be the payout. And because we actually progressed very well in our discussions with investors on where to lend this, we sat down and said actively with this shape of inclusion, we have the liberty in the current policy. The current policy allows us to make changes to the set of parameters of the LTIP. And therefore, if we anyhow are starting a journey on a learning curve, start to learn as early as possible and therefore not wait till the vote of next year, but already included now for this year's LTIP so that we start on that learning curve. And then with respect to other desirable changes to the remuneration policy, we will discuss in the coming year and bring that policy update to vote for the AGM at the AGM of 2020. Thank you. Number 2? Good morning. My name is Jennifer Edwards. I'm a CBE, which for those of you who aren't U. K. Citizens, is a commander of the British Empire. I feel being given the title of commander by our Majesty is an instruction to me to be courageous and to speak truth to power. I'd like to recognize that you're all here today for what is an occasion you probably weren't looking forward to, but you're going to receive a lot of challenging questions, some of which address points I would make. I've been an individual shareholder in our company for 25 years since I inherited them from my aunt. So it's been a family investment. It's one that I want to pass on to my son, but I have significant doubts about it. And the reason why I'm here today is because first I heard that papers have been lodged against the company for the crime of ecocide in an international court. Now that will of necessity take many years to settle. What it made me do was to go and research very thoroughly both our company and I've been an investor for 25 years. So I take the responsibility for anything the company has done over that time in my very small way, but also where we are in the world and the scientific reports, which I've read in some detail. People may not have had a chance this morning to see the paper published by the National Academy of Sciences that says that we have probably sea levels. It says that by the end of this century, we have a 1 in 20 chance, which is quite high. I wouldn't cross the road if I had a 1 in 20 chance of being run over, of reaching 5 degrees and 2.32 meters of additional sea height, which would basically knock out my own city of London, New York. It didn't cite the Netherlands, but I suspect it would affect the Netherlands too. That's not a 50% chance. We're not talking about that, but it's a significant risk. So my question is not about the past. Others will determine what happened in the past. We are where we are in the present moment. It seems to me that we are in a fork in the road, and we have 2 places to go. And certain world leaders have said to us, will we be on the side of history? Will we do the things that are now extremely urgent to do? This is not just climate change. This is climate crisis, and it's an emergency. You have spoken about 1,000,000 species on the planet at threat of extinction before our children reach the end of their lifetimes. And Mr. Van Buren, you've spoken movingly of your daughter's distress over this. I think all of us know our young people are distressed at the prospect for them and if they have children. And we cannot truthfully comfort them when we don't know what the outcome of the situation we are in will be. We have to do everything in our power. I give credit to the directors of this company for what they have already done and for the fact that they are ahead of others in this industry. And I praise you for that. I praise us because we are Shell. And I commend you to continue with that. At the moment, I stand here with a weight of guilt on my shoulders for the fact that I was involved and I didn't realize that the lobbying that I was contributing to in a very small way was actually holding us back. We've lost 4 decades of action that we couldn't afford to take. We have now very short period of time. We've been told 12 years, but the report published today said that was overoptimistic on sea levels. And therefore, the plan that you have, which is based on the Paris Accords, is already out of date. So Nigel, I know you were involved in the Kyoto preparations. That was a long time ago. We could have done so much more at that time. So I would like to be here in a year's time with a very different presentation from the board. Chairman, I would like you to introduce the directors and call for their reelection by citing their climate and planetary credentials, what they know, what they bring to Shell being an exceptional champion for our planet. There will be many other qualities that you want them to have, but that was not mentioned at all today for any of the recommendations you made. I think the leadership of the company has to be firmly seen to be championing the change that we all need. We are not in a bubble, Mark Shell. We're in a world that is our only world. Secondly, I would like to see the company's CapEx plans being very different. Presently, we will be the 2nd greatest investor in looking for new sources of fossil fuels. We cannot do that and truthfully championing where we are in the planet. Thirdly, I'd like the effort that has gone in the past into lobbying to prevent regulations that will interfere with profit making to be switched to be on the side of the planet. Now like everybody else, I rely on my dividends and some of my pension funds are in this room. But you said at the beginning, we have that we have the future of the planet and we have our funds. Well, if I was asked, do I put my family first or do I put my dividends first, There is absolutely no competition. My family, my community, my country, my world, my planet, they all come before my dividend. And I think many people in this room will feel the same. That has to be clear. Shell can be a champion. You've made some we've made some good steps, but it's not enough. If we'd started 20 years ago, it probably would have been enough. Now it's far more urgent. I'm not asking you to respond now or to change your plan now, but in a year's time, you have to really grasp this. At the moment, the world is like the proverbial frog in water, where that's been hit warming, warming, warming. To jump out. And I want to see the results of that in 12 months' time. Thank you. Commander, excellent presentation. Thank you. I find we are highly aligned and we appreciate so much your voice. Let me just comment on a couple of things and I'll ask Nigel as Head of our Corporate Social Responsibility Committee to respond and if we leave something out, Ben will fill it in. So but first on the science, yes, I saw the National Academy of Science Study. I was on the last committee that made a major piece of work like that. I know the kind of work that went into it. I'm looking forward to reading in-depth. Our board has climate scientists come directly to the board. We have another review schedule this fall with multiple climate scientists to give us the most scientists to give us the most updated information on the technology. And we're meeting with climate scientists even later this month. So we are our board is very much in tune with that and take into account. We just don't go for the newspaper articles that we see. Nigel, if I could turn it over to you for comments. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for the presentation and for the questions. From the perspective of the committee I chair, we understand completely that this is urgent and critical and that we've got to get it right and that we need to be and we believe we are starting to be on the right side of history. We accept that challenge and we're trying to act in that way. And as inputs to the committee, we talk regularly to non governmental organizations, to academics. We get regular updates on the climate science. We try to inform ourselves as best we can. And the committee is made up of people familiar with public policy, involved in public debate and open to challenge and to dissent. And that is very, very important to us. So as Chad said, I think we accept a very, very great deal of what you say and accept the urgency and certainly feel that in the last few years, as I look back, we've moved every year in this area to something new. It was only 2 years ago that we started in our scorecard, our regular scorecard, to introduce a test concerning greenhouse gas emissions in our Scope 12 areas. And we've added to that with the NCF commitment over the past 18 months now in the long term incentive program for the company. So there's been a really urgent and progressive change in the company's policies in this area, which our committee has certainly tried to contribute to. So thank you. I do acknowledge progress, but we have so much further to go. And you have 12 months. And then we will look to your plans, be as ambitious as this world needs it to be. Can I add a few comments as well, Madam Edwards, and thank you very much for putting the challenge so eloquently? You've actually used a lot of words that we use inside the company as well. We want to be a company that wants to be on the right side of history. And that is not just something that we say in town halls. These are discussions that we have and we talk about the strategy of the company. And we believe, therefore, that we have a role to be an important force in shaping the events in society, even though we may only be a very tiny element of the energy system if you take the fullness of the energy system into account. I'm afraid I have to agree with you that we are not on track for meeting Paris. And when I say we, I don't mean we here in the room in the direct sense of the word as shareholders and company. I think we actually try our very best and I believe we are on track to do the right thing. Society as a whole is actually finding it very difficult to get its act together and to make sure that we are irrevocably on that route to significantly below 2 degrees C. If I don't want to put people on the spot, but I would like to point out a very interesting piece of dynamic in this meeting. Earlier on, we heard Mr. Kersten from VEB say, if you can't make 8% to 12% return in the power business, will you guarantee that you will stop investing in renewables? That's interesting, yes? And I can assure you that at this point in time, nobody in the world makes that return in that business. So what we are trying to do here is to actually set up a business in the image of something that doesn't exist yet. So we are really exploring a way to make sure that we can invest in that business, make returns, also in the full knowledge that if that doesn't happen, our energy transition is not going to happen because the 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars that the world is going to need to invest in that in building a power system that is 5 times the size of the power system that we've built over the last 150 years is not going to come forward by government subsidies, by loss making companies and everything else. So we have to really explore ways and means on how we are going to grow our investments in a business with business models that are not proven, not even in existence. But we will try. And we will be true to both our commitments to be a world class investment case. I'm sure we will struggle here and there to get it right in one go, but we will continue to try because again, we want to be at the right side of history. And if that means that we have to advocate for policies that are sometimes difficult, people don't quite understand and sometimes maybe indeed some of our industry peers say, Why are you saying that? We will do so. So in that sense, we will also speak truth to power. Thank you very much. Excellent. I'm pleased to hear it. I send you all our good wishes in those discussions with your peers. You have to be true to the transformational leader that we believe you to be and that transformation has to happen more quickly than anybody believes possible. Okay. Would somebody like to Okay. Would somebody like to Could one of our team pick that up, please? Thank you very much for that. I think maybe it's okay. You can read it later, okay? Number 1, these have been just excellent questions and very pertinent. They have been a bit long. So if we could concentrate just a little bit, I want to make sure everybody has a chance to answer their question. I'm not picking on you because you're the next one up, but your question, sir. Good morning. I am Oscar Campanini from Bolivia, South America. In Bolivia, despite the negative background of irregularities during 1997, 2008 with Trans Redes consortium. Shell returned 3 years ago to Bolivia by acquisition of Bijie. And I have a specific question on Shell right now in Bolivia. This is the question. The Shell in the Huacareta block in Bolivia will respect the decision of local communities to not develop exploration, especially in the natural protected area of Tarikia? If doing so, Kjell, how do you plan to listen and integrate community decisions? Bjorn? Yes. Thank you very much, and thank you very much for traveling so far to attend this AGM. Indeed, when we bought BG Group, there was a small position in Bolivia in that portfolio, which is an exploration activity, which we are are indeed playing out. We have a very clear policy when it comes to indigenous people, which is in line with our policy on business principles that we follow, but also in line with the United Nations declaration on rights of indigenous people to have dialogue with people who are affected by our operations. And we I'm sure, although I may not be aware of all the details, but perhaps that can be followed on after this meeting, I'm sure that we have also in this case been in dialogue with our neighbors and people that may be affected by our operations in a way to have a productive and a constructive and a transparent relationship sometimes even to the point of making agreements on how local communities can benefit from our operations or their concerns being incorporated in the way we conduct our operations. I would expect that to be the same process in Bolivia, but I'm sorry, I do not have the details to hand to give you specific examples. But it is very much in line with spirit and the principles that we adopt in the company to do so. There is a desk outside in the lobby where we have several of our experts are available. If you have any more specific questions about Bolivia, they'd be glad to help you and answer, if you could. Number 2? Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Diana Juncker Acuriel. I'm the Energy Industry Director Industrial Global Union, which represents thousands of Shell workers around the world. Thank you, Mr. Burton, for your mention of our demands at this AGM last year. It's a pity that Shell still refuses to acknowledge these violations. In September, I personally went to Nigeria, and I saw these violations by myself. For your information, we have raised since these violations with the International Labor Organization, also with the UN Global Compact and with the United Nations Human Rights Council. In September, CEL made a commitment with 3 other oil companies to create a common framework for monitoring labor rights in their supply chain. However, this scheme excludes trade union participation. If Cell really wants to improve labor rights in its global supply chain, why does Cell refuse to work together with Industrial Global Union to address these issues? Cell says that it only works with local unions, but problems in SEL's global supply chain need global dialogue to find global solutions. Other multinational energy companies such as Total and Eni work with industrial to improve workers' rights in their supply chains. Could you please let me know why can Nut Shell do the same? Thank you. Ben, could you take that, please? Yes. Thank you very much. Indeed, we very much recognize the function and the use that unions play in representing legitimate rights. We believe in having dialogue with unions. And of course, in many occasions and on many topics, these issues that are being brought up are very local, very specific, are very contextual. And therefore, indeed, as a matter of policy, we have decided that we will discuss issues and grievances and suggestions for improvement very much in the local context. So it doesn't and I'm not saying that you're suggesting that it doesn't mean that we don't dialogue with unions. We do believe that it's better done on a local level. You also referred to the Global Compact. Yes, we are indeed in dialogue with the Global Compact on Global Matters. We have very clear supplier principles that we adopt that I believe are world class. If there are suggestions that you can make to improve them, to improve human rights issues related to our supply chain. We were happy to take them on as we have. We have signed declarations to respect human rights. We have many examples, by the way, where we work very hard actually without prompting by unions to make sure that the respect for people in our supply chain when we construct projects or when we rely on developing countries, labor from developing countries is respected and is taken care of. We've done that quite often by taking a leadership role in industry and also with construction companies to make sure that principles that we believe in are adopted by the people that we contract with. And I think that we have been quite transparent in that. If you have suggestions for improvement, by all means, we will listen to you. We will take them up. If you still have concerns about certain things, by all means, write to us as well. But we will also make sure that you will hear back what it is that we find from our investigations. And if you believe that the allegations are unfounded because you happen to work with the wrong inputs or if you somehow mischaracterize, which I think is what happened last year, we will know have no hesitation to also point that out. Thank you very much. Number 1? Sorry, I would like to say something. Yes. Thank you. By the way, we would like to invite you again to establish this social dialogue with us. I think that there is nothing too high. And also, I fully agree that, of course, you signed a lot of agreements, but paper supports everything. So we want you to apply those agreements. Thank you. Thank you. Number 1? Good morning. Sandra Wekerman from Groningen. Along with the government and ExxonMobil, Shell has looted my wonderful province. Yes, Shell has looted my wonderful province. You just talked about Groningen, you talked about money, you talk about legislation, but you don't talk about people. Scientific research shows that 10,000 people in Groningen are ill. They have been made ill not only by the earthquakes that were also caused by you, but precisely because of the way you deal with damages and the strengthening and reinforcement of their damaged houses. And that hurts. And Groningen is not unique. There have been many speakers before me. Other communities, your own workers and people who are worried in communities across the world. But my question is about Groningen. You refer to your license to operate, your social license to operate and you speak about safety. But when you the state, with the government. And people are still waiting for compensation for their damages. They're still waiting in unsafe houses. When will you enter? When will you disclose this contract with the government? When will you stop paying for time? When will you stop frustrating the people in Ekflorning? When will you start paying? And when will you finally go away? Because Shell your time is up, not only the people in Groningen, but also communities, but my community and other communities across the world will no longer accept you. Thank you, Ms. Beckerman. Benefit of those who do not have translation with. But at the same time, I'm also the first to acknowledge that indeed the plight of people in Groningen has been very significant. We very much understand the feelings of people in Groningen, the feelings of unsafety, the concern that I have had, not only about safety, but also about future devaluation of the houses and everything else. And I hope that you will have also seen through your personal background that we have worked very hard with the government to understand how that can be addressed. The agreements that we have reached with the government as shareholders, but also with NAM, of course, as the executor of it, I think has been disclosed to the extent that the minister wanted to disclose it, and it is not for us to determine what the minister would like to disclose. And we are putting that agreement into effect. I think it would be wrong to characterize that the production of Hoss and Groningen is the exclusive decision domain of a company like us. In the end, the production of Groningen has always very much been, of course, something that was done with the interests of the Netherlands at heart. And we have now formalized that to make sure that we want to give very clear impression that we have nothing to do with the production decisions of Heine. I've been very clear also with the minister, Prime Minister that we do not feel that it is our place to make national trade offs between interests that may exist in the Netherlands. This is a political decision that needs to be made by politicians. We will execute the instructions of the government in that respect and we are quite happy to do I am very much aware that there have been a lot of complexity in dealing with the damages that have been done to houses. Discontent and even resentment for the operations in the country at a time after a time that we actually were quite proud as the Netherlands of what it is that we were doing in Groningen in Branten. But truth be told, we were a company that was probably better able to deal with geological challenges and production challenges than with handling of damage. There was indeed concern that we were not doing the right thing. We were not doing it efficiently. So we've also been very clear, we want to have no part in handling the damage claims. The only part that we believe we have to take is to pay the bill, and that's exactly what we are doing. We have put guarantees in place that we can do that. And indeed, it is not exactly yet at the place where it is, but it is not because of us. We are not, as you say, trying to string it out or whatever else. The funds are available. It will be paid out, but it is very much a decision that is run by independent bodies, independent entities governed by the government of this country, which I think is appropriate. Number 2? Yes. Thank you. Number 2? Yes. Thank you so much. My name is Comrade Afolabi Olawale Olofemi. I'm the General Secretary of the Nigerian Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, the only union that organizes blue collar workers in Nigeria oil and gas industry. I came all the way from Nigeria to attend this AGM, And I thank God that we made the sacrifice to be here because I just heard there that the protest we made last year has been settled and that Shell relates with local units in Nigeria. I represent Nigeria Oil and Gas Workers and I can tell you I have not received a single correspondence from Shell concerning our presentation last year. The only presentation the only letter I got was letter from our Global Union stating that Nigerian oil and gas worker that are contributing to the wealth to the billions of dividend being shared is earning $2.65 per month, a man, his wife and at least 4 children. For Mr. Ben, another executive, Shell is making future for them. For Nigerian workers, contributing with their sweat and blood to this money, there is no future. You want to be on the right side of history. To Nigerian workers, they are not begging for dividends from you. They are saying they should be well paid. These workers have been on the same wage since 2014. This is the agreement, collective bargaining agreement that these workers signed that we negotiated on behalf 2014. These workers have remained stagnant on this wage since then. Reluctantly, with this signed by the contractors of Shell in Nigeria, they renewed this to be implemented since last year. It has never been implemented. It's so sad, so sad that oil and gas workers are toiling hard in Nigeria, but we are being exploited maybe because we are too surplus and because of our weak institutions and because we are vulnerable. I'm here to make a petition ahead to you that sincerely, Mr. Ben, if you want to be honest and be on the right side of history, why don't you commit an independent investigative panel, a research together with the union, local union as you call it, to examine the extent and impact of the contract work outsourcing shale is perpetrating Nigeria on the community, the rate of crime, making this year not be no future. The dividends you are earning, look at the extreme right corner, is tainted by the tears, agonies of Nigerian workers. Thank you. Bill, would you get a comment? Sure. Thank you very much, sir, for coming and bringing this to our attention. I know for a fact because I have seen the letter before it went out to the union representatives in Nigeria that we have responded to concerns that were being raised. The issue, I suppose, quite often with allegations like the one that you are making now here is that it's perhaps not exactly immediately clear what the precise issue is that we need to respond to. Can I invite you again, sir, if you have a particular grievance to write to me or to address it to the help desk that we have? And we will respond to it absolutely as we have responded previously to union representation in Nigeria. If I may try to respond to things that I may have wrong, and if I do so, I apologize in advance, is that some of your grievances also have to do with the wages that our contractors pay to their workers and how much they actually on our increases that you may think are justified. On that particular point, I hope you will understand that we do not have control over how our contractors have their remuneration policy, how they pay, how they do their collective bargaining with unions and countries, other than indeed the points that we make in our suppliers' principles, which is that people should pay adequately, people should pay in time, that there are certain rights that we adhere to. And we actually do audit and look into the behavior of our contracts to see that they indeed respect human rights, but also what we believe is good conduct in the workplace. However, if that is not the case in some of the examples that you have in mind or if I misunderstood your concern, absolutely, we will address it. And on the point that you make about crime in Nigeria, unfortunately, we are very much also at the receiving end of that and is also a method that really concerns us and that we try to address as best as we can as well. Thank you very much. Number 1? Hi. My name is Lauri van den Berg, and I have a question related to your climate ambition, which you say is fully aligned with Paris. So according to the last IPCC report on 1.5 degrees, warming beyond 1.5 degrees risks irreversible climate impacts. Already at the current one degree of temperature rise, we're seeing a lot of ecosystems and lives, including in the Philippines and in Mozambique. Shell says that it, I quote, strongly supports the Paris agreement and supports the aspirations of transitioning to a net 0 emissions world by 2,015. However, at the same time, you are assuring your shareholders that you're not going soft on fossil fuels, the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions. You have set a climate ambition, but this climate ambition sets a carbon intensity target. And according to our report that we released today, Schonens Ghein, it does not guarantee any emission reductions. We therefore, conclude that your climate ambition is misleading and actually contributes to climate emergency. So that brings me to my questions. 