Shell plc (LON:SHEL)

AGM 2016

← View all transcripts

May 24, 2016

Good morning. I'm Chad Holliday. I'd like to welcome you all to this Annual General Meeting of our shareholders. Ben, thank you for sharing that video with us. I know you developed it for the employees, but we thought it was just a wonderful thing for all of our shareholders to see. Your safety and security are of utmost importance to us in today's meeting. If you see anything unsafe or any concerns you have at all, please point them out to 1 of the uniform security staff here in the building. If for any reason we need to evacuate the room, there will be voice commands and will give us instructions as how to go about that and where to gather outside. Please take a moment now to look around to find the exit that's nearest to you in case you need to use it later in the meeting. I'd like now to ask our company secretary, Michael Branch, sitting on my left, do some introductions of our board and also provide some instructions for the meeting. Michael has been our company Secretary for 13 years and since 2002 he's been our Corporate General Counsel for Shell. So he has major responsibilities at our legal department. Mikkel? Thank you, Chairman. The full board will be present at today's meeting, and I will start by introducing on my right, Ben Van Burden, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer and next to him, Simon Henry, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer. On my left is Hans Weijers. He, of course, needs no introduction in the Netherlands. But for those from outside the Netherlands and those on the website and Director and Chairman of our Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee. Mr. Reyes has been a Non Executive Director since 2019 2009, and he has a broad range of business, economic and political experience, having served as a Minister of Economic Affairs and as a Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of AkzoNobel. On the road behind are the non executive directors. From my left, Mr. Kleisleray, he sent a message that he is held up. He will be with us as soon as possible. As you know, Klaesdelay previously served as the CEO of Phillips, and he was a member of the Supervisory Board of Daimler, a member of Board of Dell, and he's currently the Chairman of the Vodafone Group. Yuline Goh from Singapore, Chairman of our Audit Committee. Mrs. Goh is a chartered accountant and has qualifications in banking and taxation. She held various senior management positions with Standard Chartered Bank and was Chief Executive Officer of Standard Chartered Bank of Singapore. Guy Elliott from the U. K, member of the Nomination and Succession Committee and a member of the Audit Committee and a previous Chairman of our Audit Committee. Mr. Elliott joined the Board in 2010 and served as Chairman of the Audit Committee up to the end of last year. He has a wealth of financial and investment experience, having served as the CFO of Rio Tinto until 2013, and he has also served as Non Executive Director, amongst others, of Cadbury. Patricia Wirtz from the U. S, member of the Remuneration Committee and member of our Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee. Mrs. Wirtz was appointed in 2014. She was formerly Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Archer Daniels Midland Company. Before joining ADM, Mrs. Wirtz held senior management positions at Chevron Corporation. Sir Nigel Sheinwald from the U. K, a member of our Corporate and Social Responsibility Committee. Sir Nigel is a former senior British diplomat who served as ambassador to the U. S. Prior to this, he served as foreign policy and defense advisor to the U. K. Prime Minister and Head of the U. K. Cabinet Office of Defense and Overseas Secretariat. He also served as a British ambassador and permanent representative to the European Union in Brussels. Linda Stans from the U. S, member of the Audit Committee. Mrs. Stans is a founding partner of a law firm in Washington, D. C. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation as well as matters relating to government support of technology development. She served as Deputy Secretary of the U. S. Department of Energy and has played the principal role in the development and enactment of the U. S. 1992 Energy Policy Act. Then and finally, Gerd Zalm, who of course needs no introduction in the Netherlands. He's a member of our remuneration committee. He's a former Minister of Finance more than one term, and he's currently a Chairman of the Managing Board of ABN AMRO Bank. As you may have read in the notice of meeting, we have again arranged for the meeting to be webcast. That means that shareholders who are unable to travel to The Hague can follow proceedings, and we welcome those of you who are watching the meeting in this way. In accordance with the company's articles of association and as stated in the notice of meeting, the meeting will be held in English. However, there are Dutch translation facilities available. If you need a headset or any assistance, please ask one of our ushers. And with that, back to you, Chairman. Michael, thank you very much for those introductions. I now declare the Annual General Meeting of Royal Dutch Shell Plc open for business. And with your permission, the notice of the meeting will be taken as read. Please take note of the disclaimer on the screen. Please do not take time to read every detail, but it does caution you that we will make forward looking statements and you should take everything into account as you make your decisions about investing in our company. This is a time where our Chief Executive Officer, Ben Van Burden will give a full review of our 2015 performance and a broad perspective on our company. I will not repeat that. This marks the 1 year tenure of me serving as your Chair and I have had over that year time to talk to stockholders and stakeholders around the world about your company. I found it very enlightening with their questions and suggestions about what we can do to improve the company. So what I'd like to do is take the 2 questions that I've heard the most over this past year and ask and answer them for you because I think they could be of interest to you in the room today. The first question is how is Shell navigating the economic downturn? So let's be clear, which economic downturn are we talking about? So in 2,009, we all saw a global recession. Some would say that is not complete yet, but a big shock in oil prices and commodity prices in general that impacted our company. But a couple of years later, the price of oil had moved back up to higher levels and was relatively stable for a period of time. Then in the middle of 2014, we saw a sharp drop in the price of oil, which continued throughout the year, continued throughout 2015 and continued to the first of this year until we've seen some improvement here in the last few months, but nowhere close to the levels we experienced before. It's that second economic drop for opportunities and there are hazards. Your board saw an opportunity to advance our strategy to expand in deepwater production and to enhance greatly our liquefied natural gas production by the acquisition of the BXE Group. The strong leadership of Ben and Simon and their team, we were able to complete that this year. This is an example of Shell taking an opportunity brought about by this change and taking advantage of it to the benefit of the shareholders. But also there are significant hazards not just opportunities in a change like this. To put it in perspective, last year alone in the United States, 42 oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy. We came into this downturn with a strong balance sheet and we've been using it well, but it's important we make adjustments also. Let me describe briefly. Our capital expenditures in 2014 were US37 $1,000,000,000 taken down to 20 $9,000,000,000 last year, a 20 percent reduction, a major step forward to deal with the current times. Our operating costs in 2014 were $45,000,000,000 taken down to $41,000,000 in 2015. Now we were aided a lot by exchange rate movements in our direction, but there were major changes made by the company and those changes to reduce costs are continuing. To put in perspective this cost work, I think I can do that best by giving you 3 very short examples and then making an observation of why these kind of cost reductions are very important not only for the short term, Michelle, but the long term. The first one is in Cutwater where we have a major facility to turn gas into liquids, it could be lubricants and other sources really upgrading the value of the natural gas. As a part of that process, we use a catalyst. A catalyst speeds a chemical reaction to its completion. And it takes many days to take that catalyst and replace it which has to be done periodically. The team in Carter said if we could speed that up, we could reduce the downtime, have more revenue out of this facility through a team effort of over 30 people working on it. We had a 38% reduction in the time to replace that catalyst and that results to $10,000,000 or greater annual revenue increase from that facility. We are very major producers and deepwater facilities. In one of our major basins, we obviously have a number of service vessels that have to go out to individual production platforms to replenish their supplies etcetera. We had a team that took microeconomic analysis and micro studies with the most advanced software available to say how can we speed up that operation. They found there was too much time that these vessels were just sitting in port and with a team effort across the entire Shell company they found a way to reduce the time in port by 50%. And that took the number of vessels in this particular arena from 59 to 27 and results in over $100,000,000 per year, increased savings for the company, a very major step forward. The last example is from our Information Technology Group. As you can understand, this is a major organization in a company like Shell. They focused on one particular financial system and they found we had 14 different ways of accomplishing the same task at different places across the company. Through very thorough analysis they found we could consolidate to one approach to that and by the way the one approach that we'll be adopting later this year came from our new acquisition at the BG Group. So this is an example of how we're learning from BG, an example for how we're moving forward. I think if you look back at all three of those examples, the one thing you'll find in common is that if the oil price recovers, we'll still be having advantages to our company from these three examples. So all the cost reductions have not been that way, but I think these are good examples of how this management of Shell are taking the right decisions going forward. Let me move to the second question. How is Shell managing the energy transition? So let me be clear, the energy transition is going on. Shell has been making contribution for this for many years. We're not just starting. But certainly the meeting in Paris last year of the nations of the world coming together to agree on goals that each individual country will take was a major step forward and we think is critical that it continue and the countries implement the results. But I'd like to take you back to another meeting of the nations 3 months earlier happened to be in New York where they came together to agree on 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This included climate change, but it also had poverty, hunger, health of people, water sanitation and several more. The message here is the nations came together and said we must deal with climate change, but we must deal with the other needs of people at the same time. It's not either or. Let me put that in more human terms. Last night, a 1000000000 people in the world did not turn out the light switch before they went to bed. It was not before they forgot. They don't have electricity. And 2,000,000,000 people cooked or around a cook stove that the smoke from that stove will likely harm their health. In fact, the World Health Organization has said 4,000,000 people die each year from indoor air quality problems. It's a very serious issue that we must deal also. Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, I think says it best, energy is the golden thread that connects economic growth, social equality and environmental stability. Energy is the golden thread. The very simple point I'm making is the oil and gas that we produce today are providing very valuable things for people's lives. And that oil and gas makes up 50% of the global primary energy of the world. Transportation as you can see is very important to health, well-being, dealing with poverty and 90% of the transportation comes from oil. My message to you is the products from this company today are making a big difference in the world. We must find a way to solve the climate issue and do more on the other issues. It's not either or, it's and both. Let me describe 2 things our company is doing around that. 2 weeks ago, a new document was issued, a better life with a healthy planet. And I believe that says it all. It's available on our website. There are some copies available outside. But it's a nice description of what the world needs to do to deal with this problem. Now I urge you to take a look at that one and look at other people's proposals for how we deal with the problem, but that is our contribution from our scenarios group that I think you'll find very valuable. More on the ground, we've been focusing for many years about the cookstove problem or the indoor air quality problem. We are the largest private contributor to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves and which has a goal by 2020 to have 100,000,000 homes who have an improved cook stove in their facility. We didn't stop with just that. The Shell Foundation, which is not directly with Shell today, but obviously funded from us originally, is working on commercial solutions in 40 different countries to provide entrepreneurs what they need to provide clean cook stoves and make them where they'll grow more rapidly and hopefully get to approaching the total of 2,000,000,000 people that are needed. In summary, if I had to answer the first question, how we're managing the transition? So far so good. Good progress, pleased with it, more work to do. On the second one, we're doing a number of things around the energy transition that U. S. Shareholders can be pleased of, but we need to work with partners around the world to keep finding new things to take forward. That's the end of my comments. I'd like to take just a minute, Ben, if I could to introduction. Mike Kel did such a good job of introducing everybody else, but he kind of gave you a snippy introduction. As I think about our CEO, I think about strong leaders. And we all know that when the economic times are good, it's pretty easy to look good as a strong leader. When the economic times are more challenging, it's much tougher. As I told you earlier, the oil price started down in the middle of 'fourteen, Ben started the 1st of 'fourteen. He had about 6 months before he was really challenged with his oil price change and I think he has done an outstanding job of leading our company through this period and what we have is a strong leader. Please make him welcome. Thanks very much, Chad. I must say I really like that introduction And not just because of the final words, but I think it very much represents how 90,000 people in Shell feel about the company, the contribution that we make to society, the relevance of our products, the relevance of us as a force for good, but also how we are navigating in some pretty tough times. But I'm also very happy to stand here today and make some comments about our 2015 performance at a 2016 AGM. So as Chedd already said, there have been very, very significant changes underway in our industry, but also in your company. And it's a very, very exciting time to be CEO of your company, and I look forward to discussing some of these things in my little speech now, and I'm sure a lot of other questions will bring out more things later on. If you look at the earnings, your company made $10,700,000,000 earnings underlying last year. And it declared dividends and bought back shares collectively worth some $12,000,000,000 combined. In 2015, our production was almost 3,000,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and half of that roughly was gas. And we produced roughly 2% of the world's oil and gas, And our share of LNG across the world was around 9%, LNG being liquefied natural gas. And on your behalf, as Chad already said, last year, we invested US29 $1,000,000,000 on capital projects and we also spent some US1 $100,000,000 on research and development and some $120,000,000 on communities in which we operate around the world. And at the same time, we also paid $10,000,000,000 in tax and collected another $50,000,000,000 for governments through, for instance, fuels that we sell. And of course, we employ lots of highly qualified people in very, very rewarding and high quality jobs around the world. So I think your company plays a positive, but I also believe sometimes a bit of an understated role in many companies around the world. Now Shell's approach to sustainable development runs across all our activities, and the foundation of our approach is running a safe and an efficient and a responsible, but of course also a profitable business and profitable whatever the oil price happens to be. And this means managing safety, environment as well as community involvement. And secondly, we share the wider benefits with the locations where we operate. The long term nature of our business, of course, means that we can be members of communities quite often for decades. And thirdly, as Chad explained before, we want to be part of shaping a more sustainable energy future. And this means providing more energy, but also cleaner energy, which is required for economic development in the face of growing environmental pressures. Your company also has a very strong track record when it comes to transparency, and this is something that we are strongly committed to, for example, on revenue transparency. So Shell was the founding member of the EITI, the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative back in 2002. And we still believe that the EITI approach to engaging countries, to engage civil society and companies remains an effective way to provide greater transparency in government revenues. So we voluntarily published information on our payments to governments back already in 2012 and have done ever since. And this year, we reported our Upstream payments to governments on a country by country, project by project level in line with new U. K. Reporting requirements that came into effect. And then we have, of course, on top of that, other voluntary regular reporting, for example, in our sustainability report on Nigeria, on oil sands, etcetera. Let me update you on safety. Our goal is to have 0 fatalities and also 0 leaks or 0 other incidents that can harm our employees, our contractors and our neighbors. And in 2015, we achieved the lowest ever recorded injury rates, and our spill volumes remained among the lowest that we have ever experienced. Now that's all very well and good, but at the same time, I also am very, very sad to report that we lost 7 lives, all of them in Nigeria last year. They were the only fatalities we had. All 7 of them were in Nigeria though, contractors and staff. And that underscores the difficulty of our operations in Nigeria in a very, very sad way. But at the same time, we do not accept this outcome. We do not accept these fatalities, and we will redouble and we are redoubling our effort to improve from this very, very deep low point that we had last year. Let me turn to BG. First of all, we were very, very pleased that so many of you supported our acquisition of BG at the general meeting that we had back in January in this year. The $54,000,000,000 share and cash combination with BG is, of course, a tremendous opportunity to create value for both sets of shareholders. And I hope that both sets of shareholders, the old Shell and the new Shell shareholders, are represented in this meeting. And of course, we derive a lot of that value, as Chet already said, from the new activities that we now have, both in LNG and in deepwater. And I'm very pleased to say to our new shareholders, the old BG shareholders, that your Shell shares have increased with around 8% since 15th February when the deal was completed. Because that combination that we have with BG now is a very, very strong We are 3 months into the integration. We just passed the 90 day mark, which is a very important mark. And our Q1 results already show the impact that the BG assets and