1st, can you confirm that it is possible for Shell to meet its climate ambition even if it increases its overall emissions? And that it bets on negative emission technologies to save the day? Secondly, can you confirm that your $149,000,000,000 in investments in new oil and gas over the next few years, which makes you the highest investor in more oil and gas after Exxon ExxonMobil would lead to higher oil and gas use than without those investments, even though oil and gas use needs to go down to meet climate goals. And third, if that's the case, which according to our report released today, which I'm happy to hand over to you after this, it is, Do you agree that it is misleading to present your climate ambition as being fully in line with Paris and as supporting the climate goals to your shareholders, journalists and the general public? Thank you. Ben, would you care to address those? I'm going to use your question to make a few other points as well. And for that because I know there is a lot of debate when we say our climate ambitions are in line with Paris. There are also people who would like to understand that better, what that means. And there are indeed people who say, no, they're not. So I would like to just make a few points and apologize in advance if that sounds a little bit professorial, but I would like to make a few points with a few slides, which I hope people in the background can now put on. The first one is what it will take to achieve barriers. I think and again, this is slightly educational, but I hope you will bear with me and I hope you can benefit from this insight as well. If we want to reduce as a society very significantly greenhouse gases that are being emitted, we have to pull on 4 different levers, all 4 of them. The first one, which is on top of this, is we have to change consumption patterns in the world, consumption patterns of products and services that have high energy content in them, yes? And I will give a few examples in a moment. But secondly, it's not just enough. We have to, on top of it, make sure that those products and those services that actually use energy, use it as efficiently as possible. So energy efficiency is a key lever to pull as well. So reducing demand for energy intensive products, but also making sure that energy intensive products are more efficiently made, so improving efficiency. Thirdly, we can't go without energy. That's something that we know for a fact. So we have to make sure that the energy that we use is of ever lower carbon content. And then finally, even if you do all of that, there will still be use for hydrocarbons somehow in the energy mix. So there will still be CO2 emissions. And therefore, we have to make sure that we compensate those by capturing them and sequestering them, either through carbon capture and use and storage or through offsets like the nature based offsets that I mentioned. And only, only if you put all these 4 levers exceptionally fast and exceptionally well can we have a hope of getting below 2 degrees C. Now if you go to the next slide and apologies that it may not be easy to read in the audience, But if you go to the but we will post them on the web if you want to take another look at including a few other slides. Take 2 examples, air travel for instance. So the 4 levers that I mentioned, we're not going to somehow get to 0 carbon emissions from air travel without actually changing our travel habits or making sure that goods are being traveled or logistics are being reorganized in a way that actually less miles of air travel are going to be needed. That is an uncomfortable fact to conclude, but it is absolutely true. Also, we have to make sure that to the extent that we utilize air travel, if it can't be avoided, we actually do it with planes that are really efficient, with efficient jet engines and efficient everything, so that actually the efficiency of air travel improves. Thirdly, we have to make sure that even if we do all of that, that jet fuel that is being used is of the lowest carbon content possible. So the things that we can think of today are maybe bio jet fuel. Maybe for the future, it will be hydrogen, but we have to pull that lever as well. And then finally, I'm sure that we will have to, one way or other as a society, sequester the emission that still remain because total carbon free air travel will probably not exist for a long time to come. And you can have the same example for personal mobility, yes? So just travel less, better logistics, more public transport, but also more efficient cars. Governments will have to really insist on that. We have to make sure that the internal combustion engine is gradually being replaced with other car engines that actually can use electricity or hydrogen or whatever else. And then on top of it, we may want to do things like offsetting what we are doing here in the Netherlands to also make sure that whatever emissions are still there are also being taken care of. I can go on with many different sectors, heavy duty industry, maybe apparel, maybe loading a movie from the Internet. But one thing I would also like to tell you is that the role that we have as Shell is predominantly in the 3rd category. It is decarbonizing energy. And that's where our net carbon footprint comes from. We cannot enforce that people will have different cars or that they will travel less or they will make use of public transport. We cannot decide to not fill up this plane or only fill it up half so it will fly less. That's not an option for us, yes? We can help by working with governments for better regulations. We can help with the aircraft industry and say how can we improve jet engines so that they can take different types of fuels. And believe me, we are doing that. And we can also help with offsets of emissions that still exist. But we cannot do everything. And the point is that, yes, we think we can get to less than 2 degrees C. We can probably even get to 1.5, yes? But we have to pull all these four levers and we have to do our part. We publicly committed that we will do our part when it comes to net carbon footprint. And I can now also commit that we will work in all 4 of these levers to use our influence, our insight, our knowledge to help drive progress in the area as well. And if you want to know exactly how it works and how the 50% reduction or the 20% reduction, how that lines up with net 0 and 1.5 degrees and everything else, We have a very detailed expose on our website that answers all these questions, I hope, in a sensible way. I had a very detailed discussion with the leading investor groups that you heard of this morning to explain how it works. I'm afraid it is a little bit nitty gritty and specific and technological, etcetera, but it is unfortunately also the reality of the world. But we are pulling the levers as best as we can in areas where we actually have our hands on the lever. Okay. So I studied energy science, so I was also able to study the expose on your website that explains how your carbon footprint reduction targets work. So I studied those, and I ran the numbers myself in this report. And in that report, I showed that you can increase your overall emissions and still achieve your carbon net footprint reduction. And I asked you in my question whether you can confirm that, that is the case. And with this presentation, which I enjoyed, thank you for that, you didn't manage to answer my question. So I would like to ask you if you could still do so. So I asked, can you confirm that even with this net carbon footprint targets, you can still increase your emissions and your overall emissions and achieve this target of halving your net carbon footprint by 2,050. And in addition to that, you're saying that you fully support the aspiration of going to net 0 emissions by 2,050, halving even if you achieve an absolute reduction in your emissions by 2,050, that is not net 0. So can you confirm that that is not in line with the net 0 target? As a global company that operates worldwide as one of the richest company, I believe that Shell should at least be able to follow the global reduction pathway that is needed to keep our biggest chance of staying below 1.5 degrees? Thank you. I'm very interested to read your report, and I'm sure we will again learn things from it and have the ability to dialogue a little bit further. I think if you look at our company, of course, it is what we report on with our emissions, our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. And indeed, it will as we have also discussed earlier on in the example of Mozambique. And you're talking about 1, 2 and 3 emissions, Scope 1, 2 and 3 here, because your carbon footprint applies to 1, 2 and 3? We haven't made a commitment to reduce our total absolute emission scope. What we have said is we will improve the carbon efficiency of the energy products that we provide. Suppose we would have the best intensity energy products, the best in the world, 2 times better than the nearest competitor. I'm sure you would want to make sure that we were the largest supplier of energy products in the world, wouldn't you? At that point in time, it may well be that indeed our emissions in an absolute sense would go up, but the improvements that we would have made to the energy system in the world would still outweigh that. I think that investments in new oil and gas will lock us into more oil and gas use and all the different climate models that meet 1.5 degrees show that a rapid reduction in oil and gas use is needed to meet those targets. So maybe that is something that you can consider when you're reviewing your net carbon footprint and when you increase your ambition so that you can actually contribute to keeping this world deliverable planet. Thanks. Thank you very much. Number 2? FNV Union on behalf of people working in Pernice, in Moerdijk and working for NAM as well because we have a number of companies in the Netherlands working under the flag of Shell. On behalf of all of them, I would make to make an appeal to start talking with Industry Hall about issues, among other things, in Nigeria. Here in the Netherlands, we are accustomed to solving things locally. However, if it doesn't work locally, also we at least maintain human rights. And that means that when issues appear, we try and solve them globally together. And for this, we have a union thinking about issues worldwide. And this is industrial. We are members and so is the previous speaker from Nigeria. And therefore, the request is to act like we do in the Netherlands, not to write letters, but to sit down around the table to see what would be needed in order to solve the problems at hand. And when we get back together 1 a year, we might be able to complement you on whatever changed over there about the great steps that will have been made over there in the field of human rights. Thank you very much. Again, if you don't mind, I will reply in English. We will take that into account, absolutely. But let me also be very clear again that last year, the input that we received from Andersville was a set of allegations, which were quite severe actually. And we felt, therefore, it was absolutely necessary to respond to this in writing after we had done a very thorough investigation about what were actually the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground do not align with the allegations made. And therefore, I also think it is in the interest of our shareholders to make sure that they understand that not everything that is being said in this room is actually true. So that doesn't mean that we are unhappy or unwilling to be in dialogue, absolutely. And if you would have listened, I would have invited the previous gentleman from Nigeria to write to us. And if we can indeed improve in areas where there is still an issue or a grievance, then we will do so. But again, our experience has been, 1st of all, that it's better to deal with local unions because they understand the local circumstances better. And when it has to do with global principles of human rights, I think we are probably better able to deal with other bodies rather than global unionization. I fully agree with you when you say that there can't be 2 different truth. It's unfathomable that our facts would be different than your facts. If that's the case, like make sure we discuss this together and that we understand the matters together because the problem is that when people travel there, when people see the facts on the ground, when they see facts, they would like to discuss them with you. When they want to investigate the truth, they're only happy to do it in dialogue with you. We would like to conduct such an investigation together, not separately. Very much. We'll take that into account. And I again reassure you that we do not shy away from having dialogue. But if dialogue is accusations and defense, then I don't think neither of us will make progress. Number 1? Good afternoon. My name is Frank Altena, and I speak on behalf of the VBDO, VBDO, Verengring van Belekhes for Dusan und Wichling. I would ask 3 questions, each with a short introduction. Question 1, we are a bit stubborn on carbon footprint. You explained your targets. And by 2,050, Shell aims to reduce the net carbon footprint by 50%. There's, however, science relevant expertise that shows that achieving the targets would require a reduction of more than 100% by 2,050, meaning also that an intermediate footprint target should be likely set higher than your 2% to 3%. The question is, can you explain for the benefit of the shareholders, in short of course, why this discrepancy exists? And the second related question to that is, do we need to envision that Shell perhaps needs to set even more ambition targets for the NCF in the coming years. That's on the first question. The second question is on a social issue on living wage. This has been a long term interest of the VBDO. We note that Shell expects suppliers to meet or exceed national legal wage standards. VBDO would like to emphasize that legal wage standards do not necessarily qualify as a living wage, a wage that is sufficient to cover food and housing expenses and all other basic needs for the worker and the family may be relevant to the Nigeria case. Living wages do not only ensure human dignity, it also makes good business sense. You probably agree with that. But the question is, is Shell willing to identify key suppliers and contractors in high risk countries that do not pay a living wage to their workers? Can Shell commit to develop a plan with these suppliers and contractors to ensure a living wage. We shall make a suggestion we'd like to make in line with the previous remark, we shall make a reference to living wage in its supplier principles. The third one is on sustainability development goals. Shell describes in its sustainability report that it was recommended to the company in 2017 to articulate more fully how Shell is contributing to the SDGs. BBDO is pleased to see that Shell, as a response to these recommendations, has further refined its approach to the SDGs in 2018 and now focuses on 3 goals. BBDO would like to note that the SDGs consist of specific targets and indicators set at a more overall global level. But Fibreo expects companies to use these targets and indicators as a compass to formulate its sustainability business goals in order to contribute to reaching the SDGs in 2,030. Two related questions here. Is Shell willing to continue with its efforts concerning providing more clarity on the material SDGs by setting concrete business targets for 2,030 for all material SDGs in line with the targets and indicators of the SDGs? And perhaps could you illustrate your approach, again in short for SDG 7, very relevant, creating affordable and clean energy, especially where you work towards providing energy for the 100,000,000 people that are currently deprived from it. Thank you very much. So thank you very much for 3 very clear questions and thank you for getting to your questions quickly. That was very useful. Let me Ms. Beck, it's approaching 12:30, being going about 2.5 hours. We have a number of people waiting still for this resolution. We want to give everybody a chance to speak and we have 20 more resolutions to get through and the rules of the meeting said you can't talk about them until we get to them. So I'm very sensitive because I see a few people leaving that we not take away people's opportunity. So we will be a little more concise in our answers. Also, if there's any question we haven't answered completely to your satisfaction, there is a well staffed desk outside with our trained professionals that will be sure we get you those answers. So with that in mind, Ben, if you could respond to this one. Thank you very much for your question. The first question about how does the net count forward ambition align with Paris and what about the net zero but still 50% reduction, etcetera? Upon instruction of our Chairman to be precise, I hope that the answer that I gave to the previous question goes some way to explaining it. There is multiple levers that need to be pulled. Decarbonizing energy is one of them. Energy efficiency, different consumption patterns, indeed offsets are all going to be needed. Our scenario analyses, which are not an analysis of how the company will go, but how society will go, shows that society needs to be at 50% decarbonization point of its energy system and that is what indeed we will be aiming at. If society goes in a different way, goes faster, we need to go faster as well. We fully understand that. As a matter of fact, we have some catching up to do with society simply because we are still very much a hydrocarbon based energy company. We don't have nuclear. We don't have hydropower. And our total renewable footprint is actually still relatively small in relation to the total business size. So we will continue to evaluate that. We will go as fast as we can. The technicalities of it, Sohrab, I can please again refer you to the website, to the help desk as well. We'll be very happy to have further detailed engagement with you on this matter to really explain how the numbers all add up, but they do add up, I can reassure you. The living wage is an issue that's come back many times. So indeed, we have supplier principles. We are very sensitive to the fact that we want to be at the top of a supply chain that actually supports the societies in which we need to thrive in order to be a successful company. So we are very clear about human rights, about how we want our suppliers to act in many areas, including how they should pay their employees and the practices and the principles around it. We haven't come to the point that we say and we have also a policy on living wage. But we do have policies on how remuneration should work and how it should be sustainable together with all the other things that are of relevance. We will continue to review that, so that we stay again up to date in our thinking and maybe also here, the right side of history. You never know how these things will ultimately play out. On the SDGs, there's a lot of them. We support all of them, of course. On many of them, it is very obvious that we are at the center of things like climate change, but also energy access. I've laid out the €100,000,000 I understand the appetite to understand a little bit more of it. Let me make a representation that in next year's AGM, I will give a more detailed expose on what we are actually doing there, how much progress we are making. But I can reassure you again that this is something that I personally take very, very seriously. The other SDGs we contribute to as well when it comes to employment, also when it comes to water. But they, of course, quite often take a more secondary nature and therefore are not so prominent in how we commit Peter. And on the lengthening the answer to the question, if I point you to the yellow book, the sustainability report, we would speak to a number of those. And I think you'll find this very impressive what we're doing. Number 2? Good afternoon, esteemed shareholders and the Board. Thank you for listening and thank you for your patience today. I know it's been quite some time, so I'll try to get through what I need to get through. I speak to you today on behalf of Code De Road and the assembled coalition Shell Must Fall. So before we pose our question, we would like to explain why and how Shell Must Fall. Perhaps it is a surprise to those in this room, but Shell is quite unpopular these days. 1000 of people in this country have taken Shell to court and many thousands more around the world have stood up against you. We have heard the accusations already today. And as you say, they are merely accusations. However, I think it's worth repeating some of them. Crimes against indigenous rights, human rights violations, ecocide crimes, massive pollution, corruption, evading taxes and most of all placing profit over life. And then there's, of course, this kind of small minor fact that we know you know we know you have known about the climate crisis since before I was born. And you continued pumping. You still keep on pumping. And so with this track record, how could society possibly trust you? At this point, any doubts of your trustworthiness or your value have already been cemented. With your business model, how could you think to be a part of the solution as long as you remain a company that is dedicated to maximizing profit and short term shareholder value? We know you will not keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know you won't decommission your own infrastructure nor provide a fair transition for workers nor compensate damaged communities nor repair the countless ecosystems that your operations have devoured. So this is why Shell must fall. But don't worry, we're not going to question you on any of these things today. Instead, we are here to announce that our coalition is determined to make you, Royal Dutch Shell, fall by any legal, economic or political means necessary. We hereby commit to canceling any future shareholder meetings and call upon allies, society and the government to dismantle you. We will tax you, regulate you, split you up, socialize you, nationalize you, expropriate you, prosecute you and bankrupt you. And while we make your dirty business inoperable, we will make sure to build a clean, affordable and just energy democracy. So you see today is a historic day, because today you are witnessing the last ever Shell AGM. So in because in the midst of a climate emergency, the last thing that we need is the shareholders of a gas and an oil giant who, no offense, are probably not going to be alive by the time we get to the end of the energy transition. So I'm getting there. You can be patient. Thank you. Many people in the world have been patient with Shell. I ask that you be patient. So we say May 2020 be the 1st year without a Shell AGM. Excuse me. Excuse me, please. I'm getting to my question. Look, we owe this woman respect to listen to our statements no matter how disrespectful her statements may be. So please give her Excuse me, ma'am. If you would be quiet, she could speak. Okay. Ma'am, if you will not Thank you. Now you can finish your comments, but try to be brief. We've given you a lot of time. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So we wanted to finish out in saying that perhaps you and clearly people in this room may look down on us and you may believe that your empire is too big to fail or too big to fall. But at some point, so did the monarchs and the aristocrats. And so it is time not just for you to be on the right side of history. It is time for your business model to become history. And so really, the only question that we have for the board and also for the shareholders is that since there will be no more AGMs, how are you planning to spend your free day next year? I wish the room would note that we have allowed this person to make all of our statements. We will not start to respond to those. They are not appropriate for this meeting, but we have given you the right to express your opinion and please note that. I'm going to be here next year. Thank you. Number 1. Okay. Chairman, my name is Spanier of Amsterdam. Yesterday, May 20, 2019, Shell went ex dividend for the quarterly payment of $0.47 And you, as Shell Board, will only release this quarter payment in 35 days, namely on June 24, 2019. The question is, why do you need 35 days in this digital world to be a payment? That's question 1. And question 2, Kjell and Peggy Guillem want to buy Eneco together. That's good. But could you tell me the information about the time line that you are being followed in this sales process? And what stone you are in this process? Those are the 2 questions. I hope that Thank you, Mr. Espana. The Aneco process is, of course, a process that is run by Aneco. We have expressed our interest to take a good look at that company. We are in a process that will take multiple steps. I think it is more for Eneco to point out how that process will evolve. They, I am sure, will update their shareholders and, in general, the public in the Netherlands how that will go. But we will expect that to come to a conclusion somewhere this year. Number 2, please? And the second one about the dividend, why are you neutral certifications to pay it? Jessica, could you comment? Thank you. The payments of dividends for corporation are subject to legal and regulatory considerations as well as process considerations. It may be in the digital era that that pace can be quickened and that's something we'll look into. But it currently reflects the current structure of the regulatory and legal and process framework that we currently operate under. Number 2, please. Good afternoon. Greetings, shareholders of Shell in the room and everywhere around the world because I must say the room is half empty. We are gathered here today to address the board of Shell. And I have a question for us when it comes to climate change. Because talking about climate breakdown, we have noted that it is a global phenomenon, but it's also a Dutch crisis as Royal Dutch Shell has produced 2% of global emissions. So I have a question for us. What to say to the greatest climate criminal of the Netherlands? Firing carbon bombs at us and our beloved society in the midst of climate breakdown, around 3,700,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. Do we call it production? We know it's bringing us destruction. We are facing an existential crisis brought to us by the likes of Shell. But haven't we said it all before? Don't commit ecocide, but they do. Respect human rights, but they don't. Don't be a colonial corporation, but here we are. And what's the point? With so little respect for human and non human life, why wood shall listen to the science? Remember Arrhenius showing us the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change ever since 18/96. So it may be very convenient to only reference the climate accord in Paris because that gives you only 4 years of response time. But we have been dealing with climate science for more than a century. So leave it to Shell to blissfully ignore over a century of science. If that