positions can contribute to the bottom line. Now let me also make an anticipation of, I'm sure a few more questions coming later, make a few comments on areas that you may have interest and concerns about. And firstly, here in the Netherlands. The Groningen gas field, which you know is operated by the NAM, the NAM is a joint venture with Exxon and it's partnering, partnered with the Dutch government. That joint venture has been producing, of course, gas, as we know, in the Netherlands for decades. But at the same time, it has also resulted in a large number of earth tremors in the area, and that is the result of depletion of the gas field and the subsidence that comes from it as the pressure is being depleted. There is now an independent entity in Groningen called the Centrem Voeilig Voehrne, so in English, the center for safe living, that has been set up specifically to manage the claims that arise from these earth tremors. And you can imagine, of course, that many of the historical houses in that area have not at all been built with protection in mind because this is simply not traditionally an earthquake zone. The Center For Safe Living has independent oversight from the government and I think is doing a very good job to deal with a very difficult set of circumstances. But in addition to that, the government has also set up a national coordinator for Groningen, who has presented a multiyear plan. And that plan is not just focused on how to deal with the damage from earthquakes, but also how to deal with quality of life in Groningen and the general economic situation, because it has perhaps not been the area that has seen as much investment as, for instance, the western part of the Netherlands where we are here today. And let me be very, very clear at this point in time as well, there is absolutely no discussion whatsoever that NAM would not compensate tremor related damage. It will support the preventative strengthening program and it will support the regional improvement program. And Shell will support NAM in the implementation by these of these measures as have been announced by the national coordinator, KONIA. And in addition to that, Shell also supports the position of NAM that the people in Groningen are entitled to a fair distribution of costs and benefits, Lusten and Lasten in Dutch, related to the natural gas production in Groningen. Now let's turn to Nigeria, and let's talk about the SBDC joint venture for onshore oil and gas. It's an area with very large reserves, but also very, very challenging socioeconomic conditions. And this means criminal acts, including shootings, kidnappings, widespread oil theft, oil pollution from that, and the security situation seems to be deteriorating quite rapidly as we speak. Since the beginning of 2016, it has come worse week after week. And we have been reducing the exposure of your company in that area. Since 2010, we have been divesting $4,800,000,000 worth of onshore assets in Nigeria. But at the same time, it still leaves us with quite a challenging position. With, of course, these widespread criminal acts, sabotage against SBDC interests, and as I said, a very tragic loss of life directly related to these criminal activities. So the picture that you see here is a shocking picture. It shows an illegal refinery in the Niger Delta that uses the crude that has been stolen from the pipelines to make low grade fuel that is being sold in plastic bags by the roadside. You can see the pollution from that yourself. The SBDC cleans up the pollution that happens in its own fair base, whatever the cause is, whether it is the cause of sabotage or theft or whether it is the cause of an operational mishap. And in 2015, we cleaned up and we certified 184 sites, which still leaves a backlog of about 270, most of which, of course, are new spills that have occurred in 2015. But in 2015, we also saw a reduction in the volume of spills and in the number of spills, both from our own operational issues as well as from Sabotage. Now of course, this was also in part because of the divestments that we have done and the reduction of our onshore portfolio. So getting ahead of the spill sites remains a difficult issue, but an issue that we are committed to despite the very, very challenging security environment that we are seeing in the delta. And we will continue to work with our stakeholders in Nigeria to improve security, to get access to sites, to remediate, but also to work with local communities to engage them better and to show that we can also have other ways of dealing with development. Let's turn to Oil Sands. Let me start with a slightly different message perhaps than a message that you are used to, and that's a message of saying that our thoughts are very much for the people of Fort McMurray, which is in Alberta, 75 kilometers south of where we have our Canadian oil sands operation. It's home to about 1700 of our employees and many of our contractors that work in the mines out there. You know that Shell has a 60% share in the Athabasca Oil Sands or AOSP, and that project has a production of about 255,000 barrels a day. Now on May 3, wildfires occurred in the area and they really forced very quickly because of the speed with which they developed, the evacuation of the entire city, 90,000 residents of Fort McMurray had to be evacuated. And our employees there went, what I think, above and beyond the call duty, helping to safety, shelter, evacuate their colleagues and their neighbors and their families. And in total, we sheltered and flew to safety over 9,800 people and quite a few pets on top of that under what were pretty stressful conditions. Some of you may have seen the very, very serious pictures in the news. Shall people safely brought down the mine to focus on their own safety and that of their neighbors? And while the wildfires are still continuing to burn in the region, we are now able also to safely and securely start up the mine again so that we can produce oil to support emergency response efforts and to ensure that customers in Western Canada have general access to fuels. On the more operational side of things, we continue to find ways to improve our performance in our mining operations and to reduce our carbon footprint, the CO2 emissions that we have. And in 2015, we celebrated the startup of Project Quest, which is a carbon capture and storage project that is now operating at our Oil Sands joint venture in Canada. Quest has already stored 370,000 tons of CO2 just in 2015, and it is on track to do every year 1,100,000 tonnes of CO2, which is a nice way to move into emissions in general. So our direct greenhouse gas emissions that we report in our sustainability report fell in 20 15 to 72,000,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That's a reduction of 4,000,000 tonnes from 2014, and it's a reduction of 35% from the peak of our emissions back in 2,003. But we want to do more on top of that. And in April 2015, we signed up to the World Bank 0 Routine Flaring Initiative with a target of 0 routine flaring by 2,030. And as an example of that, in Iraq, at the end of 2015, we achieved 1st commercial production of natural gas at our Majnoon field. And that gas that we produced in Majnoon was previously flat, but now it provides power to domestic markets through the North Romeila power station. And we expect further flaring reductions to come in 2016 as these and other gas gathering systems that we manage reach full capacity. Now then let me turn to climate change and the related shareholder resolutions. So as you know, your board supports resolutions that strengthens Shell's ability to deliver safe and reliable energy today and positions the company to respond effectively to the challenges and the opportunities of tomorrow. And last year, you will remember the Board recommended to shareholders that they support a resolution calling for enhanced transparency on climate change. In response to this resolution, we published, as Thad already mentioned, a report Shell Energy Transitions and Portfolio Brazilians. And this report sets out our efforts to strengthen the resilience of our portfolio and our plans to invest in low carbon energies. So these are the plans of your company. And we also included, of course, more details as we usually do in our 2015 sustainability report when it comes to emissions. This year, we have another resolution from a Netherlands based retail investor group called Follow This. And this calls on Shell to embark immediately on a new renewables only strategy. The Board is very grateful for follow this for this resolution, and thanks for the effort that I have put in, but we also recommend to you shareholders that you should not support this. Let me explain why. Firstly, we want the company to be able to respond to the opportunities and the risks that lie ahead. And tying the company's hands down to a renewables only mandate, I think, would be strategically and commercially unwise. But we also believe that the scale of the investment that is going to be required, the multi decade timescale that is going to be required for the energy transition that we are right in the middle of and the risk of reduced returns to you, our shareholders, from an accelerated shift into Renewables means that it would be unwise for Shell to simply swap investment in oil and gas for investment into Renewables only. And let me explain that point a little bit further. So each of us in this room relies on a fast and interconnected and reliable energy system that has been developed over the last 150 years. That energy system has invested $55,000,000,000,000 in infrastructure and it must continue to evolve of course over time as it always has and as it will. Now today, oil and gas supply around 50% of primary energy today. Primary energy is the energy that goes into the energy system. So not to be mistaken for electricity, which is secondary energy derived from mainly oil and gas. So oil and gas, 50% of primary energy supply worldwide. Nearly half of the industry that we have around us is powered by oil and gas, and over 90% of transportation is powered by oil. Now the new report that we are issuing today, and I advise you to take a copy with you when you go home, A Better Life with a Pathways to 0 Emissions, the report that Chad mentioned. The Shell scenario team shows that there are plausible pathways for society to meet all future energy demands while also achieving net 0 CO2 emissions during this century. But it will require absolutely unprecedented collaboration combined with a very, very long term vision to lay the foundations for that success. It will require different sectors of the economy to move at different paces. Renewable energy sources will play an increasingly critical role in that future energy mix. Electrification must expand its share of energy provision from around 20% today to more than half. And given the scale of the challenge that this will all entail and the 55 $1,000,000,000,000 of infrastructure that has to be reinvested to change around, it cannot happen overnight. It will be necessary to combine the qualities of increased lower carbon oil and gas with renewables so that we have the full range of energy products, and oil and gas will remain an integral part of the solution in a net 0 CO2 emission future. And that is because there are some energy requirements where high energy density or very, very high temperatures are required like, for instance, some form of transport or industrial processes like, for instance, the production of iron or the production of steel or cement, which is simply not doable with renewables. Now your company intends to play a very active role in all of this. We're not going to sit on the sidelines and watch it all happen. We are going to help this process. We're going to be part of that energy transition. That means, 1st of all, continuing to invest significantly in both oil and gas because that is going to be needed as well, particularly in gas, which emits half the CO2 of coal when we use it for generating electricity, as well as looking at new opportunities for low carbon energy and low carbon business models, ways to make money without there being a lot of carbon involved. And that means adapting our diverse and very global portfolio, taking strides to reduce carbon intensity of our own business. It means also continuing to progress technologies such as carbon capture and storage that I talked about earlier. We are improving our own carbon footprint by improving efficiencies in our operations. We're reducing flaring, as I just mentioned, and we are continuing, which is very important, to advocate for government led carbon pricing schemes. This is, after all, the most effective policy instrument for permanent reductions in emissions. And as for new energies, Shell has identified 3 areas where we can put much more focus. 1st of all, new transport fuels such as biofuels, hydrogen electric secondly, integrated energy solutions, for instance, wind and solar, which can be partnered with gas in a very effective way to handle the intermittency that is just an intrinsic part of solar and wind provision. And third, connecting customers with new business models, low carbon business models for energy. And each of these themes, they build on existing businesses that we have and existing expertise that exists in your company. And it will take time to develop them to the scale that is going to be needed, but we will do it purposefully and we will do it carefully as we establish commercial potential at huge scale. So the next decades are decades that we'll see an unprecedented energy transition, and Shell intends to adapt, to change, to innovate, to create, to trial and test, and ultimately, to win in a world that demands both much more energy, but also much less CO2. Now let me finish by saying a few words on our track record on dividends, which I'm sure is of interest to you as well. Dividends are after all the company's main route to return cash to you, our shareholders. So over the last 5 years, in total, we have declared more dividends than any of our sector peer groups. The dividend is expected to be maintained at $1.88 per share in 2016 despite today's lower oil prices. And that's an annualized figure of around $12,000,000,000 of dividend declared. And all of this, I think, underlines your company's dividend track record and its commitment to returns to shareholders. So with that, thank you very much, and let me hand you back to our Chairman, Chad. Thank you, Ben. Now comes to the time of the meeting where you have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. As you saw in the notice of the meeting, there are 19 resolutions for us to consider today. Most of them are routine in nature for a listed PLC. Resolution number 19 is proposed by a group of shareholders. We invite all questions of a general or operational area around the first resolution, which is the Annual report of accounts. If you wish to raise questions around a specific topic that's covered by a resolution, for example, remuneration, we would ask that you hold that till we get to that particular resolution. If you have a question around renewable energy or climate change, we'd ask that you hold that to Resolution 19 because that's on that subject. Please address all your questions to me as Chair of the meeting, but and I will from time to time ask my fellow directors to help me with the answers and please state your name when you're in the process of asking a question. The voting will take place at the end of the meeting. You have a white paper poll card that you would fill out. There will be boxes available as you pass out of the room and the company's registrar will be appointed as scrutineers of today's meeting. When you ask questions, please go to 1 of the 2 designated points in line up accordingly. We want to give as many people as possible the opportunity to speak. So please keep your questions and comments as brief as possible and relevant to today's business. If you go on a bit too long, I might have to encourage you to close to give time for everyone else to speak. Where possible, we started talking about one subject here in the first part of the meeting. If you have other questions on that subject, let's get them out at the same time so we can be more effective in giving our answers. As Chair of the meeting, I'll ensure that proceedings are conducted in an orderly and proper manner and do my utmost to make sure everyone has a chance for a fair hearing with respect to procedures that we've laid down here. We'll now turn to Resolution number 1, which is the 2015 reports and accounts. The unqualified auditors report is set out on Page 106 to 113 of the annual report. So do we have questions on this topic? Number 1. Dear Mr. Van Burde, dear shareholders, my name is Annemarie Hayten. With my husband Albert and my 2 daughters, we live in Tatum, a village close to the city of Groningen. We are in the earthquake area. Today, I would like to address you on behalf of many people from Groningen. And from first hand knowledge, I want to tell you about the consequence of your choice to place economic interests above our safety. I would like to ask you to reflect on your own situation or listening to my story. Do you have a family? Do you have a family, children, grandchildren? Do you go to a safe school? Do you have a safe home? Do you live in a safe environment with buildings that are precious to you and also for future generations? We and our family live in a wonderful farm from 18/37. It was our dream home. People have lived there for centuries in a home where we believe to be safe, where we believe to grow old. Unfortunately, after the heavy tremor in the house and we discovered that through gas production, the house is not safe and needs to be demolished completely awaiting this procedure. It has been supported for 2.5 years. Imagine being informed on one day that your home needs to be torn down, that your children day after day for 2.5 years need to live in a home that is surrounded by scaffoldings from all sides as a permanent reminder that it's not a safe place. Unfortunately, we are not the only ones in our village. The many earthquakes that have been recognized to be resolved from extraction underground have led very deep traces. The homes of 3 neighbors have been demolished. We are the 4th farm online that will disappear forever from the landscape of Groningen. And throughout the province, tens of homes have been either demolished or bought and that's only the beginning. Imagine waking up one day and seeing how one other home of your neighbors is being torn down, knowing that you are the next in line and wondering who is next. At school, our children are no longer safe either. All schools in the earthquake area of Groningen need very far fetching reinforcement to be able to save under the conditions of earthquakes, and nobody knows when the putting our children in safe emergency schools. You are right. This is not about the safety of our children, but about who pays what part of the expenses. While all of this is direct result of LAS extraction. If you walk up the stairs of the NAM building, holding the rating, you're asked to come down to move up the stairs once again, but holding the railing. This is an example of the stringent security rules of NAM and Shell applying to the staff. What a contrast to the way they deal with our safety and that of our children. Imagine this would happen to your children or your grandchildren at their school. Could you imagine you, your family, your friends, all people surrounding you in your life becoming 3rd great citizens and you living at the early 21st century in a surrounding that is not the same as other citizens in the Netherlands or even Europe. More than 1 year ago, the Netherlands were shocked by a critical report of the Dutch Safety Board on gas production, we discovered that all companies, including Shell, had placed systematically economic interests above those people being aware of the risks. Imagine how the people in Groningen felt when they learned about this. Recently, Jaeg Niebuhr from the Dutch Parliament told how the lobbyist shell had been kicked out of his office when they indicated that the repair payments would be in jeopardy if there will be a reduction of gas production and therefore of gas revenues. Imagine how the people in Groningen felt when they heard about this. All this is the daily reality of people living in Groningen. All this, because of economic interests, despite all the efforts, a dialogue table, committees, the Center For Safe Homes, National Coordinator, it is still Shell and NAM that determine what happens and what doesn't happen in Groningen. Under the supervision of our government and parliament, you can still act as an insurance company while you are the source of damages. You can still determine if and when you will repay our damages to buildings, to schools, when you're going to reinforce buildings and to protect our national historical heritage. This puts a heavy responsibility on your shoulders. Do you know how one of the chairmen of the dialogue committee, Mr. Kamigan, speaks about your department, Shell Legal, the department that determines what happens at Groningen. He said literally, this is a name that I do not wish to use anymore because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is the pleasure of walk, sitting back and relaxing and watching, of not taking responsibility. This is sad about your company. This is sad about Royal Dutch Shell because we know by now that you are the ones that are in final control when decisions are taken. Mr. Van Berdan, these shareholders, I didn't come here today to make a fight, but to enter into a sustainable dialogue with you. And if you have to take decisions about gas production in Groningen, think about me and my story as of today, be aware that my story is the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the people in Groningen, decent, hardworking people that haven't asked for this misery, people who, partly because of your doing, have ended up in a never ending nightmare, that have no control of their lives, that are treated correctly decently, that are getting ill from the injustice and the suffering. When taking decisions about gas production in Groningen, think about us and our safety. If all is right, some people from Groningen will come forward now with a contract that we would like to sign with you. This is a symbolic new deal, new beginning in which we express that our safety weighs higher than your economic interest. Can we please restore order in the room, please? Thank you. We're taking a copy of the declaration you're presenting. I must ask you to restore order in the room so all shareholders will have a chance to be heard. Thank you very much. I would like to ask you to please take your seat so we can restore order and respond to the question. We cannot proceed with orderly meeting unless you please take your seat. Interpreters apologize, remarks off mic from the room. Thank you very much for the questions. We have taken the petition. We will read it thoroughly. Thank you very much. We would like to now have an opportunity to respond to the concerns. Let me assure you the safety of people in the communities where we do business is very much high priority to us. Ben, will you please respond to the question? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Seiden. I will be answering in English for the benefit of those who are following this meeting in English. Let me assure you of a number of things. First of all, that the safety and the concern that you have put out where were you, Mrs. Van Huyten? There you are, sorry, I want to look at you. It's not something that is being ignored and is not on our agenda. I am not only personally, but we as a leadership team are very, very concerned about what is happening in Groningen. And we are also very, very clear that we support NAM with everything that NAM does because NAM indeed is after all the operator, the company that is in charge of running the operations, but also in charge of dealing with the consequences of gas winning in Groningen. We support them as best as we can. We support them wholeheartedly. There's a few things that I would like to say other than indeed to share in the regret and sorrow that you have because I can very, very well relate to the point that you make. Yes, I do have 4 children. Yes, I worry daily about their safety and concern and well-being for different reasons than you worry about and I very much realize that. But it doesn't mean that we are oblivious to it, what is happening, Groningen. It doesn't mean that we are heartless. It doesn't mean that we ignore it. It doesn't mean that we put economic interests above safety interests. We very, very clearly, in a continuous dialogue with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the regulator, try to understand what needs to happen to operate safely within the norms that the state of the Netherlands sets for mining operations or any operations. Of course, we have learned a lot in the last few years on how to do this. We have learned a lot about how earthquakes and tremors come about from gas operations. We have been changing our production plans as a result of it. We have been doing even research and understanding what the resilience of traditional Groningen houses is by simulating earthquakes, a large earthquake simulation in places like Italy to really understand how things behave and to make sure that we do that we make our operational decisions in a way that again is within line within the line of safety in industrial activities in the Netherlands, much in the same way as also the regulator makes up their mind on what is safe around Schiphol or what is safe around traffic in the Netherlands or what is safe when it comes to the general management of water and dikes in this country. Now, I also very much realize that that doesn't give you comfort for the issues that will touch you every day, that there is damage that needs to be taken care of. But I want to reiterate again that NAM will take care of all the liability, all the damage that it has for your house, for other houses, for strengthening. It will put money into the plan that the National Coordinator for Groningen, Mr. Alders has set out and there is no hesitation, no issue with it whatsoever. If you have issues with what you hear from certain members of parliament about what they say, go talk to them because they don't represent us. They say things that they have to take responsibility for because they're not the things that we are saying. I want to be very, very clear about that as well. So I've been very clear here and again and the company is very, very clear about how it wants to help and support as best as it can with the issues that you are facing every day. Sometimes our positions are being misrepresented. You have to take a little bit of credit in that respect as well. And we don't do secret things. We don't pull the strings in behind closed doors. Yes, I'm aware that the book came out, the Jos Coloni, that talks about secret deals that we should have done with the Minister of Economic Affairs. What is not reported is that the Minister of Economic Affairs also wrote that in a letter to Parliament on the 22nd December 2005. That is conveniently left out of the discussion. So not everything that is being reported and represented is therefore a balanced representation about how we really feel about things and what we are really doing to deal with the challenges that you and your family and many of your neighbors have in Groningen. And make no mistake, this is an item that is on our agenda in Shell and I'm sure also with Exxon as it is also with the Ministry of Economic Affairs every time we meet. And it's not an easy file to deal with, partly also because of the human dimension that you put out so clearly. Thank you very much. Microphone number 2 for the next question please. Good morning. My name is Robert Freken from We Connect U Public Affairs and Efficient Relations. Sustainability is all about power, influence and money. And the wonderful thing about Shell is that it had lots of money, lots of influence, and it's wonderful to use this for the sake of sustainability because since Mr. Van der Boerde is here, things are moving in the right direction, slightly leaving Nigeria completely out of Alaska. We see investments in wind power and we see even resource pool photovoltaics. And I think that's a really wonderful development. However, we see from reality that things are moving slowly. The Netherlands are in the very back of sustainable people. Only 5% of energy is produced in a sustainable way and in Shell, only 1%. Therefore, we should switch on the turbo. That's in the interest of the world but also in the interest of Groningen. And from time to time, I see Shell gas stations with solar panels. I would like to know how many you have now and also how many solar panels are attached to your office buildings because they really symbolize sustainable energy on the road and at the office. Then a next item. I have advised you to look at the most sustainable heating system in the world, which has only a cost price of €0.01 per hour. Your staff are ignoring this completely, not looking into it at all, not even giving it a try. They don't even want to join this network. What do I do in such cases? I contact Philips, I contact Avian Amro and they are heading in the right way. The Philips Innovation Watch Night has it in the finals. So the company of Mr. Klein of this for Groningen because you saved 95% on heating costs, then you have done for FYIWA using 95% less gas and water. Well, I get no feedback from Shell at all. I really regret that because Unilever, for instance, is enthusiastic. Mr. Hammes from ING is very enthusiastic. Marc Russel is very enthusiastic. It's important for Shell to look into this seriously. Don't brush it away. Don't say it doesn't fit our strategy. It's important for Shell indeed to transform towards a truly sustainable company. You have enough money to do it, and that's wonderful. Now to conclude, I advised you to buy Teslas for management. You didn't do anything about this. Last year, the Mercedes cars were parked in front of the office building. Now there's 1 Tesla. Well, I'm very glad that you at least got 1 Tesla in the fleet, but we have 400,000 new Teslas coming there. We have the BMW 3. We have electric smart. So it's very good for you to enter this market and to become market leader. And therefore, let me round up. You invest. Well, why don't you invest in Groningen in solar panels? Then you show that you practice what you preach that then you show to the population what you're doing and at the same time, you can take the whole of the Netherlands on board? Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much for your question. We would like to take all the renewable energy environmental questions on resolutions 2019, but maybe would you like to make a few brief comments now? Yes, Doctor. Wall, Medias Freyken. Thank you, Mr. Freggen. Once again, I'll answer in English. Thank you. I acknowledge that we are on the right track. We are making progress in our We are making progress in our portfolio, indeed, getting into different parts of business. And indeed, solar energy is an important part of it. It's solar energy sometimes indeed on service stations. Bear in mind, not all service stations you see are managed by us. They're often managed by dealers, so it is a dealer decision. But I think the single biggest recent investment we have put in solar was, for instance, to put solar in our operations that is, to put solar in Oman, where we have a Dutch solution. These are glass houses, where we use concentrated solar to raise steam to inject into oil fields to produce the oil, which otherwise would have used natural gas to burn for that steam generation. It's about 1,000 megawatts of steam that we generate in that way. And there are many other ways that we are integrating renewables into our operations. I'm very much aware and from time to time you do send me very kind e mails with ideas. But the idea of investing in sort of home technology around showers, etcetera, is not something that is close to our business model. It indeed does fit better with companies that make that a core skill, which doesn't mean, by the way, that we do not believe in these solutions. It's just that we believe that others are better placed to make money with them. When it comes to Teslas, I cannot sit here and advertise for certain brands of cars. It but I'm sure that if we reevaluate what new company cars we have to buy, we will take that into account. Thank you very much. The more general questions indeed on climate change, I will deal with a little bit later on, Medias Frege. Thank you. Number 1, and keep your question as concise as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Crossman from Rothburn Investment Management in the U. K. I'm here today representing over 30 international institutional investors collectively with USD 5,000,000,000,000 under management. I have a very, very brief statement, Mr. Chairman, which will be followed by a question, the full text of which will be available on the IIGCC website. So with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will keep it as brief as possible in the interest of fellow shareholders. Mr. Chairman and fellow shareholders, as I say, we are long term institutional investors who must manage retirement savings and long term investments for millions of people. And climate change is one of the biggest systemic and strategic risks that our company faces. And any gaps, weaknesses or delays in climate change policies and responses pose a risk to our investments. And as we saw last year, over 98% of shareholders backed our calls for enhanced reporting from the company on the risks that climate change poses. We're here today, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, to recognize the company's first moves in responding to that resolution within its current reporting cycle. Just want to make a few comments based on the materials in the annual report and the discussion, the sustainability report, the additional scenarios that, Ben, you mentioned in your introduction. We welcome those steps. We very much applaud the direction of travel and the commitment to this area. However, we consider the pace to be needing of upping in the next in the few coming years. So the request made by that overwhelming majority of investors will only be met by ongoing detailed strategic reporting over the coming years, showing that the decisions from your portfolio planning work are actually working themselves out in portfolio and strategic decisions. So I just want to highlight 3 areas that we would welcome further development in the next sort of year. Firstly, we'd welcome more development on the issue of ongoing operational and message management and the setting of publicly accountable targets. This was something that the BG business adopted as part of their strategy and found to be very helpful. It's something that we would like to see developed by the Board. Secondly, continued reporting on asset portfolio resilience to the IEA scenarios, even more important now that we have the Paris 1.5 degree aspiration. And finally, relevant strategic key performance indicators and how the company in this year as it prepares to report a brand new remuneration policy in 2017, how we can integrate some of this future resilience portfolio thinking into executive pay structures. So my question, Mr. Chairman, the Paris agreement sent an unequivocal signal to financial markets. The ultimate aim of 195 countries is decarbonization of the global economy by the end of the century. And every transition creates winners and losers. And for the long term future of the company to be secure, it's paramount that our company complete ongoing, thorough, realistic assessments of the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. So my question, will the Board please give the $5,000,000,000,000 assets under management of investors that I represent the 98% of shareholders that's backed the shareholder resolution? Would you give us assurances that our concerns regarding the resilience of the company's business model will continue to be addressed in future, including within the annual report as this is a key strategic risk to the business. So thank you for your time. Thank you much for your very clear point. Your 3 specific suggestions have been well noted and your question is clear. We'll address this more when we get to Resolution 19. Like I say, we agree, we take this very seriously. Exactly how we'll report in the future, we'll continue to evolve. We've responded to everything from last year's resolution and but we like continued dialogue with you as we move forward. Thank you very much. Number 2? Thank you, Chairman. I would like to raise a question in regard to the dividend policy. If you look back, and you, Chairman, in your introduction, highlighted the developments since 2014. Only one large acquisition in the oil industry has taken place, which actually is the one of BG and Shell. Many assets currently in this environment are on the block to be sold. You highlighted that 42 companies went bankrupt. Simon Henry, CFO, has highlighted that there will be a disposal of €30,000,000,000 planned. My question is, is this number still realistic with all these assets coming to the market in this low oil price environment? And who wants to buy these assets and what does it mean more specifically in regard to the dividends? We are somewhat concerned that Shell being known for its dividend policies as was highlighted by Ben van Burden, rightly so, we feel that under the current situation, the dividend policy needs to be a little more prudent and aligned to the business environment, which the oil industry faces. We wonder, could it not be more tied, as I raised also when the BG acquisition was discussed, to the cash flow streams that Shell generates. That's the first question. Thank you. Let's respond to that. We didn't get your name to start with, sir. Oster from the FEGIE Bank. Thank you very much. Simon, could you address the question please? Certainly. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the question. The dividend policy is indeed to grow in line with earnings and cash flow subject to the effectively the underlying strength of the balance sheet or the affordability. Last year, as I think Ben explained, we paid a dividend of $12,000,000,000 in both cash and shares. Each of you as a shareholder has the option to accept new shares or cash. And about 1 third of you take the option in shares. So $12,000,000,000 $8,000,000,000 in cash. After the BG acquisition, where we issued new stock, of course, that equivalent dividend is now this year $15,000,000,000 $15,000,000,000 of which to date the same proportion of around a third has been taken up. So we need $10,000,000,000 of cash. I actually agree with you entirely on the view that the dividend the affordability of the dividend is related to the oil price. And it would be, in many ways, more resilient if we were to vary the dividend in line with the oil price. Unfortunately, you are not in the majority of our shareholders. The majority of our shareholders would much rather that this company takes the oil price risk and that we pay out a stable and growing dividend over a period of time. And that is the consistent and majority significant majority feedback that we get. So what we have done around the BG deal is we have effectively underwritten this year's dividend payment at a constant level of that $15,000,000,000 as Ben did explain. We have not made commitments looking forward, but we are very aware as a board of the importance that the dividend has for all our investors, whether or not they see a variable element moving with the oil price. And our entire financial structure and framework is designed, along with the strategy, to deliver enough cash to be resilient, to be able to pay the dividend essentially through whatever oil price there might be out there. We take that risk for you. The BG deal itself was, in a way, designed over the next 2 to 3 years to reduce the effective oil price at which we can indeed comfortably maintain that dividend. The associated question which you asked, which is very insightful, is in fact what role will the divestments play. $30,000,000,000 of divestments has been stated as an intent. And to an extent, that's to pay back the debt that we took on for the acquisition. We have a track record on average of divesting $5,000,000,000 to $6,000,000,000 every year, and the $30,000,000,000 is a target over 3 years. So in practice, we are doubling our normal rate from a balance sheet of $300,000,000,000 of assets. So $30,000,000,000 is only 10%. We are not selling the company. This is not a fire sale of assets. Many of the assets that we are likely to sell are not actually oil price related. They may be chemicals, midstream, oil products or gas related assets. And there are many buyers out there, not traditional ones because they don't have much cash either, you're absolutely correct. But there are a lot of pension funds, infrastructure, private equity, sovereign wealth and other different players in the sector that are interested in the assets. Over 3 years, we are confident we will deliver that target. Do you have a second question quickly, please? But going back to the answer, I think we're not suggesting that dividend should be skipped, but we're surprised that Shell being known for all its very insightful analysis doesn't take the shareholders to better understand where the dividend policy might lead to. I think with the current share price, the 7% return, given 0 interest rates on your savings account, the 4% would be sufficient, in my opinion, to make shareholders still very happy. However, when you look at the numbers, you're eating into your balance sheet. Debt is increasing rapidly. And as a result, that's my question with the asset sale. If that €30,000,000,000 relates to values that are declining given the enormous offerings in this market for sale, I wonder whether this is the right time to look at the dividend policy in a more prudent way and make clear to the shareholders all that have absolute interest in Shell Surviving as the strong company that it is. And I think the explanations given by the Chairman and the CEO of Benfron Berning highlights all your efforts. So we applaud those, but we think that dividends need to stay in line with revenue opportunities, which is not at the best right now. Thank you. Your points well noted. Let me go to microphone number 1 for the next question. Good morning, Chairman, and welcome. My name is Charlie Kronock. I'm a shareholder, and I also represent Greenpeace in the U. K. I'm asking a question, quite a specific question actually, which is also related to prudent expenditure. In autumn last year, the company announced that it would abandon its already in construction tar sands project at Carman Creek. The annual report simply stated that upon reviewing this project, it was determined that it did not I'm quoting now, it did not rank in our portfolio. However, the press release at the time of cancellation referred to specific factors, including the lack of infrastructure to move Canadian crude oil to market. Presumably, that was the Keystone pipeline extension. Shell has remaining other tar sands projects yet to break ground. I'm reading just to make sure I get them right. The Jack Pine Extension, Jack Pine Phase 1B and Muskeget River Extension. Can you confirm whether these projects are also dependent on the completion of market access infrastructure, which would include the Enbridge and Northern Gateway pipelines? And would those projects go ahead if those pipelines are not completed? Thank you for your question. Ben, would you respond, please? Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Kronic. You're absolutely right. We abandoned the project for a number of reasons. We felt that the project was not economically resilient anymore in the environment that we were seeing. And indeed, in a very large part, that had to do with infrastructure, not just the Keystone pipeline, by the way. We did have a position in that pipeline, but it was also the pipeline to the eastern part of Canada and some other infrastructure issues associated with it. In the end, for a number of reasons, we decided that this project was not anymore serving the strategy of the company, and we took the very unusual step of abandoning the project even though we had already commenced with the project partly in construction. The other projects that you referred to, the expansion projects, are not real projects at this point in time. They are ideas that we have in our portfolio as we have many, many more ideas than we have money to spend on them. And they therefore have not yet ranked in our opportunity set. And we have no plans going forward in the near term or the midterm to activate any of these projects. Thank you. Back to phone number 2. Alito, hello. My name is Monique Verdin. I'm a member of the United Houma Nation from the Mississippi River Delta. Our people lived between the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers in a territory known as the Barataria Terrebonne Estuary. As you may or may not know, South Louisiana is losing land at one of the fastest rates on the planet. Already many of our coastal communities are retreating with higher ground. As sea levels rise and our land subsides, allowing salt waters to erode what was fresh and brackish environments, 10,000 miles of pipeline canals carved by the oil and gas industry, including shells, pipelines and canals, has contributed greatly to our loss of lands. Additionally, many of our communities in South Louisiana are located next to refineries and petrochemical plants, including Norco, between a territory in a territory between New Orleans and Baton Rouge along the Mississippi River known as Cancer Alley, there are many of these fence line communities, specifically St. Rose that are enduring the effects of pollution and extraction. As we all know, in 2010 BP's drilling disaster leaked in the Gulf of Mexico for almost 3 months, an incident that will plague the Gulf for generations. 2 weeks ago, about 100 miles south of where my family lives, 90,000 gallons of oil leaked into Gulf waters from a Shell pipeline, creating an oil slick 2 miles wide and 13 miles long, reminding us of the gambles taken with our waters, marine life, and way of life. Shell has been a pioneer in deepwater exploration and carbon colonization in the Gulf of Mexico for a long time. 4,300 active leases are functioning in the Gulf of Mexico right now, many of those are owned by Shell. Why does Shell continue to take advantage of the Gulf by exploring in more dangerous depths than ever before, knowing that safety cannot be ensured? If Shell is wanting to reduce carbon emissions, one way to do that is to abstain from participating in the bidding of any new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Climate science has warned us, we must keep it in the ground. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Ben, would you care to comment, please? Thank you very much, Madam Benin. The matter related to climate change, I will take note of it and respond to it in a later section of this meeting when we talk about Resolution 19. I'm, of course, very familiar with the region. We do indeed operate in Louisiana, in Norco, in Convent, but also in Port Arthur just across the border in a joint venture, Motiva, together with our partner Saudi Aramco. And I'm also aware that, of course, over time, there has been quite a bit of dialogue with our neighbors, our fence line communities, about the presence of the company. And I think we have made a very significant progress, not only in mitigating and minimizing the impacts that have been made on societies and communities, but also to listen to where we can make more and more meaningful progress. And I think if I look back over the last 10 years and saw the journey I was more closely involved with, I do actually believe that we have made significant progress also interacting with communities, often myself. The issue that you referred to on the Gulf of Mexico and the spill we had, that indeed is a matter of concern for us as well. So indeed, we had a crack in one of the underwater manifolds, as we now can make out. So this was not a well controlled incident. This was a crack in a piece of pipe on the seabed and indeed, about 2,100 barrels of oil leaked from it, causing the slick that you mentioned. We very much regret that, that has happened. We've worked very, very hard to deal with that spill. We had 150 people dealing with it. We have collected about 2,000 plus barrels of oil and water mixture. And thankfully, none of this pollution has reached shorelines. And at the moment, we believe that, that spell has been dealt with as best as we can. And indeed, it does demonstrate, and I'm not going to deny that, that our operations or any operations for that matter in the industry and in any industry are without risk. But it does show that we can respond well if unfortunately these sort of incidents happen. And what you cannot see is that, of course, in events like this, we do very, very deep learnings to understand what caused it. And not just to say, well, we had a crack, let's repair it and it won't happen again. No, no. This now will be followed by very deep, what we call, causal learning for people to really understand what practices and processes, not just offshore, but maybe going as far as the office here in The Hague, were contributory to something like this happening, and we will implement that. And on top of it, of course, we also get investigated together with us by the Bureau For Safety and Environmental Affairs. So I don't think I can sit here and say any form of industrial activity is without risk. But what I can say is that we will deal and respond as best as we can and should and what can be expected from companies like us to minimize this in line with standards that government set. But it's not for me to decide whether or not United States of America opens up the Gulf of Mexico for leaseholds. And if it does, it is for companies like us to respond to it as responsibly and as properly as we can, which I think it is what we are doing. Now to your question, wouldn't we all be better off if we leave all the oil and gas into the ground? Let me reply to that a little bit later, then we have a broader discussion on climate change, if that's okay with you. Thank you. Number 1? My name is Juliet Phillips. I'm here as a corporate representative of ShareAction. We're a responsible investment charity. My question is about KPIs and executive incentives. I'd like to ask it in this section before So we really prefer to take that in the remuneration question. If we could you wait till then, please? Okay. Thank you very much. Number 1? Good morning, Chair, and good morning, members of the Board. My name is Susan Blackwell. I'm a proxy for Hannah Gilbert. I'm also representing ShareAction UK. My question specifically relates to the new report by Shell, A Better Life with a Healthy Planet, which seeks to depict a world where, I quote, the trajectory of global emissions is dramatically turned around in the next 20 years. The report describes a complete turnaround in the global energy mix with the share of hydrocarbons falling from 80% to 20% to 25%. However, in Shell's other corporate reporting, the risks that this momentous and urgent shift in the energy mix pose to the firm's current business model are hugely underplayed. For instance, the sustainability report suggests that by 2,050, renewable energy will reach a mere 9% market share and just 8% of transport will be powered by renewables. This differs dramatically from the landscape described in A Better Life with a Healthy Planet, where 80% of the global passenger car fleet are electrified over the coming decades, an outlook which is more in line with the exponential growth scenarios which many city analysts are predicting. Of course, it is hard to predict what the future holds, but when forecasts are as divergent as these, surely a prudent approach to capital discipline would be one that plans for the circumstances which are least favorable to business as usual. Yet this doesn't seem to be the approach that Shell is taking, with your disclaimer clearly stating that the company does not intend to align for a net zero portfolio over its 10 to 20 year investment horizon. If we are successful in dramatically turning around the trajectory of global emissions in the next 20 years, could Shell adapt in time to maintain shareholder value? Is there board level oversight of the development of a strategy to respond to this outcome? Thank you. Thank you for your comment. We'll address more of your questions in the Resolution 19. There is a Board level strategy to deal with these issues. It's something the Board spends a lot of time on. The second document that we referred to earlier released 2 weeks ago wasn't a prediction. It was an understanding of the parameters that would have to be in place to make that fast of an adjustment. Thank you for your comments. We'll talk about it more later. Number 2? My name is James Marriott. I'm here from Platform and I'm also a shareholder. And I would like to ask a question about, as Mr. Van Vaden referred to, deep causal learning. I've been coming to this AGM many years, and in the last period, we've been presented with ideas about the drilling in the Arctic. This year, there was no mention of that, which is interesting to me. For a decade or over a decade since 2004, when the first attempt was to make first purchase of leases were made in the Chukchi and the Beaufort Sea under the chairmanship of Yoreen Vandervier. Since that time, around about $7,000,000,000 of investment, capital investment, of shareholder investment has been made into the Arctic to develop it. You looked at you were taking a very long term timeframe. I discussed this with Simon Henry. He talked about the idea that oil production would be around about beginning around about 2,035. So, the outline of your project was that it would start producing in 2,035, that's 20 years off, and go on producing long after that. You took a project in which you were going to look long, invest over $7,000,000,000 look over half a century perhaps. The question is, you now stopped. You sold off most of your leases. Is there going to be a process of what I would call deep causal learning as to why you made a wrong judgment. What was the judgment that was made that in the first place seemed a good judgment and in the latter place seemed a bad judgment? Who is held responsible for that? Which individuals made that decision in the first place perhaps beginning in 2004 to make those investments in at very high cost, extremely high cost into offshore licenses in the Chokshi and the Beaufort. Who made those decisions? Who made the decisions to go further throughout the process under Vanderveer, under Vosa, under the first part of Van Burden's chairmanship to make further capital investments of up to $7,000,000,000 and more into this process. Has there been any real assessment of this? Has there been any deep causal learning, as you say? And has that report been done? It's a question. And if that report has been done, will it be shared with the shareholders? And if not, why not? Why was the decision made that seems from this aspect so catastrophically bad? And why is it that at this presentation, there is no presentation there's no mention of the Arctic? It's as though it never took place. This relates to the 2nd part of deep causal learning. It seems to me an incredibly important tragedy that 9 people died in the Delta of your staff. 9 people. I think it would have been good to read out their names just as the people who died on the Deepwater Horizon rig, their names were read out by the Chairman of BP at the AGM immediately after that. I think it would have been respectful if you read out the names of the people who died in Nigeria. The reason why they died is multiple, but the question of what to do about it requires deep causal learning. In 1936, your former chairman, Henry Detting, signed a piece of paper which allowed Shell and BP together to explore oil production in what is now called we now refer to this the Niger Delta. From that moment on, you had environmental impact on that area. You are paying the price for that. You look at those figures of deaths, and you can tell, as you know yourselves, that this is a very deep wound in the company, and it continues to be a wound. The reason why there's a wound is that you damage the environment so badly for so long, 80 years, the whole of my life and my father's life. It's going to take a long time to heal that wound. I am really glad, as are my allies and friends and the people I work with in Nigeria and all the people I work with in platform and other related organizations, that in 9 days' time, the governments are announcing that they're going to do the cleanup. They're going to start the cleanup. That is long overdue, and I'm really glad that that's happening, and I'm glad that this company has actually helped that happen. And I believe that, Van Verden, you have helped that happen, and I'm grateful to you. We have exchanged on this before, and you know that. But it is a deep causal problem. It will not be addressed by a small apportionment of capital. It will have to be addressed by looking at it from the point of view of will, resources and capital. You have to put the staff in place to understand that you're going to have to clean this up, not just for 5 years, not for 10 years, but for 20 years. You've got to look long the kind of length of commitment that you made, you thought you were going to make in the in the Arctic. You've got to make that thing because, and this is my final point or final inflection on it, This point about deep causality relates to the point in the video about what's in the DNA of the company. In the video, it said that what is in the DNA of the company is can innovation, and that is true. But unfortunately, unfortunately, what has been put into the DNA of the company because it's been there so long that you can't see it is the destruction of the Niger Delta. 80 years, 80 years, it's in the bloody DNA. And you're going to have to figure that out, and you're going to have to look long. And just selling off the assets will not answer the problem. What are you going to do about deep causal learning and relation to Nigeria? In fact, you answer your problem much more specifically if you do address it over the longer period rather than thinking we've got a security issue right now. I want to know what are you going to do and what commitment you're going to make over the long term? Thank you. Thank you very much for your question and thanks for your sincere comments. We take them very seriously. Let me respond and then if Ben you'd like to add something please do. First on the Lascaux where you started there has been a deep causal learning. It's been reviewed with the Board and we're taking all the appropriate actions and learning from that. 2nd, as you talk about loss of life, Ben referred to it in his opening report, it's never an acceptable year if one person has lost their life. This is tragic. The entire board has reviewed what happened in that terrible tragedies, multiple tragedies in Nigeria. We take it very seriously and I'll continue our goal is 0 and we must continue to focus on that. The Corporate Social Responsibility Committee has visited Nigeria twice in the last few years to get a deep understanding of what's going on, understanding directly from people in the community and groups that are supporting change. I think the Board has a good understanding of the challenges in Nigeria. They're very serious and we take them seriously. And we'll pledge to you, we'll continue to take positive constructive actions going forward. Ben, would you care to add? I think you said most of it, Chad. I think we do reflect and we do learn. It's indeed a choice to what extent we then share that with the broader public. But I hope you will take it from me as an assurance that we do reflect and that there are consequences to that. We're not a company that then make headlines out of that because we don't think that is appropriate either. I'm sorry, I have to correct you on one small point. You said 9 fatalities, there were 7, which is bad enough, yes? And they are a combination of fatalities. It is people drowning. It is people being shot, getting caught up in crossfire. It is people being killed in a pipeline repair incident that was very, very difficult to execute. It is one person actually dying in a swimming pool as he did his helicopter training to go offshore. So it's a mix of issues, none of which is acceptable. Yes, we do reflect very deeply on what we should do in Nigeria. And unfortunately, some of that means the inevitable conclusion that these operations do not belong in our portfolio. There is simply not enough added value that we can provide in relatively simple onshore operations that probably can be much better done by Nigerian companies with a Nigerian way of doing things. And I don't mean anything bad about it, by the way. Companies that are much better integrated with the local communities than we can ever be, even though we have been in Nigeria for so many years. Does it mean that we walk away from commitments that we have made to clean things up? No, absolutely not. I've been very clear about it as well. The UNEP commitment that is there, which is not a legal commitment, by the way, but is a voluntary commitment that we made, that commitment still stands. But I hope you will also recognize, and I know you do, but I wish you would give some credit to it as well, that there are unbelievably difficult operating circumstances in Nigeria. And many of the sites that we clean up, we only come back 2 weeks later to just find another spill by some form of theft, some form of illegal tapping, refining or whatever else. We clean it up again. And we will continue to do that as long as we are there. I take in that sense my responsibilities as does the entire company very seriously, and we will not walk away from them, far from it. Now does that mean that we don't learn from that? Yes, we do. Maybe not with some form of formal study and a report out to the board. But we do ask ourselves all the time when we get into new operations, is there anything that we are doing here that you may look back in 30 years' time and find that actually it is not what we wanted it to be? And sometimes these things are incredibly hard to foresee. Who could foresee that 80 years later oil wealth has also brought a lot of social economic challenges to a country like Nigeria. Why didn't Nigeria go the same path as Malaysia did? Nobody could make up their mind at that point in time what would happen. Neither could, of course, people back in the '50s figure out that earth tremors would happen in Chone. So sometimes we have to deal with these issues as they come up. We do not have perfect foresight, but we do have a very strong set of values to deal with the challenges as they present themselves. And I hope you will recognize that in your company as well. Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank Altena, and today, I represent VBDO. VBDO is the abbreviation for the Dutch Association of Investors For Sustainable Development. TBBO's vision is to increase sustainability awareness and performance through engagement with companies and investors. BBDO would like to commend Shell for its commitment to make investments in large scale and commercial forms of lower carbon technology and energy such as wind and solar energy. Shell considers sustainability to be essential to the success of their business and failure to meet a range of environmental and social challenges could have a detrimental effect on the business. And I have three questions on sustainability. Sustainability performance and BG. Acquisition of BG Group has been completed recently. What would be the estimated impact of the BG Group on Shell Sustainability's performance after integration. For instance, we note, for example, that in 2014, the total recordable case frequency for BG was at 1.38, whereas the number of for Shell was considerably lower at 0.99. And there may be other points to reflect on that. 2nd question relates to smart targets on the relevant environmental and social indicators. Last year, we asked a question on Shell's progress on key strategic sustainability issues, such as the use of renewable energy, waste reduction, etcetera, and on the associated KPIs to achieve more transparency and to monitor and stimulate progress on these issues and for us also to be able to compare with other companies. Shell expressed to have difficulties with smart targets on a corporate level. However, they mentioned the intention to increase reporting on the progress on the project level. In the most recent sustainability report, we see many indicators, but find smart targets. Is Shell, that's the question, willing to set smart targets for the environmental and social indicators mentioned, for instance, on Page 52 of the sustainability report? If so, when? If not, why not? The third question is on water consumption. Shell uses a significant amount of water in its operation and reports on this, Especially the retrieval of tight gas and oil by fracking uses considerable amounts of water and production oil from sands from oil sands. From 2014 to 2015, Shell has decreased the amount of water used from 199,000,000 cubic meters to 186,000,000 cubic meters. A partial explanation for this is a 3% increase in water recycling in the sand mines. Is Shell question, is Shell willing to set targets with regards to its water use in order to achieve a continuous reduction? And related to that, does Shell have the ambition to increase the recycling of water both in the sand mines, but also in other areas of production such as it's retrieving tight oil and gas? And if so, is Shell willing to report on that? Thank you. Thank you very much for your very complete questions. Let me take the first one on BG safety and the last 2 I'll give to you Ben, if that's okay. So, yes, the total recordable frequency for BG is higher than Shell. Their mix of businesses are different. So an apples and apples to comparison is not perfect. We note they had a very significant improvement in their safety just last year. We've done a number of inspections in their facilities and talking with their people. I believe they have the same kind of targets, they express them differently, they have a different term for life saving rules than we do, But fundamentally, I believe the culture is the same and we will have very good progress and they'll be a good part of the family. Ben, the other two questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Altima. We do not have difficulties resetting smart targets. We do that, of course, in many areas. Some areas, as I said last year, to you are a bit more difficult to set proper smart targets on. Where it matters though, I do think we do set targets. We do, for instance, set targets in the executive scorecard, which determines not just Simon and my salary, but the salary of all 200 senior executives. And then a subset of that actually are smart targets that determine the bonus for all staff in Shell. They make out about these particular smart targets on our scorecard about 20% of the total score that can be had. They're roughly split fifty-fifty safety, and the other half is environmental. What we do is we typically look at what we have traditionally achieved and then we extrapolate what would be a sensible target with a reasonable amount of stretch in it, which is being set by our remuneration committee. And in some cases, when it comes to overall targets, the entire board gets involved in setting reasonably stretching targets. And we do that year after year. And if you don't meet these targets, it will have its reflection on the amount of bonus that gets paid out. But to be perfectly honest, that's not the reason why we work on our Goal 0 strategy. It is not just for that amount of money. It is because we believe it is the right thing to do. And it's also what our staff will expect us to do. When it comes to water management, you're absolutely right. In our oil sands operations, we have improved water quite significantly. And our oil sands operation is the area where we have most fresh water consumption. About 75% of the fresh water that is critical in our portfolio is actually in that area. So therefore, recycling water in that area is of key importance. We set ourselves very stringent targets, which are at least one order of magnitude more stringent than the legal requirements that we have in Alberta. And we indeed, as you said, we have improved that sense of recycling from 78% to 85% recently. What we typically do is we take a view on assets where we believe our water stresses. Water, of course, is a global problem, but you can imagine that is a much more stringent or acute problem in some part of the world, much more so than in other parts of the world. If we take cooling water out of the whole deep in Moerdijk and put it back on, that's much less of an issue than we would take water out of a river in the Middle East, for instance. So therefore, we have for all areas that we believe there are real water stresses, very detailed water management plans with very specific targets that we manage towards to. They are quite often multiyear targets because they require not only ongoing operational improvements, but also investments to drive that further. Some of that gets reported quite often just as vignettes in our sustainability reports and the aggregate number gets reported as well. So there are targets, some of which that are linked to our pay are very, very specific and set by the Board. Others are a myriad of targets that we work on and that we report on as much as we can in the sustainability report. Number 2? Thank you. My name is Gavin Palmer. I'm an analyst and institution investor. The Family Trust has had shares in Shell for over 50 years, and I'm a former director of the U. K. Shareholders' Association and a former founding director of Sharesock, the largest private shareholder association in the UK. Now, a point came up just early, which I've added, about that it wasn't in line with your strategy. I think it's an appropriate time to remind both you and the Board that you are custodians of the shareholders' funds. Your job is to make the best use of those funds whether or not it aligns with your personal strategy or your board strategy. Your strategy may be to maximize your pay. That is not in alignment with the articles of association of the company or in the best interest of the shareholders' wealth. Also, it has been shown that those people who are overpaid have a tendency to recklessness and to over try to justify their pay. You are members and directors of 1 of the largest companies in the world. You should not have to be paid stupendous amount of money to brag in the bar room about how you are doing your job. Now Mr. Van Buren and executives, I'm going to ask you a few short questions. Yes, no answer is all that suffices. Are there about remuneration? No. They're about performance. Go away take a couple of your questions, please. Very good. Mr. Van Buren, have you done your best and made your best decisions in your employment? Yes, no. Address your questions to me, please. Okay. Charles Holliday, have you done the best in your job? Yes, no. Best I can. Is that a yes? Yes. Great. Explain then, it's nice to get a straight answer. Explain then if we assume that you've worked 18 hours a day for Shell, How you've managed to increase your pay when you have, like I believe everyone else in this room, only 24 hours in the day? I believe that's a remuneration question. We'll take it under that resolution. That's a performance question. I'm asking how he gets the extra ads because I'd like to have the same number of ads and I think a lot of other people would. Because if you've been making the best decisions, have you been making better decisions by being paid more? Well, obviously that would be a no, would it not, logically? Yes, no answer? Please complete your questions. So, I know it's not very comfortable being held to account like this, is it? Of course, if it was an ego check-in terms of how overpaid you were as executives compared to other overpaid executives, and you were objecting to having your pay or wings clipped by the shareholders then by implication you would be blackmailing your loyal shareholders with the threat that instead of making the best decisions for the company you would be acting against the shareholders' interest and in your own interests of your own pay. It's times like this that directors need to be reminded that you are all replaceable by a proposal to the AGM and the company will carry on without you. I know it may be surprising but it will and it has done for 100 plus years. So my question is will you act as a good custodian of shareholders funds which have been accumulated to vast amounts by the reinvestment by shareholders' profits and retained profits in the business? Absolutely. Is that a yes? Yes. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Number 1? Okay. My name is Svenjo of the Johan Cruyff City, Amsterdam, and I have by this resolutions two points. My first point is on Page 6, paragraph 5. It's your report, Mr. Holiday. This Paris Climate Agreement provide a promising platform for society to develop a solution to climate change. Governments now need to implement a policy with will stimulate invest in all technologies that can contribute to lower carbon future, fine. You can write that in the Paris agreement, but how are your company, Shell, as a company act accordingly against this agreement? That was not mentioned in your presentation by detail. Why not, Mr. Holiday? This means to me, and I think to my fellow colleagues, you don't have a timetable. Otherwise, you will stand as a man and tell us that the timetable in detail. This is the transparency. So the share price will well. But you don't have a plan. You don't want to say it in your report. You want also make nice weather with the Paris agreement. I don't accept that. We as shareholders must watch as our invest day after day reduce in value. Why you are going personally have improved? Of the well in the Netherlands, Jullica Lumo. Otherwise, as I said in Dutch, you guys are moving up and we are moving down. At the controls and has in recent years totally got no proposals in direction of energy out of water as they do by the Asladeijk in the Netherlands, out of saltwater and brushwater. You show us done a neatly defiantly exam in the music, oil pumps, oil pumps, oil pump and do no innovations. Your Investor Relations department can't tell the players on the stock market, the shareholders we are, what is Shell doing about that. That's a big shame. The question in this point is I accept no reply from you. You are going to the point to the authorities with your finger. But accountability you make in your organization from top to bottom, where I am a fellow share when where I and my fellow shareholders, you can pay off next year. The second one, if you are specify the targets as a separate page on your side of Investor Relations, which the title a Paris Agreement and Shell Contribution. And then tell us by monthly what you do and give your goals. Certainly, I understand that the startups that the startups, they're pointing with our world and are they coming not to the front desk or to the operator? Why Mr. Holiday? This kind of initiatives are the future of every company as a smell to Apple. Don't sit on your ass, do something. You became a lot of money. What are the steps you will take by your Investor Relations department so the players are at the stock market, we shareholders will see a shell on another way than only oil pump, oil pump, oil pump company. My second point is on Page 89, the block of pension. Where did Mr. From burden steal and defined benefit pension? And why not has a defined pension of contribution? We all know that in the pension country, drastic things have to change. Even this small change with the IMAGO of Shell and the share price of doing good for now, but hopelessly sad. And why do you nothing. Why Mr. Classelait as Chairman of the Aramco has not the pension comfort from Mr. Van Burden in the contribution. But the contribution is very is better for the company than the benefit. That's my questions in this solution. Thank you for your comments. We will address the remuneration questions when we get to that resolution and we'll deal with the other climate. The remuneration is on Page 98 and I spoke about the Page 89. So otherwise, if you see that, then you have to make a mistake in your agenda. Thank you very much. If you would allow us to address all those at one time, I think we can do a much more comprehensive answer and answer all the shareholders' questions at once. Thank you very much. We'll go to question number 2. Thank you for taking my question. My name is Jack Zwalia from APG Asset Management representing a number of pension funds including ABP. Slide back a little bit. I have one question on capital discipline and then 4 smaller questions regarding climate change, which you can address at the appropriate time. On capital discipline, we've seen Ben Van Buren talking about this for the past 2 years and we've seen it being demonstrated, which we welcome. My question is going forward as we see or expect oil prices to recover, how resilient will capital discipline be in a higher oil price environment? My next three questions are actually on climate change. So I'll give them to you now and you can set them at the appropriate time. So we've basically in the last 2 weeks, I think we've seen the unveiling at the recent SRI day of the new energy portion of your strategy. And it was also mentioned how you'd spend 200,000,000 So, my questions are, how So my questions are: How will your commitments to new energy evolve over time? And the second is: How much transparency will we have over how well you've invested, so the returns in new energy? And lastly, how will your renewable ambitions tie back into management remuneration? Thank you very much. Thank you. Very clear questions. Let me address the first question. I'll ask Simon Henry to add. The absolute determination to capital discipline if the oil price is increased is there. We have a commitment to reduce our debt, to have a share buyback. So there are many other draws on that rather than just capital. So the discipline is there. But Simon, could you elaborate a bit? Sure. Thank you, Jim. Thanks, Jag, for the question. Good to see you again. I mentioned $15,000,000,000 of dividend earlier and some of the challenges in balancing the financial framework in a period where last year we generated from our operations $330,000,000,000 of cash. We add to that from divestment. So to make the numbers go around is something of a challenge. Last year, we invested $29,000,000,000 We haven't given a figure for this year, but we're actually investing about the same level this year at the moment. As we go forward, that is one of the key levers that we need to adjust to meet our priorities for cash flow, which are very clearly stated. First of all, we must reduce the debt. Our current net debt is $77,000,000,000 We need to reduce that by $10,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000 before we really talk about other priorities. The one priority we have given is the dividend. Protect the dividend. After that, if there were to be cash available, we have the choice around investment levels and or share buybacks. And that is what we've stated. That's what we have said to since we made the first announcement around the BG deal. And we do appreciate that at a $30 oil price, that was a challenge. So thank you for the support that I know you gave us during the acquisition and the shareholder vote that we had back in January. The oil price has recovered a little. That remains the biggest single factor influencing our financial framework. At every other lever available to us, I think Ben covered earlier, capital investment reduction, reduction in operating expense, the divestments we talked about and of course, the new projects coming on stream from the $30,000,000,000 a year that we have been investing, they all are part of the balance that we manage on a very close basis, on a very regular basis monthly through the executive committee. Thank you for the question. Number 1? I missed the answer of Page 6, paragraph 5, the Jerkburg. I missed that answer. We're going to give that later in the meeting, if that would be okay? No, it's now by this resolution. Okay. Would you state your question exactly you'd like us to respond to again? Sure. The Paris only the question or all the only the questions? Okay. Okay. The questions, I accept no reply from you. You are going to the point of the authorities with the finger, but accountable you make in your organization from top to bottom. Where and my fellow shareholders can you can pay off next year. If you are specified the targets as a separate page on your site Investor Relations, which the title, a Paris Agreement and Shell's Contribution. And then a month now, what you did to give your goals. I understand that the startups, the door are pointing with other words that are not beyond the front desk or the operator. Why Mr. Holiday? This kind of initiatives has the future for every company from ASML to Apple. Don't sit on your ass. Do something for the money. But what are the steps you will take by your Investor Relations department? So Thank you, sir. The player at the stock market, these shareholders will see a shell on another way to do than only pumping oil, pumping oil, pumping oil. So that's it. Thank you very much. And that is in your report number 6. Thank you very much, sir. We'll respond to it. Again, as we said in the opening remarks, we fully support the Paris Agreement. We will work with every country that set voluntary goals for their country to be play a part there where we do business and make a contribution. We are setting goals inside the company on sustainability. We have a number of them, 20% of our remuneration is on safety and environmental sustainability. We have an entire committee of the board focused on corporate social responsibility that go and actually visit the sites where we have the most challenges, understand what's going on and make recommendations back to the entire Board. We take strong accountability for all the statements in that letter. Why do you don't know an extra point on your Investor Relations department that we can see in the what you do monthly, bimonthly, not about 4 years or next year, immensely, bimonthly what you do. You can talk about your committees, but we as shareholders don't receive that reports. We want to see it, but on Internet, what you are doing? I understand your request and we'll take a look at any additional disclosures we should have on a more routine basis rather than once a year. Thank you. Number 1, Let's go to number 