same science challenges degree doctrine it so feverishly upholds. For who? For us, the shareholders? Well, let it be noted that as shareholders, we would like to question this climate breakdown and climate racism because we know who have been at the front line of taking climate disasters. You have our attention, Shell. Shell has made it very clear how little respect it has for human life in general and people of color in particular with its toxic business. We have heard from people from Nigeria. We have heard from people from Bolivia. People of color all around the world have suffered that have devastated millions of lives in Africa and Asia in particular. In these climate disasters, it is women who are 14 times more likely to die. So I stand here today as a woman of color who is grieving too many sisters who are already gone, taken. Chelle, we have uncomfortable conversations when it comes to climate. You have come here today ready to have uncomfortable conversations. Waged racial wars upon our communities. From hiring paramilitaries to burn down houses, rape, torture and murder for oil. Ogoni people are not forgotten and Shell must fall. To recently, we've heard the plans to increase production in Patagonia, 600 tons of top waste. Could you please get to your question, please? I need to honor other shareholders. I have a question regarding climate racism. And as we've heard today, there has not been a lot of attention for climate racism so far. So I'd like to introduce it, so you have an understanding of it as well. Would you please get to your question? Yes, I will. Recently, we've heard that the toxic waste on traditional land of Mapuche indigenous people, which is already happening, is posing an increasing threat to health and water. It's a despotic ability to convert living land and living communities to an inanimate private profit. It's leaving many communities around the world shell shocked. With the current one degree climate change already leading to massive loss of life and over 28,000,000 people needing emergency aid in 2018 alone because of climate disasters. I am shocked that these people have not been mentioned in any of the presentations. But the dead do not dread to die. So I must be courageous here too. And it has become obvious that our greatest task as shareholder today is to make Shell fall. And it is simply the only responsible thing to do. There's no way for Shell to make nice. Do you have a question, ma'am? Yes, I do. Would you ask it now, please? Or we'll have to silence your mic. Let us make good use of the time we got here today and do a good thing. Today is always a good day for climate justice. Today is always a good day for collective courage and community healing. We are the people ending the age of oil. Your actions and track record will scream louder than any green lie you may conjure up here. So with the meaningful question, the only meaningful question I can ask here today, Ben from Burda and the Board, with the Shell AGM canceled next year, how will you use this time to personally start paying your climate debt to the many victims of your toxic industry? Because the global silence is right. Please silence like number 2. Go to number 1. Excuse ma'am, your time is up. You will be quiet right now. Number 1, please. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. My name is Susan Blackwell, and I'm a proxy to ask a question on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is a non profit science advocacy group based in the United States. The question is rather similar to the one we brought here last year because we don't feel we've had an adequate answer yet. Shell is currently implicated in lawsuits brought by a number of United States cities, counties and states as well as one industry group seeking damages for climate impacts directly attributable to our business. Shell are also facing lawsuits brought just last month from the Netherlands for failing to bring our business plans in line with a future limited to under 2 degrees of warming. Obviously, as previous questioners have said, I don't expect the board to comment in detail on ongoing lawsuits. However, Shell has acknowledged in securities filings that these lawsuits may adversely affect earnings and have remarked that, I quote, trust in Shell has been eroded to the point where it is an issue for our long term future, unquote. This wasn't helped when last year dozens of internal documents were uncovered showing that Shell knew 30 years ago that our business posed a major risk to the climate, and delaying action could make it impossible to protect a stable climate. And yet Shell continued to emphasize uncertainties in climate science rather than heeding the advice of your own scientists. Communities negatively affected by the climate impacts of our business are now holding Shell to account, and shareholders demand to know what these lawsuits will mean for our business. As more evidence is brought to light about how much Shell has known about climate change for decades, How will you demonstrate that Shell's climate commitments and actions are sufficiently ambitious to mitigate the financial and legal risks to shareholders posed by past delay and deception? Is it too little, too late? Nigel, could you I think the best way to answer is a very comprehensive set of questions. But would you describe fundamentally what the corporate social responsibility does as a representative of the Board to be sure we're addressing this suite of questions? Well, the committee tries to handle all questions concerning ethics, concerning safety and concerning the environment. And by the environment, I mean not only the immediate environmental impact of our operations on the surrounding environment, but obviously the issue of climate change. So we try to look as holistically as we can at the set of issues involved in the concept of sustainability. And we do that, as I said before, not only by conversations with and challenge to the management of the company, but also by engaging with many, many outside voices and try to get an external perspective on Shell, however uncomfortable that might be. So I hope that we go about this in as open and responsible a way as we can as a committee. And that, of course, is carried through in conversations at the Board level too. If I may say, so it's not a very comprehensive answer. We look forward to receiving one of those next year. If there are specific questions that you wanted answered today, again, our experts outside will be glad to take the questions. I'll personally assure that you get answers. Number 2? Good afternoon, shareholders, members of the Board and Mr. Ben van Buren. Thank you for your attention. I am speaking on behalf of the gas division, a network of groups around the world to fight new gas projects. I'm here as part of the Shell Must Fall Coalition. First of all, I have two questions for all of you in this room and I'd like to raise you to raise your hand if it applies to you. How many of you live near an extraction site, a pipeline or a fossil gas terminal? Please raise your hands. Excuse me. You can make your statement. You can ask your question. But we have to honor all of our shareholders here's right to speak and vote on the other resolutions. So if you could concisely make your point and ask a question, we'll do our best to answer it. So not many of you although not many of you live in regions in the world most immediately affected by climate change who are suffering from cyclones, flood, drought, famines and other extreme weather events made worse by climate change. If this room full of Shell decision makers was full of raised hands, we wouldn't have to have this conversation. We wouldn't be in this mess. We cannot keep extracting and building new fossil fuel projects. This is why Shell must fall. You felt the pressure to move away from oil, so you're promoting gas as a transition fuel. It is not. It is a fossil fuel and it kills. Gas cooks the planet and destroys communities in a different, not better way to oil and coal. We won't accept swapping 1 fossil fuel for another. You're imposing and planning and planning new projects all over the world. Excuse me, please. If you could please get to your question, you're making a very similar line as your colleagues have and we respect your right to say it. But if you could get to your question, we will try to answer it. Otherwise, I'm going to have to respect other shareholders. I'm exercising here my right to say and to post my question in the way that I want to. And I can say you, it won't take that long. Just last week, Shell sponsored the Flame Conference, your biggest gas industry conference. It had an agenda full of sessions on the new mega pipelines and fossil gas terminals to ship gas all over the world. We disrupted it and shut down your campaign and networking company. Does facing oppression, danger and the risk of a rare sound like fun to you? No, not to us either. We don't put our bodies on the line and take this risk for a thrill. We do this because you have proven that nothing else works. We stand behind Koda Road and their promise to shut you down. We support the Shell Massfall campaign and we will stand here together a year from now. We will keep shutting down your activities at extraction sites, fossil gas terminals, pipelines and conferences throughout the year. Do not underestimate us. So my question to you is, since this is necessary, will you stop your fossil fuel extraction? Because if not, we will. Thank you for your comments. We respect your right to make them. Number 1. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I'll go a bit close to the microphone. My name is Sunita Galvik. I'm here on behalf of Responsible Investment Organization ShareAction. Before I get to my question, I'd like to very quickly refer to Page 10 of your Sustainability Report, where you state that Shell aims to play a positive role in communities where we operate and climate practices forms the basis of the just transition, as I'm sure you're all very well aware. One of the main components of the just transition is managing how the transition away from high carbon industries impacts workers and communities. Now I'm sure you'll recall that when we experienced a drop in oil price in 2015, that then led to Shell having to lay off approximately 7,500 staff and direct contractors. This scale of job loss obviously has a significant impact on the communities in which Shell operates, particularly in regions in the Global South that are more vulnerable to shocks in the job market and that are then felt throughout the supply chain. As Mr. Van Burden said earlier, we do not know the future. We cannot know it for certain. And many analysts now believe that the demand for oil will reduce much sooner than previously expected due to a combination of public pressure regulation and significant cost reduction in renewable energy production. Now this could again have a very significant impact on Shell's profitability and lead to very similar mass layoffs in the future. My question is very simple, and it is, will Shell commit to publishing a just transition policy before its 2020 AGM and to doing so in collaboration with unions representing workers as that will be most affected by the transition to a low carbon economy? Thank you. So let me first, thank you for your comments. We will look very closely into that. We'd like to talk to you about exactly what you had in mind and I'll refer it to first consideration of our Corporate Social Responsibility Committee. We'll definitely give you an answer. Thank you very much. Please give us the information before you leave at the desk outside. They'll take it. Number 2? My name is Femke Schlegers, and I speak on behalf of the Ecological Defense Integrity. And I would like to start with a recent quote by one of your former colleagues. He said, climate change has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. In fact, if you look at the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature rise, it's the other way around. This is quite a remarkable statement by Rijn Willems, the retired CEO of Shell Netherlands. I do understand why after his long, long Shell career, Willem says fossil fuels have nothing to do with the climate change. I totally understand. If you acknowledge that your company, the company you have worked for your entire life, the company where you were in charge, if that company is complicit in this global crisis, who can live with that? Your position at Shell, it forces you to continue with your business as usual. Your position forces you to pump up everything you can pump up, but nobody forces you to stay in your position. It's like, what am I doing here at the shareholders meeting talking about conscience? Despite all these nice words, it's only money that counts, right? Money, profit, profit for the shareholders, profit for yourselves, but no profit for the Earth, right? It's perfectly legal for you to cut away the conditions of our existence. There is no law that prohibits life on Earth against the ecocide that you commit. Ecocide, that's genocide but on people and the environment. And ecocide is legal, or should I say, still legal. Committing ecocide during a wartime is already an international crime. It is a matter of common sense that ecocide also becomes a crime in peacetime. We got to set a limit. Ecocide legislation is coming and be prepared. And on a personal capacity, I'd like to add I fully agree with the message of Shell Municipal Coalition. And my question to you, the Board, is would you welcome ecocide law? And why or why not? I've heard the term ecocide indeed a number of times. I'm not entirely sure what an ecocide law would entail. If the question is taken slightly broader is would we support legislation, regulation that would indeed reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make sure that we are definitely on a path of significantly less than 2 degrees C. We would wholeheartedly welcome that. As a matter of fact, that has been our position on record for quite some time. I must admit, for decades, people did not pay too much attention to what we were saying. Now we do have your attention. So absolutely, we will be proactive. As a matter of fact, from time to time, we will be also uncomfortable to other players in our sector to make our point that regulation and legislation is going to be needed to protect this planet. And we will do our part to make sure that we follow-up on whatever it is that is being put to us. That is a commitment that we have made many times over, and I will make that commitment here again. Thank you. You are investing more than $100,000,000,000 on new oil and gas fields, and that's committing ecocide. So if you don't want to commit ecocide, you should stop digging. We understand your point. Thank you. Number 1? Good afternoon. My name is Joe Brooks. I'm here by proxy. My question today focuses on the Sky scenario. So the company has described Sky as the most optimistic scenario in terms of climate outcomes. However, it's still not ambitious enough to avoid the most serious impacts of climate change and protect the company against climate related financial risks. The scenario does not provide a stress test for climate change, because it is too favorable towards fossil fuels. There is no stress. Have used scenario analysis very effectively in the past to foresee the nationalizing of Middle Eastern oil reserves in the '70s and the oil price crash in the '80s. However, Shell seems unwilling to plan for the potential impacts of climate change on its business in the same way. In 2017, oil search have considerably fewer resources in Shell, carried out a comprehensive climate scenario analysis of its portfolio, including against Greenpeace's 1.5 degrees scenario. So my question is, will Shell commit to publish a stress test against credible climate scenarios in line with 1.5 degrees temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and have it verified by a third party? We offer the sky scenario is our best judgment. We don't say that's the scenario that should happen. We don't question other people's scenario. We're constantly looking at updating our scenario planning and we'll consider your suggestion. We won't commit to doing it today, but we'll consider it. If you give us details of it at the desk outside, I'll be sure our scenario team sees it. Number 2? Hello, good afternoon. Dear Mr. Ben van Berde and the Board, I would like to ask a question from my humble position as a Shell kid, a concerned citizen and a shareholder. The most important question at this moment is whether one is part of the solution or part of the problem and what's factually being done to accelerate the energy transition. Those who only complain and point fingers are a part of the problem. It is polarizing the debate and not going towards the solutions which we so desperately need at this moment. So I would like to ask activists to also take a more constructive tone. In the light of the we know that an unprecedented form of collaboration is necessary to fight climate change, unconventional collaborations even. In the light of the court case of Moyo de FENSI, how are you taking steps now to and how are you planning to live up to the society's demand of a decrease in emissions by Royal Dutch Shell to 0 by 201550 in line with recent IPCC recommendations? And in reference to Shell's wish to have a dialogue, could you explain what kind of dialogue you would desire specialist interest groups like Nordea Defensei? In an ideal world, how can you become part of a solution together and become an active force for good to achieve these goals to prevent irreversible climate change for generations to come? Thank you for your question. Ben, would you like to address that? I think, yes, it's a very good question and set of comments. And I would like to, 1st of all, start by indeed underscoring the fact that there is indeed a unprecedented level of collaboration and support needed if we as a humanity are going to successfully deal with the threats of climate change. Indeed, it will require dialogue. It will require a good understanding of what is possible, what isn't possible. It will not just mean, by the way, that we will just stop supplying hydrocarbons and then somehow people will figure out how to live without them. It will be a dialogue that is realistic and says how can we also change the future of energy demand. And that is a dialogue that we need to have across societies. And I hope that the point that I made earlier illustrate and demonstrate that to a degree. We're happy to have discussion and we are having a discussion in many parts of the world with representatives of academia, with NGOs, many NGOs we have very constructive dialogue with as well as with governments, regulators and everything else. We don't, however, think that the best way to have the dialogue is in a courtroom, which is what quite a few of our detractors believe. I don't think the future of the planet is going to be settled in court. I think it's going to be settled with sensible people trying to find themselves with constructive arguments. I hope that over the 5.5 years that I'm doing this job, I have been able to give a very clear impression that our company, your company, wants to be on the right side of history, and we are doing everything that is needed. But we cannot do it alone. And as a matter of fact, and this may sound very uncomfortable, even the entire energy industry cannot do it on its own. If we cannot do it together with customers, regulators, policymakers, it's just not going to happen. And therefore, I think we have to all try to step up rather than accusing, polarizing and using very unhelpful stances, which is, I think, changing slowly. And therefore, I take hope from the fact that comments that we've made earlier with our investors are reflective of the fact that slowly we are understanding that we need to be in a constructive mode rather than in a destructive mode. Please let us know what we can do to help you support go as fast as possible. Thank you. Microphone number 1. Yes. Thank you. My name is Andrew Kauper. I'm not here to talk about myself, but I wanted to mention that until 2.5 months ago, I used to be a climate scientist. I studied climate physics at Utrecht University, and I did 5 years of climate research afterwards. So I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about when it comes down to climate change. However, I stopped doing science, and now I'm a full time climate activist because I cannot stand by any longer. So I was here last year as well. I picked up a copy of the Sky scenario, and I used my knowledge to go through it. I was actually pretty shocked what was in here. And the thing that I was mostly shocked about is the negative emissions. So just for people here, negative emissions means that you are retracting carbon from the atmosphere or you prevent it from going into the atmosphere. And that allows the fossil fuel companies to continue longer with business as usual because we are saying that future generations should do this on a massive scale. So basically, there are four reasons why this is If you could get to a question. I will, but I will first say why there are four reasons that this is, in my opinion, madness. First of all, it's incredibly expensive. We have to build, and this is from your own Sky report, 10,000 large carbon capture and storage facilities. A famous paper by James Hansen, the most famous climate scientist in the world, estimated the cost at $89,000,000,000 to $533,000,000,000,000 That's throwing with a T. That's roughly 1 to 7 times global GDP. This is something we are putting on future generations to solve. These are the generations that are already suffering from climate change, a lot. Reason number 2, it will take up roughly onethree of the arable land in this world because we are growing trees, we're burning them, and we're trying to capture the carbon dioxide. With a growing world population coming to about 9,000,000,000, 10,000,000, 11,000,000,000 people, how are we going to feed the world if we are following your suggestion? Region number 3, these techniques are unproven. It's very simple. They've been tried. The government has subsidized them. These techniques of taking carbon out of the atmosphere are unproven, unreliable. So basically, we are gambling on techniques that have not even been developed yet. And the 4th one is called positive feedback loops, and that is that the climate system is not linear. You cannot increase carbon dioxide a bit and then assume that the temperature will park itself at some point. There are systems in the climate system that can accelerate climate change. I'll give one example. I'll be finished within a minute. The most dangerous one, and that's the one that climate scientists are most afraid about, is permafrost. There are massive amounts of carbon stored in Siberia. If this is released, the climate can heat itself. So humans lose the capacity to control it. So these are four good reasons why negative emissions are, in my opinion, madness. So Mr. Ben Von Werder and Mr. Charles Holliday, do you agree with me that the whole concept of negative emissions is both incredibly expensive for future generations, unfeasible, depends on unproven techniques and is highly dangerous. So thank you for your question. To be really clear about the sky scenario, it's not our plan. It is a scenario our teams came up with thinking the most plausible way to get there. We hoped exactly the kind of analysis you did would happen, have people challenge us, bring up other points of ideas and that's why we put the sky scenario out there. There's maybe some confusion that that's what we intend to have happen. We want the best possible scenario for the planet. We do believe negative emissions will be necessary and that's why nature based solutions or carbon capture and storage, we think are tools that we will need to deal with this problem. Perhaps we disagree on that, but we respect your right to voice your opinion. Number 2? I'm sorry, you did not answer my question. Do you agree that this is unfeasible, highly expensive, depends on unproven techniques and is highly dangerous? That was my question. No, sir. No, sir. Why not? We will be glad to take that up with you later, but we're not going to delay this meeting for it now. Number 2? My name is Janne Reinders. I'm from Groningen. And let me return to the words of Sanje Beckerman before. The question is, why aren't you listening to the people from Groningen? Why tens of thousands of children may visit unsafe schools? So why Yes. If you don't mind, I will again answer in English. And if you want to, I will also be available to have a discussion with you afterwards in the lobby. I think we are doing what it is that we can in Groningen through NAM, which is a fifty-fifty joint venture with ExxonMobil. The actions that we are taking are very much the actions that are now mandated by the government. So it is we are not 100% at liberty to do whatever we like. We have been very clear in the dialogue with the government when we came to the heads of agreement that we have signed with them last year that we will follow the instructions of the government, that the government has the obligation to make the determination what is in the best interest of the country. That is something that we can do, and we will follow what the government will instruct us to do. In terms of the damage, will pay for the damage that has been done. That is very clearly provided for in Dutch legislation. We are not trying to run away from that. We can assure you that the damage that has been done will be paid and that the NAM and if need be, the shareholders of the NAM will provide every guarantee that those payments will be made. But it is, in the end, government policy what will happen with the natural resources of the Netherlands. Sorry, I have no no, it's a Netherlands. Let me say this in Dutch. I have absolutely no confidence because I'm really sorry to see that both our government and Shell, they act conjointly. They act in one interest. It's a real pity, but this doesn't serve our interest. You just make promises and have been doing for years. We have been speaking here for years years. You've been saying the same things, and nothing happens in Groningen. Please, show responsibility, particularly vis a vis our children. I think we have taken our responsibility. I do like to think that a lot of progress has been made. I'm afraid I cannot comment on the government of this country. We will take what the government asks us to do very seriously and very literally, and we will comply with every mandate that the government sets to us. But I would like to suggest that the progress that has been made last year, which, by the way, now means that we are going to bring down production in Groningen to 0 by 2,030, if not earlier, is a very significant step forward. A step by the way that also has created quite a bit of concern in the Netherlands about what's going to happen with natural gas and what's going to happen with my house. And that I think is also something that the government needs to take into its calculation. But one thing is for sure, we have always acted or at least endeavored to act with the interest of our neighbors at heart. And indeed, where damage has been done, we feel that we have the obligation and we will respond to that obligation to make good. This weekend, we had 5 earthquakes. I suppose you never go to Groningen, otherwise you wouldn't say what you're saying. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Nina de Pather. Shell recently announced its newest CO2 compensation plans about reforestation. Also, your SKYY scenario that has been that many people already referred to relies heavily on negative emission technologies, including planting trees and the BEX technology. Your Head of Scenarios, Jeremy Bentham, said that you will need an area that is at least twice the size of India for all these plants. With the current plans that you are already developing in Spain and Peru, you are not even close to this 2 times India, which brings me to 3 questions. First, where are you going to find all these lands? Where are you going to find an area as big as 2 times India? Second question, how these kind of projects are known for their human rights violations. How will you make sure that the rights of the communities that live in these areas are respected? And if they are not, will you take full responsibility for it? My third question is about your recent PR stunt here in the Netherlands, about the €0.01 per liter that Dutch consumers can pay when at the gas station. This suggests that you make the consumers responsible for your CO2 emissions and responsible for the reforestation plans. Is this true? And if so, why are they responsible? And why aren't you responsible? Ben, could you take that one, please? Yes. Thank you very much. You referred to indeed Nature based solutions as a very significant part of the solution. And it's absolutely true. If we as a humanity want to live in a world with less than 2 degrees C, we will have to do somehow carbon sequestration. The idea that we can somehow do without it is just ludicrous. We will still have carbon emissions no matter how hard we will try for decades to come that cannot be just avoided and therefore have to be mitigated. Whether it is carbon emissions from heavy industry that need to be captured and sequestered or whether it is diffuse carbon emissions from cars, that have to be somehow compensated for. Indeed, nobody knows for sure. But if indeed the sky scenario for the world would out, which again, as Chairman said, is not our plan or our scenario, this is what we believe the world could do, then indeed we will need a reforestation effort as humanity as light as twice the size of India. That's not for Shell, that's for the world, yes? But I do think it is going to be needed and we want to play a leading role in it. We are looking at a number of locations. You mentioned a few of them. There are other locations where we are looking at as well to make sure that we have a pipeline of opportunities to find ways to offset carbon emissions associated with our products. We're going to spend about $300,000,000 on that for the next 3 years. But if this is successful, which I sincerely hope, then we will probably have to spend a whole lot more. I'm very much aware of the fact that if indeed we do reforestation projects in the Sahel, for instance, or in other areas, that we have to be very mindful what it does for the social structure of the communities in which it happens, what we would do with the money that will flow through it and from it. And therefore, we it's not just a matter that we can figure out together with business developers or biologists. We will have to work also with NGOs, which we are doing to understand how the social aspects of having these efforts being undertaken can be taken into account and can be done appropriately. And believe me, these things are absolutely on the top of my list as well when it comes to nature based solutions because I don't want to find out in a few years' time that we overlooked elements and that we have critique on that account. I think your characterization of it being a PR stunt is, I think, incorrect. I disagree with it. It is absolutely true that for €0.01 per liter, we can offset the carbon emissions of that liter of carbon. And by the way, that is not just our opinion. That is verified by people who actually are scientifically able to make those verifications. It may be surprising that it is that cheap, but it is also absolutely correct. Now do we can I also finish my answer to your question? Thank you. If you then take into account the portion of the emissions that we cause in making the petrol, yes, we will take that into account. The users of the petrol and the diesel will take into account the emissions that they cause. If you fill up with V Power or V Power diesel, I'm not sure whether you do that, we will pay for that as well. And if not, you can have a choice to offset it. And it's up to you to decide whether you will do it in this way, whether you will buy an electric car, whether you will stop driving or whether you don't care. Thank you. I think I want to point out that you did not answer my question about taking responsibility for human rights violations. And maybe you should also tell your PR department that your the things that you just said about the SKYY scenario because I just saw a tweet saying promoting the Sky scenario as one of your climate ambitions. So please get that straight. Number 2? Yes. Thank you. My name is Uli Altschwijn. Also about negative emissions, your company policy heavily relies this negative emissions after 2,050. And IPCC is not taking talking about the costs of negative emissions. Clearly, Shell knows that costs are very important in making the right decisions now. Who according to Shell is going to pay for those future negative emissions. Since CO2 added to the air now will have to be taken out later, and there is no individual gain in doing that, just as there is a large individual gain in adding CO2 to the Sky now, who does Shell want to pay for negative emissions? Is it Shell? And if so, where can we find the costs for future CO2 extraction in your report? Or does Shell promote high and flat CO2 taxes on all CO2, so we are saving money for extraction of the amount of CO2 surplus we are adding to the sky till net zero has been reached. And I have a small follow-up question depending on your answer. Ben, I think you've addressed this before. Any other comments on this question? Yes, I can, but I'm afraid that my answer is going to be a little bit unpopular. Everything in the world, literally everything in the world can only be paid by 2 types of people: customers or taxpayers. And what we can do is to make sure that the business models that we adopt will allow for that to happen sensibly and regularly. And so yes, absolutely, we are in favor of carbon pricing, which probably means that we will have to then absorb the initial cost of it. And that cost will be reflected in some of the products that we make. Ultimately, of course, with the view that those products that have a high carbon content get more expensive and therefore more attractive alternatives will have freeway in the market economy that we all live in. So ultimately, everything will come down to individual consumer choice. And we can, of course, be helping along in that process to make sure that it happens in a very efficient way. To the extent that we can absorb the cost, be more efficient, the sensible things, of course, we will do it because we want to be competitive as well. But it's not as if we are sitting on some sort of big treasury and say, we will take care of all the bills that the world will incur. Ultimately, all the bills in the world will have to be paid by consumers and taxpayers. That is the reality of the world that we live in. I have not invented that either. That is the way the economy works. Yes. I taxpayers will have to pay for it. And then the question is that's the next generation taxpayers. And I'd like to ask you a question And then the question is that's the next generation taxpayers. And I do understand that we cannot have a full debate here, but is it possible for you put some remarks in the next annual report about this cost for the next generations for negative emissions? Yes. We have absolutely a duty to minimize that. And you are right. The sense that today we are trying to deal with the emissions that have been created in the Industrial Revolution that happened before all our times as well. There is no other way around it. Again, we can do that as efficiently as possible. But also, we can make sure and I'm coming back to the nature based solution discussion we had just now, we can make sure that people do have a choice because we can offer a business model right now where somebody who drives a petrol car or a diesel car can do that piece and offset more not quite in the moment, yes, but make sure that in within the next weeks, months, years, their lifetime at least, their emissions from Deka or maybe air travel is being offset and taken care of. So that pile is not being put on future generations. Yes. The problem is that's like negative emissions from the emissions that we do right now. So that's a one person net zero solution. But there will be negative emissions that we have to carry with the whole society later on. Thank you very much for making your point. It's well made, and we'll refer this to our Corporate Social Responsibilities committee to see if we can put that in a state of bill report, full explanation about that. But thank you for your interest in the question. We'll guarantee you we'll consider it. Thank you. Thank you for considering. But I think this is really a key question that's not being addressed. The government is not talking about money. You understand the money part. So I think that's something that you should put into I understand fully. Thank you very much for your comment. Number 1, please. My name is Van Dieppe. I'm on My name is Van Dieppe. Here as a shareholder. If you allow me, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue on that and make some remarks. I just realized all of a sudden that this morning, I arrived by train, by public transport and that I have contributed to the environment. That's a joke. Anyway, sir, all this negativity, the doom and gloom of all these speakers about climate, it's full of estimates. And of course, climate is very important to me as well. There's a long way to go. But Shell is a fantastic company. You're paying out a wonderful dividend. You are number 1 to me, number 1 in my share portfolio. That's one comment I'd like to make. 2nd comment, I said this last year as well. All these people that preach doom and gloom, how does oil and get under the North Pole? Think about that. Is it really that dramatic? And then a tricky comment, Mr. Von Bode. I admire your patience in listening to people and giving answers. But I have a bit of a tricky comment. You made an announcement or a statement rather to the press. You drive an electric car, an electrified car. I don't. I drive a fuel car, a 2 liter car. I'm a shareholder of Shell, but I'm also a loyal customer of Shell for my fuel. Thank you very much. Those are my comments. If you don't mind, I will respond in English. Thank you very much for the very supportive comments that you have made and the pride that you have in our company, which I, of course, wholeheartedly share. In the spirit of total disclosure, I actually have 2 cars and they are both hybrids. So from time to time, even though I try to use the electric function as much as possible, it drives very nicely, by the way, I fill them up with V Power as well, which is, by the way, also carbon neutral today in the Netherlands. Number 2? My name is Kees Kode. I represent Greenpeace here. We do not believe that your climate ambitions or your net carbon footprint is in any way compliant with what is needed from the Paris Accord and from what the IPCC tells us. We think your investment plans, which is still based 96 percent on fossil fuels, is totally inconsistent with what the world needs. But I'm not going to pose a question about that, because we're joining the court case launched by Mueller Finzi and Friends of the Earth. And so about this issue, we'll see you in court. This will be addressed by the courts. I do have a question about another issue because I was here last year accompanied by several Mapuche people from Argentina, And they brought their concerns about their land rights, about pollution, about fracking, which is prohibited in a number of European countries, but you're still doing it in Argentina. You're actually planning to expand it, multiply fracking operations. There has been many reports of pollution, of earthquakes also there. I think the people in Groningen will recognize some of the experiences that people in Argentina are now going through. And also in Argentina, you're using a waste facility, which is run by Treeter, a company Treater. And that waste facility that you're using is clearly illegal. It's not compliant with European standards. It's not complying with American standards. It's not complying with Argentina standards. And that's why local communities and Greenpeace Argentina have filed a complaint at the end of last week in Neuquen in Argentina. I think you were there a week ago. And it's very unfortunate that they feel themselves obliged to go to court. So my question to you is, why are you using a waste facility, which is clearly illegal by all standards and why do you continue to use it? Bjorn, could you take the question? Thank you very much and thank you for posing the question. It's maybe a few comments. I would be happy to talk about fracking and the fact that it has been used for decades. And indeed, there is a concern about relationships between either hydraulic fracturing or injection of wastewater and earthquakes. And there have been earthquakes in Patagonia, not in the area where we operate, by the way, that are currently under investigation by the authorities, by the industry, and all operators are being involved in that as well. So we do take these things very seriously, but there is no sort of causal pattern. Major say, if you fret, there will be earthquakes. Far from it. History decades of history have proven otherwise, which doesn't mean, by the way, that we shouldn't take issues and risks causal link there. So let me reassure you that we take that part of what I've been doing. There is a causal link there. So let me reassure you that we take that part of our business very seriously. The land rights of the Mapuche community is, of course, a matter that is indigenous to Argentina. But at the same time, we do engage with that community very clearly, very transparently about what we can do, what we should do. We have agreements with them, by the way, that make sure that their concerns are being incorporated, are being dealt with to the best of our ability. And sometimes, how we are being represented in this respect is not entirely complete, let me put it mildly. On the matter of Trita, indeed, the industry in Nuken province is growing quite rapidly. It is a new found resource. And indeed, the treatment industry of the drill cuttings is not as mature as it needs to be. So we are aware of the fact that Trita is, at the moment, not able to deal with all the wastes that are being sort of offered there. And we make sure that our waste is being handled in a way that is entirely appropriate. We order that. We review that. And we help and work with treated to address the issues that they have through audits that we do, gap closure plans, etcetera. On top of it, we are working very hard to have our own solution for dealing with drill cuttings that we try to implement as soon as we can. Part of this is in progress. We are working with the Argentinian authorities to deal with it. But I can assure you that the claims that are being made about waste piles that would exist next to the New Can River, etcetera, are incorrect, have nothing to do with our operations. Thank you very much. Well, the Treator has everything to do with your operations. I mean, that's the facility you are using, which is clearly an illegal facility. It doesn't comply with the local international regulations. So why don't you stop your operations until the treater issue has been solved? We are working 1st of all, we are making sure that the waste that is being treated by that company, our waste, is dealt with appropriately. We are working with the authorities to make sure that this issue is being dealt with in the best possible way. At the same time, we ordered to make sure that the operations of Treeda are in line with the standards that we expect. In the end, it is also an industry facility or a facility that is regulated by the Argentinian government. We cannot regulate it on their behalf. So you're saying that Treator has a separate facility for the shell waste and another facility for all the other companies that are operating there. Is that what you're saying? We completely understand the fate of our waste in that facility, and we are happy with the way it has been treated. If you find that there is discrepancies or issues, then we would like to hear them because then we will address them. But I can assure you that the way our base is being dealt with is meant to be in the way that we expect. Thank you for your question. Seeing no questions, I believe we've had a reasonable amount of time to discuss Resolution Number 1. The voting will take place at the end of the meeting. Thank you very much. My name is Slausch, come from Amsterdam, studied company finance and public law a long time ago. First, I congratulate the whole Board and the Supervisory Board with the exceptional good financial results you showed the world begin February. And I made an analysis and saw on our stock exchange, you had a market capitalization from 25% since you bought British Gas beginning of 2016 and you paid in shares. I would say to Mr. Van Burden, congratulations and keep it so, then we can make 8% a year and 5% dividend and when we are lucky. Now I have a question. You were very enthusiastic, Mr. Van Buren, last year. You said, I think you made a breakeven, Annalise, and you say dollars60 I suppose West Texas Intermediate Oil $60 Can you tell Entrgestik what's your breakeven analysis now? Because since the beginning of the year, we went down, nobody could expect that. Now we are $62 It's not so much 76. What do you think what is your breakeven analysis now? Can you tell us something about? Happy to make a few comments, but I so at this point in time, we are making about $50,000,000,000 of cash flow from operations, if you look back at the last year, at an oil price, which is still below $70 For every $10 in oil price movement, we roughly would lose $6,000,000,000 of cash flow. So you can work out from that at what oil price would we be at a 0 cash flow. The breakeven definition has many different definitions around on how you calculate it pre or post dividend and etcetera, etcetera. This is a matter of very significant interest, not just to you, but to all our shareholders. On the 4th June, we will be painting the picture of where we stand at the moment with the commitments that we have made around BG, the outlook for 2020, which is just next year, but also how we see the company play out financially over the next, say, 6, 7 years or so. We will make that presentation in London and in New York. I'm sure it will be available on webcast, and we will do roadshows after that. So there will be many interesting points for you to learn about the future of the company. And I think it's probably appropriate that I don't try to get ahead of myself, but prefer you to just more than 2 weeks when we will disclose how the future But I will see it on the Internet where it is? I'm sure we will, yes. And again, apologies for using this, but if you would go to in between the coffee and the sandwiches outside, we will have a help desk that can exactly tell you how you can listen in. And the last question is, I saw the last year I was here that you went from Resolution 1 till the end of the agenda, and there was no talking about the financial reports. Why don't you do that? We only talk about climate, chemical and so on and so on. Why don't you? They're not talking about financials? It's very refreshing that you've asked about, are we making money? But we do have to respond to the questions in the room. But thank you very much for raising your questions. Okay, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Seeing no more questions now, I'll speak quickly. The voting will take place at the end of the meeting using the paper poll cards. If you have the proxy votes will be shown on the screen behind me, if we could show them now. They will be added with the votes that you turn in today to make a final tolling that we'll announce in the future. Resolution number 2 is approval of Director's remuneration report. This is an advisory vote and seeks approval of directors' remuneration report excluding the directors' numeration policy. The policy is reviewed on every 3 year basis and it will be up for review next year. Are there any questions about the directors' remuneration report? Seeing none, let's show the proxy results on the screen. Resolution number 3 is the appointment of Neil Carson as the Director of the company. Neil, I believe you're here. Could you stand up so if I can see? That's Neil. So thank you. You can make your judgment whether you want to vote for Neil or not now that you've seen him. We were delighted to announce back in January, Neil's appointment or suggestion for approval by this meeting for our board. Neil has a wealth of 100 Chief Executive with broad industrial perspectives and outlook, strong commercial expertise in a very practical perspective. He has strong engineering trading and has extreme experience in the chemical industry. We think he will be an excellent member of our board. He is honorary President of the Society of the Chemical Industry and is awarded the OBE for his services in the chemical industry in 2016. Are there any questions about Neil's appointment? Please show the vote from the group behind us. Congratulations, Neil. So far, the room hasn't voted yet though, so we'll see. The next resolutions 4 through 14 are reappointment of the directors. I introduced the directors earlier And are there any questions about reappointment of the directors? Seeing none, let's look at the preliminary vote. Resolutions 1516 are reappointment and remuneration for our auditor Ernst Young LLP. I propose we take the 2 of these together. Are there any questions on the appointment or remuneration for the auditor? See the results, please. That allow us to allot shares without shareholder authority. This resolution therefore seeks authority to allow directors to allot shares up to the average aggregate nominal value, which is $190,300,000 Are there any questions on this resolution? See the results, please. The next resolution number 18 is a special resolution, which means that a 75% majority is necessary for its approval. If passed, it will allow the company to allot a certain number of shares without first offering them to existing shareholders. Under the company's act, when new shares are allotted, they must first be offered to existing shareholders on a prorated basis of their holdings. This resolution allows the directors to allot shares as if the preemptive rights in Section 561 did not apply. Are there any questions on this resolution? Let's see the preliminary voting, please. Resolution 19 is an adoption of new articles of association. Are there any questions on our new article of association? Microphone number 2. Yes, sir. There is one article that's about doing an electronic meeting. Now it already states that it cannot be only electronic, but I want to be confirmed that the Board will be all together at one place when we have a meeting like this in adding electronic things. I can confirm that. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Other questions? Let's see the results please. Resolution number 20 is authority to purchase our own shares. It's a special resolution that seeks authority for the company to make market purchase of its own shares. Our current authority will expire at the conclusion of this AGM. Is something we need for our normal course of business. Are there any questions? Let's see the results, please. Number 21 speaks to authority on donations. Let me be extremely clear on this one. We do not make political donations, but because of the certain authorities, some organizations we might give money to such as research organization or start making political donations in the normal sense of the word and if we should make a political donation, we will report it and bring it back to this meeting before next year. Are there any questions about this resolution? It's normally approved every 4 years. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us towards the close of our meeting. Charlene, would you please provide us the procedures on voting? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Please cast your vote by completing your white paper poll card. If you agree with the resolution, place an X in the box marked for. If you do not agree, place an X marked in the box against. If you wish to abstain, please place an X in the box marked vote withheld. Please note that a vote withheld opinion is not a vote in law and will not be counted in the calculation of the proportion of the votes for and against the resolution. I should note, of course, that given that Resolution 22 was taken off the agenda at the beginning of this meeting, you do not have to tick that box. The scrutineer will establish from the register how many shares you hold and we'll assume that you wish to vote all your shares in the way you've indicated. If you wish to split your vote, please speak to a member of staff at the registration desk. If you've lodged a proxy form, you do not need to complete a poll card unless your proxy is not present or you wish to change the way your shares are voted. Please remember to sign your card and add today's date, May 21, 2019. If you do not sign your card, your votes will not be counted. Please place your card in one of the ballot boxes which you see clearly marked as you leave the auditorium. These boxes will be removed in 20 minutes or earlier if I'm satisfied that the The final results of the poll votes will be sent to the Amsterdam and London Stock Exchange and shown on the Shell website tomorrow morning or earlier today if time permits. Thank you for your time and thank you for your votes. Thank you, Charlie. We're coming to the close of the meeting. I'd like to personally thank you for being here. This process is very important. I think it's critical that your Board of Directors stands before you once a year and listens to all comments and questions. There have been some very lively questions here today, but we respect the shareholders right and want to make sure they have an opportunity to voice those concerns and we are always willing to listen to shareholders throughout the year. You don't have to wait to this meeting to register a point to you. If you bring up a point, I'll assure you we will fully consider it and respond to you in a complete way. And Thursday of this week, Ben, Jessica and I will be in London, where we'll have kind of a town hall type meeting to be able to answer questions. If you're watching us on the web, you would like to we would like to come, we would be delightful to have you come and answer our questions. And we're going to start something new this year. As you recall in the past, there is some sandwiches and refreshments outside and our entire Board of Directors would like to come and host you in that reception. So if you have any individual questions for us during the reception, we will be most delighted to take them. Thank you very much. Travel safely home.

• Slides