2. I think the microphone is over there. I am a long time shareholder. I'm 83. In the beginning of this year, 2016, I read an interview with Mr. Van Burden in one of my newspapers. In this interview, Mr. Van Burden says that oil will be necessary for the standard of our living up till the year 20,070. I agree it will take quite a long time before we will be able to live without oil, maybe even longer than 2,070. Why did Mr. Van Burden spoke of the year 2,070? On what kind of economic or technical reserves is this based? Thank you. Thank you. Bill, would you care to respond? Thank you very much. I didn't catch your name, madam. Mrs. Vida. Thank you, Mrs. Vida. Thank you very much for coming, and thank you very much for that question, which is indeed an important question. And I also hear a sense of acknowledgment that it could indeed be that long or maybe even longer. I think it is relatively arbitrary to be perfectly honest. And it's always going to be difficult to look into the future and say, well, that's the moment where we do not need oil or gas anymore. Why did I use 2,070? I could have used 2,050 or maybe even 2,000 100 as well, because I still do believe that even at the end of this century, we will still be using oil, not as much as we use today and for different purposes, maybe not so much to drive cars, but for other reasons. I hope we will not be using too much coal anymore, and I guess we will still be using quite a bit of natural gas. But the point that I wanted to make was that no matter and I will make the point in a bit more detail later on if we get to this Resolution 19, that oil and gas will remain part of the solution going forward for a long time to come, probably well into this century, probably right up to the end of this century. It doesn't mean that other sources of energy are going to be more important. Yes, it does undoubtedly happen that solar and wind will become more prominent and oil will lose its prominence as coal has lost its prominence over the last 100 years, as burning wood has lost its prominence over the 100 years before. Our energy system is changing all the time. We do not have a crystal ball how it will change. We have certain views on how it could change. We have certain views how it should change if you want to live within the 2 Degrees C world. And we have strategies to deal with the company to survive and to thrive in whatever environment we are going to see. If you will forgive me, I will talk about it in a bit more detail, and we get back to Resolution 19, which is more to do with climate change. Thank you very much. Number 1? Good morning. I am Atno from At At Ute Junior and I'm from Alaska. Descendant of the First Peoples of the North American continent, I am Inuit. I am Tiquiaguit. I come from Point Hope. I understand that there is the offshore drilling, there's the burger, popcorn, Klondike and I understand that there is still one lease that Shell owns and is that the burger? What are your plans with the burger, please? Bien, would you fry, please? Yes. Welcome and very nice to see you travel such long distance to be at our AGM. You're absolutely right. We had 275 different leases in Alaska, 274 we have relinquished and we are still holding on to 1. There is nothing sinister about it. It is indeed the lease in which we drilled that one well that delivered a dry hole. But that well and the information that we gathered from it still has commercially relevant information. And I think also for the interest of you as our shareholders, we like to maximize the information value that we still have on this. So rather than basically throwing it away, we like to sell it to somebody who can learn from it something else. That's the reason why we have hold on to that one lease out of the 275 that we used to have. We are indeed done in Alaska when it comes to our drilling campaign, but we're not quite done yet when it comes to our activities. We will go back again this summer, and we will pick up 55 anchors that are still on the seabed that have been left behind and that we now need to retrieve to make sure that we bring back the seabed also to the condition that we found it in. But in terms of drilling activity, we have no plans to go back there for the foreseeable future. Thank you. Number 2. One other thing, I just want to thank the Board for allowing me to be able to speak here. It's a very scary thought to think that my culture could be erased with an oil spill And for a village that has been the one of the longest continuously inhabited communities on the North American continent even longer than the birth of Christ is where I am born. And to have that the thought of that being erased because of oil and nonrenewable resources is a very scary thought in my mind because it's the we would lose the first peoples of the Arctic. And we still inhabit the Arctic and I don't want that in my lifetime. I don't not I do not want to see that and I thank you for the opportunity for me to be able to speak here. And I wish you guys luck in alternative energy, the endeavor of that. Thank you very much for coming and putting your voice in this room so we hear directly from you the impacts to your region. We do appreciate your journey. Number 2, please? Alcoaster, Fabienne. Thank you, Chairman. I'm not aware, you didn't mention it, but whether the auditor is present? The auditor is present. I have a question in regard with all the challenges that have been mentioned this morning, one of the issues from an accounting perspective that really affects the shareholders is the impairments. And I was wondering to what extent this process has gotten additional attention given all the developments and the highlights of some of the issues that were mentioned by Ben van Berden. With Nigeria, the NAM, they're seeing a lot of issues that might have a significant impact. And I was just wondering whether both the auditor and perhaps the chairperson of the audit committee could highlight the extra work or the views that they have on this process and whether that has been as it has been in place, whether it's sufficient? Thank you very much. Yulin, the Chair of our Audit Committee, could you please respond? Sure, Chairman. And thank you for that question. Certainly that matter has been well discussed and well covered during the audit committee meetings. You'll find that the details of that coverage is listed described in the annual report. The external auditors report also describes what they've gone through and gives the assurance that they concur with the results of that we're presenting to you in the financial returns. One of the things that I would like to know is the discount rate changed given the recent developments. It seems that there is with this whole Paris Accord that we've now seen So much discussion highlighted in the audience with all the questions related to the future. You have mentioned yourself the unprecedented nature of this transition. So is it really covered well enough? And has the discount rate as a result, for instance, been changed? Simon, could you take that question? In simple terms, no. We have not reduced the discount rate recently, but it is discussed every year at the audit committee. And all the factors, whether it be current interest rates or future likely developments in the industry are considered. And the discount rate used for impairments is, in fact, lower than we use for assessing investments that we do make anyway because that's linked to our cost of capital. And therefore, the investments that we make, in theory, are more valuable in net present terms than we would look at in the longer term impairment test. Thanks. We've taken a lot of time in this first question. If we could limit to about 10 more minutes because I want to make sure we time when we get to Resolution 19, the other resolutions for everybody to attend. Number 1? Mr. Chairman, my name is Heine Mann. I'm a retail shareholder, and I reside here in The Hague. First of all, I would like to complement you as an Executive Board and Supervisory Board with your reasonably good annual results and that given the very difficult conditions. My first question, is the annual report not an understatement? I know that Shell has a strategic oil stock for 3 months use. And the oil price in February was 26, 27. And in the meantime, it's 48. So it has increased by more than 50% in the meantime. So it could be that the annual report gives us a more somber picture of the situation than is actually the case. Now I don't really remember what the oil price was on the 1st January, you will undoubtedly know. And the oil price increased because Shell took certain decisions, particularly the plan to invest in the Arctic Sea. That plan was abandoned, and that means that an investment budget of several 1,000,000,000 has been released. So my second question is, what is Shell going to do with that money? And then you have the oil sands in Alberta, in Canada. Well, that was nothing was done with that. What are you going to do with property, plant and equipment? Is that rusting away? Or did you sell it? Or are you just going to wait for better times? And then I would also like to discuss the complaints of the inhabitants of the province of Groningen. Of course, I understand their disappointment. But let us not forget, when we started drilling for natural gas, our Prime Minister, Daniel, said that there would be no reserve fund, but all additional revenues would be used to improve the social measures and the well-being of the population. And I remember the Prime Minister for now saying Santa Claus exists, and he's over there. So question is now that there's so many complaints in Groningen, at the time we had complaints in Lindbergh in the south of the country when the state mines were closed. And then the entrances to the mines were not closed to save money. And that led to earthquakes for on the Richter scale in Romontro, for instance. And these people also have damages. Their houses are crumbling. And now you are being asked to give up drilling in Groningen. Now someone has said, wouldn't it be a good idea to fill up the holes of the drilling with some other substance? Those are my questions so far. Thank you very much. Simon, if you could respond to the first financial questions and then Ben, anything else on Grodeka. Thank you. I believe the question was about what are we doing with the money that we're not now spending in Alaska or potentially in Canada. Well, we basically reduced our total investment level. So we are not investing, and that is being prudent with your money, the shareholders' money. So we have reduced our investment level. And I refer back to the previous discussion about what we are doing with the money. In Canada, there was some PP and E as you described it, that's property, plant and equipment that was owned by the company as we ended the Carbon Creek project. Some of that has been recycled into other activities. Some of it was land, which we retain and some of it was equipment or other that we may need to sell on and that is in progress. So it is still had some value to us, but that's all reflected in the accounts. I think one of the questions earlier may have been referring to that. Yes. But Beth, I would like to ask, are the financial figures per December 31, are they understated because the replacement value of the oil has changed substantially And an increase of 50%, more than 50% of the oil price has done until now, that must have a substantial effect on the financial figures. Now I don't know what you all did cost a barrel as of January 1, but certainly, you can inform me about it. And then with regards to the oil, to the tariffs in Canada, I have heard that it is only profitable if the oil price is higher than $17 a barrel. Is that true? Or is that fiction? It's fiction. The cash cost is $30 or less at the moment. So we do make cash at even today's oil price, which you correctly state actually is $48 It was around $30 on of January. You do have a point in accounting sense that the stock would have been valued at the $30 equivalent and would be worth more today, but that is reflected in our ongoing accounts where in formal terms, we use a first in, first out reporting accounting methodology, but we adjust for that when we talk about our earnings. So the earnings that Ben talked about earlier, $11,000,000,000 last year, we take out that temporary effect of the oil price moving as we will do going forward. I hope that Shell will take its decisions based on the current oil price and not based on the oil price of the past. Bouvenues et Prevoy is a French proverb, and I hope that Kjell Balay, more than sure, will take this into account. Thank you very much, Emil. Any other comments, Ben? Thank you very much, Mene Heinemann. Let me say a few things about Groningen that you brought up. And I'm afraid I have to go a little bit into geology. Don't worry, it's not going to be complex because I'm not a geologist myself. But there is a big difference between what we have in the gas fields in Groningen compared to the mines in Lindbergh, where mining typically is removing something and then indeed there is a cavity. It doesn't quite look the same for gas fields. Think of the gas field in Groningen as a light sand dune that literally was a sand dune many, many, many, many years ago, below which was a layer of hydrocarbons that turned into gas and that filled the sand dune. Because the sand dune was kept, the gas was trapped there. So you basically have a very, very light set of sand dunes in which we now drill to get the gas out or rather we numb. What happens is that as the pressure in that sand dune that was inflated with gas reduces, the sand dune basically settles a little bit. And because that sand dune is not covered with a lot of soil on top of it, and because the soil on top of it is actually soft and not rock, it creates the tremors. So there is no easy solution of filling up a cavity because there is no cavity. But it does not mean that we cannot do things about it, but it is a little bit more complex. And it does require more management of the field, how we deplete, where we drill, how we deal with all the challenges associated with it. And that is what NAM is doing, and that's where the technical expertise is helping out at the same time. Sorry for the detail, but I thought that could be helpful. Thank you. So we'll take the 2 people at the microphones, 1 and 2. Do we really need to move the other resolutions because I think we need to give them proper time? Number 2? Netherlands, but The Netherlands, comments off Mike, the interpreter can't hear him. In the Netherlands, we had 2 world players, ABN AMRO and Philips. Unfortunately, they're no longer world class players. Now it would be wonderful should Shell become the new world class player. I've been reading stories about separating Shell into gas and oil. I think that we should all prevent this. And I think that the CEO, Mr. Ben van Borde, is absolutely well equipped to prevent that. It would also be wonderful that we become leading in other sectors, oil, gas, wind and sun. To give others time. Yes. Well, yes. Well, my question is, I would like this to become a worldwide company that will not be separated. And so Mr. Van Buren, my question is, what is your strategy? Thank you, Mr. Vrege, for your subsequent question. We do not have the ambition to become a world leading company. We are a world leading company. Let me not say something in relation to Phillips and ABN AMRO because I may get in trouble with people who are sitting behind me here. But we are very, very clear about the ambitions that we have in our company. We want to be absolutely a world class investment opportunity for investors around the world. We have very clear plans of doing that. If you want to hear more of it, I would suggest you listen in to the Capital Markets Day that we have in early June, and there is no intention whatsoever to cut up the company. Number 1? Louise Rouse, shareholder. Two very quick questions. Is a question of clarification on something Mr. Henry said earlier around who was taking the risk when a dividend was being maintained. And I'm paraphrasing, so I apologize if I'm slightly misinterpreting what you said, was that most shareholders understandably wanted the dividend maintained for steady income and wanted the company to take the risk on the oil price. And pardon my financial ignorance, but given that the company is the shareholders ultimately and the company taking the risk on the oil price, ultimately long term shareholders are therefore taking the risk on the oil price and artificially maintaining a dividend in a time of constriction and borrowing is in fact propping up the interest of short term shareholders who want to cash their chips. So I just felt that it was an interesting and unusual distinction between the company and its shareholders for a financial officer to make. So I'd be glad if that could be clarified. Secondly, this was a question we put to BP at its AGM. I would just like if Shell could give the same clarification. Shell happens to be a member pretty normally of an organization called the Western States Petroleum Association, which undertook an incredible lobbying exercise against a demand reducing measure in the Californian legislature, including questionable adverts ran across California saying things like the government wants to take your SUV. Given that Shell acknowledges in its annual report that demand for hydrocarbon products has to fall to some extent in order for us to tackle climate change. Can you confirm that you don't agree with the position that the Western States Petroleum Association took in relation to that? BP, we're happy to still confirm. They're my questions. I would just say the chair has been extremely generous in giving people the floor to raise important points. But I do think that, that generosity should not then mean that people who've stood and waited to ask their questions should be cut off from asking them, although I do appreciate the generosity that's displayed. Thank you. Thank you. So Simon, could you take the first question? Certainly. And thank you for the thought behind the question because you are absolutely right. The long term shareholders are indeed with us for long term exposure to the energy environment. That's not just price, that are many of the other things that we have and probably will talk about. Unfortunately, we do need to balance all shareholders' views. And it is my experience that the majority of shareholders appreciate value, a stable dividend. And if the oil price goes up and down, they would rather not be exposed to a dividend that goes up and down with it. That doesn't mean that there are not people who may share your view. We actually think about our strategy through cycle. We do not overly worry about today's oil price. We think about 2 to 3 years in terms of maintaining the strength on the balance sheet that we talked about earlier, 5, 10, 15, even years out in terms of strategic competitive positioning. That drives our investment thinking, decisions and required returns on behalf of long term shareholders. That's how we create value, long term investment. But in terms of the short term 2 to 3 year period, it is a difficult balance with the shareholders to ensure that we can maintain the dividend, but also those investment programs that create the value over time. So thank you for your views. And I'm sure we will be hearing from other shareholders as we go forward with as Ben just stated at the Capital Markets Day and the discussion about where we take the financial framework as to what the right balance is between that medium and long term risk sharing between the shareholders and the company acting on your behalf. Thank you. Being the second question? Yes. On your second point, Mrs. Rees, I must admit I'm not familiar with the association, as you mentioned, the Western State Petroleum Association. But let me make a generic comment. So and again, I will repeat it later on. We have been very, very clear about where we believe the risks are when it comes to climate change, what needs to happen. We are very, very clear about what needs to happen with the future of the energy system. And we are actually doing a lot to help that process along. Again, I will make comments about it later. We are indeed a member of a number of associations that quite often have membership with a wide range of views, sometimes to very, very extreme views that we cannot reconcile ourselves with, to views that are very, very much aligned with our thinking and actually we believe need to be heard as well, like the views of NGOs need to be heard because they deal with important policy decisions that governments make. When we get to a point that we have disagreement, we are very, very clear with our associations that we do not agree with this. If we feel strongly about it, we, of course, try to influence that from inside. If that doesn't work and we still feel strong about it, we come out and have an independent view and say, listen, we are a member of this association. We agree with this, but we don't agree with that. And if you feel that ultimately, the balance is such that, that association stands for things that in aggregate we do not believe in, you get out of the association. And we do that all the time. We review that all the time. And you will have seen a stepping out of associations where we believe the balance of efficacy was not in line with our beliefs for the future. And so again, I'm not sure what this association exactly has said and stood for. And indeed, I'm sure they will have made some very catchy statements about SUVs. I don't want to comment on them because I think we are very, very clear what we stand for as a company. Thank you. Thank you. Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Charles Holliday, thanking you for leading this meeting with a velvet iron fist so far. I like that. And I see all the familiar faces behind the table. That also pleases me very much deeply and intensely. I like to share with my fellow shareholders here. My name is Marie Charles Desmet with an accent debut on the first E. That's for the history writers because they're all making mistakes all the time. I have one question. Could you transfer my question to the relevant persons in your Board or Numeration Committee? You are I don't believe everything that the press is saying, thank God. I'm just reading it and interpreting it my way. But there are rumors that you're going to sell off quite a bit of the company. Like other companies, I will not mention their names. As Mr. Van Burden rightfully said, we're not making for our negative publicity on other stock listed companies. But are you going to give a preference right if you're issuing a new company out of the company you have now? Because let's say, the rumors say that you're going to sell off €40,000,000,000 of assets and bringing it to 1 or more, let's say, stock listed companies? Yes. Thank you for your question. I think we can clarify that. Simon? Thank you for the question. This is how it goes. An investment analyst has an idea. They asked me a question putting words into my mouth in a conference call and I don't deny absolutely, they then tell the newspapers about their idea and that becomes Shell's reported strategy. So that was the sequence of events. The idea of a $40,000,000,000 IPO is an invention of an investment analyst peddling their own idea, quite possibly looking to generate fees. So enough. If you're going to sell something, are you going to give a preference rate to us, the actual shareholders? We have the divestment program I talked about earlier. We have no current plans to issue anything over or to do any transactions that would involve the issue of stock that would in fact affect individual shareholders of Royal Dutch Shell today? I won't put words in your mouth. Thank you very much. Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sylvia Van Laver, and I'm representing the following institutional investors today. That's PGGM, Robeco, MN, PayMA, Achmea Investment Management, Menzys and the Gaut Zuferzekringen. Mr. Chairman, we are for years already in dialogue with Shell and other oil and gas companies in the world about the consequences of the energy transition. And as investors in this sector, we are very much aware of the risks, but surely also about the opportunities of the changing climate for an energy company like Shell. In your report, Energy Transition and Portfolio Resilience, Shell shows us that it is very much aware of the enormous transition that needs to be accomplished and should be up and running by the year 2,040. And furthermore, Kjell demonstrates that it is serious about this energy transition and how to prevent negative impacts on the valuation of the company. We welcome this. However, we are not entirely convinced that Shell has integrated the consequences of climate change fully into its strategy and future plans. And for example, we see that despite a strong reduction in CO2 emissions since 2,003, we are now seeking for more quantitative targets at group level for more reductions. We see these as an important success factor, and we call upon Shell to install them as soon as possible. Another illustration is the example that the annual investments in alternative energy, new energies are limited and that we do not see a clear vision and target for the longer term energy mix. I'm happy to discuss this further in the Section 19 of this meeting, as you requested, Mr. Chairman, but not without the message that we expect Shell to do a lot more efforts in the debate of climate change. Shell needs to show more leadership in our eyes in a necessary energy transition than it currently does. Thank you for this moment. Thank you for your suggestions, and Ben will address that when we get to Resolution Number 19. Seeing no other hands, we'll conclude on this first resolution. The voting will take place by the paper ballot that you have at the end of the meeting. We will show on the screen behind me the votes of the people that voted who could not be here today. Moving on to Resolution 2. This is the approval of Director's Remuneration Report. This is about our remuneration policy that was approved and will be reapproved in 2017. This is just approval of the report. I think there has been a number of interest in this question. And microphone number 1 has the first question. Hello. Yes, it's Juliet again. I was told to come back to this section because my question relates to KPIs and executive incentives, and it's kind of forward looking, looking into 2017 AGM, where you'll be putting the remuneration of policy up for finding vote. It kind of touched on climate change, but seeing as climate is a systemic threat to the oil and gas industry, I do think it touches upon this theme, and it's most appropriate in this section. So I'd appreciate an answer in this section as well. So as the world heads towards a low carbon future, we are concerned that Shell's current approach to KPIs and executive incentives is counterproductive for achieving long term resilience. Climate Factors received but a nod with the nominal inclusion of the refining energy intensity unit with a mere 4% weighting and focus on energy intensity rather than absolute emissions. This is easily outweighed by performance indicators, including production available sale and proved oil and gas reserves. You cannot drive forward whilst looking out to the rearview mirror. If Shell is to transition for resilience under low carbon scenarios, measures of success must be redefined. In thinking, focusing on portfolio diversification and or a wind down strategy. So low carbon resilience isn't just about renewables. Shell is currently reviewing the remuneration policy prior to the 2017 Can we expect to see these necessary changes reflected in this new policy? Thank you. So let me ask 2 of my colleagues to comment. Hans Weyers, our Corporate Social Responsibility Committee focuses on the particular metrics in the area you're talking about. Then I'll ask the Chair of the Enumeration Committee to comment further. Hans? Thank you. Thank you for the question. As it has been mentioned a couple of times today, in the current scorecard, we have 20% for sustainability challenges around safety, operational spills, energy, efficiency and use of water. What we try to do in the CSRC is to think about targets that are among others simple to explain and understand throughout the organization and that drive continuous improvement at every level of the organization. Now we are indeed currently discussing ways to have the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions challenge somehow reflected in the scorecard. It's not easy because a one number for Shell does not actually is not very meaningful. What you actually have to do is look at the level of asset classes and then look at the performance of Shell visavis, let's say, best of class performers. So a one number target is not the solution. We are discussing currently ways to capture the challenges per asset class and then have to think about how that should be reflected in the scorecard. While you have to realize that the scorecard talks about year on year improvements, it is and we talk about long term changes. So it's ongoing work, work in progress. We'll be back also in our discussion with the people from Deremco to find a solution for this. But it is we take serious consideration about this subject. Share action to discuss this further. Would you be willing to Yes, we will engage you. But we like your input. Any comments from the Renumeration Committee, Deyenne? I mean, the other thing I would add is that the scorecard needs to be a balanced scorecard that gives direction to the work of 93,000 Shell employees on an annual basis and therefore cannot only be filled with parameters on sustainability or climate change. So what the balance will be of that is something that also will be thought through and in conjunction with shareholder consultation in the remainder of the year, when we come with the update of the policy for the AGM vote in 2017. Number 2? Thank you, Paul Foster, VB. We understand this is always a very delicate subject in the Netherlands. But we at the FEV felt that the although we understand that the remuneration scorecard has been followed and that the procedures were correct, that it would have shown a little more leadership if it would have been taken into account that Shell is facing a very difficult period where shareholders had to face some significant losses, where we understand that management is trying to do everything to make things better. And I think Ben from Grote gave a very good presentation where he showed his commitment to make improvements. But we felt that it should have been recognized and that a little more moderation would have been appropriate under the current circumstances. And where we can see the synergies that you have mentioned in regard to the BG acquisition to prove themselves over the next couple of years, there will be ample time to pay make pay rises and fit, I think, the performance. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions on the new ratio report? Number 1? I'm still waiting for my answer. I have mentioned by number 1 and this and that part you say it's in the resolution number 2, so I'm still waiting for the answer. Okay. Gerard would like to comment? Could you state the question again succinctly? Mr. Klaesel is Dutch. I'll do it on Dutch. That might be fast. I wonder, we now have defined benefits. In the Netherlands, we are converting pensions to defined contributions. So why not give Mr. Van den Bernden a defined why didn't you give him a defined contribution scheme because that's cheaper for the organization than defined benefit? That is the problem. Good to answer in English, although. We don't treat Mr. Van Burden any different way than we treat any Dutch Shell employee. And we have closed the defined benefit plan in the Netherlands. Long term serving employees up till a certain age, remained in the close defined benefit plan, and Mr. Van Burden happens to be in that category. There is a transitionary arrangement for people of a different age and tenure category. And then for all new entrants, there is a defined contribution plan. So Shell has moved from DB to DC. But of course, doing justice to the obligations we have vis a vis the employees who are with Shell already for a considerable number of years, Benford Burden being one of them, and with no extra treatment whatsoever. This is the set here on Page 89, set by pension and the CEO and CFO, no change for the long term. That's correct because they remain in the system they are and they were when they entered Shell as an employee. Okay. Thank you. Number 2? Gavin Palmer, very short question. Has the remuneration committee ever exercised its control to reduce the remuneration of any director even if it was according to whatever plan? Thank you, Gerard. The remuneration committee, in particular on the bonus component of the plan, has exercised downward discretion, I think, if I correct, top of my head, in 7 out of the 10 previous years. Number 1? My name is Dirk Swager. I refer to Page 93, I guess, of the annual report. There are different the operational excellence is weighed very heavy at 50% of Mr. Van Goerden. The target is 75%, but he achieved 119%, which I congratulate him, of course, but how can you do more than 100%? Have you taken also for the remuneration committee into account that the Alaska adventure cost the companies about €7,000,000,000 I guess to leave there. And finally, the earnings per share, which is you can't help maybe, is about 80% down from 2014 when it was €3 or 3 a share, and now the earnings per share of €0.61 So I wonder how it works. It's in line with the policy that shareholders approved massively in 2014, which says that all the financial parameters and the alignment with shareholders is done through the long term incentives, where Mr. Van Burden receives 3 40 percent of his base as a target LTI, which can vest between 0 200 percent invested this year at 16%. That's what happens when you don't meet your TSR and EPS and everything. On the bonus component, in Mr. Van Burden case, his target is 150% of base salary with on target performance. That can go up to 2 50 percent of base salary if the targets are exceeded. And some of the operational performance parameters and the operational cash flow were exceeded, and therefore, you see these higher numbers. So €75,000,000 can become €119,000,000 because of the job of achieving, because everything is expressed as a percentage of base. Thank you very much. I see no other questions on this particular resolution. The results of the people not here will be displayed on the screen behind me. The next resolutions 3 through 13, are ordinary resolutions concerning the reappointment of directors. Their biographies are included in those of the meeting. And Mikhail gave you a brief summary of some of their qualifications as we started. Are there questions on this series of resolutions? Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sylvia Van Laverne. And for this agenda item, I represent the institutional investors, Robeco, PayMSA, PMA, MN, Menzies, Degroozhoofzaking and Achmea Investment Management. My question is about Agenda Item 8, Mr. Gleisterle's position, if I may. In addition to his role as a Non Executive Director of Shell, Mr. Kleistele has significant external time commitments on other public company boards, especially since he recently became Chair of the Supervisory Board of ASML, next to being Chair of Vodafone Group and being a Non Executive Director of EBAX and Shell. These are considered to represent a significant number of total commitments, particularly considering the size of Shell, Vodafone and ISML. And we are concerned as shareholders regarding his ability to devote sufficient time to his role here at Shell. Therefore, we would like to raise to you two questions, one to the Board. Is the availability of Mr. Kleisler for his duties in the Board sufficiently evaluated? And what was the outcome of his evaluation? And the second question is to Mr. Christelay. Would you consider to withdraw from the Board of 1 of the mentioned assignments, not being shelved, within a reasonable time frame? And know that depending on your answer, we would express our intention to review your reappointment at next AGMs. Thank you. So let me take the question, please. In the U. K. Corporate governance code, there's nothing about number of other outside activities you have because that would be very hard to measure because individuals do many more things than just serve on boards. So the important thing is they make the necessary time available and make the contribution the Board expects. I can assure you Mr. Claschkely makes an particularly diligent making contributions, being in the meetings 100% of the time and also contributing in a very strong way. I see absolutely no reason for anything he's done that he cannot serve in an outstanding way on our Board. I don't think there's a need to ask him to resign from anything else. But, Gerard, if you'd like to comment, it's up to you. My addition, thanks, Chad, for the report you gave me. The same question came up, obviously, in the shareholder meeting of ASML. And the answer there was that since I'm a member of the Board of ASML for the past year, that practice had shown that ample time was available to do my duties on the boards that I serve on, and that also has been confirmed by the other boards. Sticking with Shell for a moment, at the moment, I chair Remco at Shell. I'm also still a member of the Audit Committee, and that was on special request because originally, the arrangement was that I would move from audit to Remco and then give up audit. Chairman has asked me not to do that, apparently, because the feeling is that the time is there to do that and the attention is there. I will not talk too much about IBAX is a €200,000,000 AIM midcap company, 70% private equity owned. That's not the effort. Thank you for your answers, and I hope you appreciate shareholders' concern in this. Thank you very much. Thank you. I see no further questions, so the vote will appear behind me. The resolutions 14 and 15 we'll take together. They're about the reappointment of the auditor and the remuneration for the auditor. The audit committee of the Board appointed Ernst and Young LLP as the audit of the company to fill the vacancy created when PricewaterhouseCoopers stepped aside April 11, 2016. This shoulder resolution is being sought to reappoint Ernst and Young as the company's auditor. Are there any questions? Hearing no questions, we'll move forward. Please put the results on the screen behind me. Resolution 16 is the authority to allot shares under the UK Companies Act. Are there any questions about that proposal? The results, please. The next is, this application of pre exemption rights. It's Resolution 17. It's a special resolution that requires 75% of the majority. Are there any questions on this resolution? Thank you. The results, please. 18 is requesting authority to repurchase our own shares as described in the materials. Are there any questions? Results, please. Resolution 19. Mr. Marc Vibal, I believe you're here to propose a resolution. We would welcome you to the microphone. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Van Boerne. Good afternoon, Board. Good to see you again. Fellow shareholders, good morning good afternoon, I have to say. My name is Marc Van Byl I'll follow this. We are a movement of 1600 green shareholders in Shell. We think you can change the world. You can change the world by putting Shell's brains and billions behind renewable energy. Today, we talk about a lot of issues: dividends, earthquake, climate change, the oil price, your reappointments, your remunerations. We're glad we are now at a point that we can talk about what is really at stake today. And it is the end of the fossil era and what you are going to do about it. Production cost of oil and gas have tripled in the last decade. That's logical. Fossil fuels are getting more and more expensive to get out of the ground. Meanwhile, the alternative where the world is asking for is getting cheaper and cheaper, exponentially cheaper. These two simple facts for us lead to one simple conclusion. Shell has to become a renewable energy company. Simply not from today on tomorrow, but simply by investing the profits from fossil fuels in renewable energy. As we have worded in Resolution 19, we like to thank Michel Branches and his team for their help in submitting this folder. It was a bulky folder with full of signatures. Thank you for your help. Mr. Van Buren, the Board, in the past year, we've applauded a lot of your decisions in which you acknowledge the end of the fossil area, the fossil era. You've entered your exploration in the Arctic. You have plans to build wind farms in the North Sea. In your strategy, in the annual report, we finally see you writing about large scale investments in solar and wind. Thank you for that. Then you plan to establish a Renewable Energy Division. I have to add rumor as is, but we are convinced you will do that. And you have officially embraced the 2 degree scenario. And last but not least, you plan to sell Upstream assets. Again, rumor has it and this may be for the wrong reasons, but we think it's wise to sell assets before they get stranded. Fellow shareholders, according to Carbon Tracker, that's a British think tank of British bankers, Shell runs the risk of losing $77,000,000,000 in stranded assets in the next 10 years. So please don't add anything to that. You've made these good decisions, Mr. Bernhard. In Resolution 19, we asked you to make one more decision, express the ambition to become a renewable energy company by investing the profits from fossil fuels in renewable energy. Let me emphasize, after paying dividends, We are here with around 50 green shareholders, and we want to make it out alive. We are convinced that investing in renewables is the only way to sustain your dividend policy for the longer run. So we're not asking you to stop producing oil and gas today. We ask you to decide to stop investing in exploration for more oil and gas and to stop investing in the acquisition for more oil and gas. The cash flow that's made available in exploring you can use for exploring new business models, new business models with renewable energy. The technology is out there. The technology is getting cheaper and cheaper. The challenge is in finding new business models. So the only decision we ask you today, we ask in Resolution 19, is to start investing in renewables. Everything else is up to you. Everything else is to your Board, your future energy team, your scenarios team and 90,000 intelligent people. You are a good company, but we think you can be a great company. Imagine the diversification in the renewable business models you can achieve, you can create. Today, you've tied your hands to only one thing, and that's the oil price. You can instead spread your risks over a number of new business models, solar in the Sierra, offshore wind in the North Sea, electric mobility, large scale energy storage, typical things Shell could do. The possibilities are endless. Further, imagine what the ambition to become a Renewable Management Company will mean for your shareholders. For example, the Dutch pension funds. They all have expressed the ambition to make their portfolio sustainable. When Shell expresses the same ambition, these shareholders can finally explain to their pensioners why shares in Shell fits seamlessly in their ambition to make their portfolio sustainable and future proof. Finally, please imagine what this will mean for the brand value of Shell. If you have a company with a clear 0 emissions goal. Fossil fuels are a commodity. We are convinced that setting a 0 emission goal will distinguish Shell from its competitors because customers will know that the profits from Shell, even if they buy fossil fuels from you, they know the profits will go to renewable energy. This will be a tremendous meaning have a tremendous meaning for your brands. Mr. Mwerter, I want you to advise too, pump all you can. I think this is an unfairly vilified quote. Pump all you can, but do not add any more potential stranded assets. I again repeat €77,000,000,000 half of your company is at risk. Please explore new sustainable business models instead of more oil and gas. To illustrate, we do not ask something unrealistic. Let me finish with 2 more quotes. First of Mr. Baffinburg, he made this quote when he started his tenure as a CEO. And you said, I've repeated it more times, an organization that has so many qualities, so much expertise, so much capital has to be able to reinvent itself. We fully agree. The second quote is a recent quote of Marian van Loon, President of Shell in the Netherlands in the Dutch newspaper, NSE Honelsblatt, last Saturday. The question was about becoming a renewable energy company in 2030 or 2,035. And her answer was that dot on the horizon is in principle the same for everybody. We share the same goal. So today can be a historic day. The day shareholders support Shell could change course. They can support you by voting for Resolution 19. Dear Mr. Bern, dear members of the Board, we really believe you can change the world. You can put Shell's brains and billions into renewables, And we want to prevent your shares our shares from becoming worthless in the next decades. You have our support in being part of the solution, in taking the leads. We want to be proud of Shell. You can change the world. And our question is, what are you waiting for? Mr. Van Balle, thank you very much. That was a very clear and very moving presentation. The way I'd suggest we handle it now, ask Ben to respond to your resolution and also incorporate anything in from earlier questions. Then we'll open the floor again for anyone else who has additional follow-up questions, if that would be okay. Ben? Thanks, Chairman. Thanks very much, Milne van Baal. Indeed, I think you have put this very, very clearly, very well. And let me also thank all the other members who follow this for the way they have responded in sending me individual e mails. I get a lot of spam, as you can imagine. I get a lot of e mails from people who are unhappy with the course that the company takes. But quite often, they are automated e mails just intended to make my life miserable every day. The e mails that you have sent and that your followers have sent have always been personalized e mails, very clearly, indeed, making the points as you have done in their own words. And I would like to acknowledge that because I read them all, didn't respond to all of them, but I've read them all and I take note of them. Now we as I said earlier in my speech, we advised against the resolution for the reasons that we mentioned. We don't think tying our heads down to a renewables only mandate is the right thing to do for our shareholders. And we do think that the transition that we are in is going to be slightly longer term, so that getting ahead of it in a way that you suggest would actually be value destructive, probably even terminal for the company. But that doesn't mean that I disagree with the sentiment that you've expressed and that many of your followers express as well. I think we are very, very clear that indeed we are in that transition, that we need to be a successful company. And let me just be very clear again what it is that we believe in. So we believe absolutely that climate change is real. Not all companies do that, but we do believe climate change is real. We also believe it requires very urgent action. Around 20 years already. Yes. If you will allow me now to speak for a little while, that would be useful. We also believe, by the way, that we can adopt a set of measures that will allow the world to stay within the 2 degrees C warming since industrial activity started. And we also believe that Shell can thrive in that world by adapting our business models. And we believe that adapting means also indeed lower carbon business models getting into renewables, doing the sort of things that we are doing, and that I will say a little bit more about. So I do not think that fundamentally, when it comes to the heart of the matter, we have any difference. There's a few other things that we believe in, and I hope we don't have a difference there either. So first of all, we believe that a very, very light spot of the world has no easy access to energy, And they need to be given access to affordable energy. And that's quite often the fastest, if not the only way, for very, very large parts of society to be risen out of poverty, to provide gender equality, to give people a reasonable life expectancy, not just a smartphone, life expectancy, and we believe that is a very important priority as well. And we believe that the population of this world will grow significantly. And we believe also that most of the growth, the billions of people that are going to be added are going to be added in those parts of the world where the energy consumption per person is up to 10 times lower than it is here in the Netherlands or in the United States. And these people have right for energy as well. And we also believe, by the way, that tremendous amount of progress can be made in the Western world to reduce the energy intensity of our societies. So that's what we also believe in. You didn't talk about that, but we believe in it. But I also hope that we don't disagree on these matters. They are equally important, in my mind, as climate change. And I go back to fundamental human rights, a healthy planet, but also a respectable life. Now we do have a few differences though, and I would like to highlight them as well. So let me say what we also believe in. And not because we like to believe it, but because we make it our business to really understanding this. We do believe, based on a lot of analysis that we do, and by the way, others do as well, that even if we are going to stick to a 2 degrees C scenario, which I really hope for and really work on, that the amount of investments we're going to need in oil and gas is still going to be significant. And why is that? If the entire oil and gas industry would stop investing in oil and gas, the rate at which supply would drop off like a rock will be much faster than the rate with which society needs to drop demand to stay within 2 degrees C. So in other words, if which I hope collectively we find a way to stay within the 2 degrees C, we will still need significant investments in oil and gas. I'm not talking about a few 1,000,000,000. I'm talking about up to $1,000,000,000,000 every year that industry has to invest just to stay within 2 degrees in oil and gas. We also believe that if we can go to net zero emissions, which is a long term goal for society, is something that we support, that it will require absolutely unprecedented policy change, absolutely unprecedented. But we believe that it's achievable, but it can only be achieved if industry, government, civil society, society in general, really work together in a way that it probably has never been done before. That's the nature of the challenge that we believe in. And we also believe that really as a company, we can only act in a rational economic rational way. That's also a fundamental belief that ultimately is what our shareholders expect us to do, to act economically rational. Now my guess is that many NGOs, maybe yourself also, Mr. Van Baal, disagree with that Because what I also hear that many people believe that the world can actually do without oil and gas. Why do we need oil and gas in the first place? We can do without oil and gas and still maintain our living standards. Now that's simply not the case. Yes, renewables can supply an awful lot in terms of electricity. But bear in mind, electricity is only 20% of the energy that we consume. Although the other energy, we do not see how it is being consumed. Part of it is in cars, of course, we can see that, but a lot of it also by industry, a lot of it being consumed by putting food on the table, by putting a mobile phone in your pocket, by doing all sorts of other things. 80% is fossil fuels, is unripe and quite often, irreplaceable by renewables. I think a lot of people tell me or like to tell me that it's actually pretty easy, and it's not. It is not easy. As I said, it will take an unprecedented amount of effort to bring about a net zero emission future. It has been referred to before, but I really, really recommend you take home this booklet here that we produced, which shows what we think it will take to get to net 0 emissions. It doesn't read like a spy novel, but it does actually read quite easily. And if you read it, you will take away hopefully the impression that this is not a trivial thing. This is not something that we just do, we just decide and it will happen automatically. I think you also believe, and that's why you are here, that this is all our problem, that this has been a problem of suppliers, that suppliers of oil and gas actually are the corporates here. And that is therefore also for us to solve. Well, I'd like to say that consumers have a role to play in this as well. It is it may be very enticing and interesting to say leave all these hydrocarbons in the ground. And we see it quite often, protests, leave it in the ground. It's all going to be stranded anyway. But it's not for us then to decide how that will play out. It is not for industry to decide who then should consume less. It's not for industry to decide who are going to turn away at a filling station, who want to fill up my car. It's not for industry to decide which planes we will not fuel because the people are only going on a holiday, so they can also not take the CO2. It's not for us to ration gas supply to your home because we believe it's actually better for the planet not to do so. So there are many things that are outside our control. We don't even turn away Greenpeace when they turn up at our terminals to fill up their ship with fossil fuels. We also serve these people. It is not our obligation to do this. And I think that is something that is very, very important to note as well. Now what does it mean then for a company like Shell? And again, this is probably where we have a lot of common ground as well. When you tell us that we should be doing more and that we can do more, I would say absolutely, yes, we can do more and we will do more. If you don't believe in it, we'll see what we will be doing over the next months quarters, years and come back here every year and we will have a dialogue about it. Can we punch above our weight? Because we say we are only 2% of oil and gas production. Only 0.2% of the carbon in oil and gas sits in our portfolio. But can we punch above our weight? Can because we are Shell, can we do more? Yes, absolutely, and we will. Will it make a difference? I hope so. I hope it will make a difference because we also want to be a company that does good for society. We are also 90 4,000 people who actually want to make a difference. As we have made a difference for the last 90 years in helping societies grow up and have a much more higher level of prosperity because of the energy that has been provided. So we will play our role, Mr. Van Balle, in the energy transition, and we will do it as best as we can. We do it as fast as we can. We will be a leader in that area. We will also actively advocate for policy measures that will allow us to do the right thing in an economically rational way. So asking for certain policies, pricing on carbon, etcetera, that will allow me and the company to do things that align your goal with the goal of all other shareholders, which is to continue to pay the dividend. And we do that because we want to preserve the company, not because we are very proud of it, that's also the case, but we want to preserve the company as a force for good. We want to preserve also the dividend that we pay to shareholders. And many of the shareholders are represented in this room, but all of you also receive dividends through pension funds. We are the largest dividend payer in the Netherlands. We are probably going to be the, if not well, the largest dividend payer in the world. That is something that needs to be preserved as well. I'm not going to say that a renewables only mandate in the end cannot work, but I would like to give you one other small statistic. If you take all top 10 solar companies in the world, take all of them, and they are a very significant part of the total solar industry, yes, they together probably represent $14,000,000,000 of capital employed, Shell is of 200. They invest roughly last year $5,000,000,000 That's the top 10 solar companies, dollars 5,000,000,000 in solar. That compares to $30,000,000,000 that we invest. So there's a scale issue here as well. These companies, over their entire life, have returned 0 dividends to their shareholders. They make 0 profit collectively. Don't want to bad mouth these companies, but it is to show how difficult it is to make a transition. In addition to the transition I talked about with the $55,000,000,000,000 of investment that the world somehow has to change. We cannot do this overnight. And if we wanted to, I would probably not be allowed to by all the other shareholders because it would mean the end of the company. Now we will I don't want to be negative about this because I go back to my very first point, which is that I believe that our objectives are pretty much aligned. The only thing that we probably disagree on is the path and the speed at which it actually can happen. I believe in it 2 degrees, but I do not think I can bring it about on my own. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Mr. Rebol, a comment now that I'd like to take the other questions and I'll give you the last word. Okay, other questions first? Okay. I just want to make one remark about the speed of the transition. We really don't want you to change overnight, but we want you just to take the decision today that in 20 years from now, you are a renewable energy company. We just don't want you to invest in exploring new sources for like in the Arctic for 2,035 because we think that will be stranded. One more remark, I think you underestimate 2 things. That's the speed, the exponential speed of renewables in volume going up and in costs going down while your costs are going up. That's one thing. And you underestimate your own role in it. I think you can play a tremendous role, and we really want to encourage you to take that role. Thank you very much. Microphone number 1. Mr. Chairman, my name is Eefund von Voort, House Director of Ghesen Foundation for Utility Scale Solar Energy and Member of Fondro. I read your sustainability report 2015 with great interest and my compliments for the clear presentation of the environmental and social aspects of our company its report. The report was reviewed by independent experts, the so called external review committee. The sustainability report covers many subjects ranging from environment to indigenous people. It's quite remarkable that the subject that was criticized most by the external review committee concerns the climate change. I quote from the reaction of the Review Committee. In our view, the report does not adequately convey the urgency of the energy transition in light of the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep the global temperature rise well below 2,000 2 degrees above pre industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degree. The ERC encouraged Shell to disclose more precisely how its strategy aligns with the global ambition and to provide more disclosure on how Shell is thinking of the role of natural gas and other fossil fuels beyond 2015 and another quote from the report. The ERC encourages Shell to move clearly to more clearly articulate short- and medium terms up to 5 years and longer term, 5 to 20 years goals, attaining a robust and comprehensive low carbon transition strategy. I fully agree with this transition. I have two questions. The energy transition deals with low carbon energy investment. On page 18 of the sustainability report, I read that about $1,100,000,000 were invested in the past 6 years. That's about €200,000,000 a year. This is a remarkable small fraction of the annual turnover, less than 1 in 1,000. So my first question is, how can you convince us, the long term shareholders, that it is a wise policy to invest so little technology that will become so crucial for our company in the future. Now concerning the second question. We are seeing an enormous cost reduction of solar energy. I agree solar energy is only a few percent of the total energy production in the world at the moment. Yes, it's true. But in Dubai, very recently, an 800 megawatt solar power station is going to be built, which has a PPE, PPA and selling price for electricity of less than $0.03 per kilowatt hour. Less than $0.03 per kilowatt hour. In Dubai, even it's not possible to build a coal plant or a gas plant that is cheaper. Solar energy in the most based only on pumping, oil and gas, we will be washed away sooner or later by solar energy. Now, your complaint says, yes, solar energy is electricity, electricity is only 20%. I agree, Paul. But you can use electricity to produce gas and oil, the so called power to gas technology. And I was quite astonished to read nothing at all about power to gas in the sustainability report. And that's a lot of strange. So my second question is, according to the Suez Sustainability Report 2015, there is not yet R and D or investment activities in power to gas. Are you planning to enter into this very important technology? Thank you very much for your questions. Let me respond to the external review committee comments. I think it shows great integrity by our company to get a group of people that care about these subjects rightly and panel them as an External Review Committee and let them give them constructive comments in our report. I think that's a step forward. And I know the corporate social responsibility takes that seriously and so is the management team. So I think that's a step in the direction and shows the openness of this company. Ben, would you like to comment to your other questions? Yes. Thank you very much, Minerva Voorheiser. Yes, just to echo that point, I do engage with the committee at least twice a year. In one of these occasions, we actually do that with the entire Executive Committee. And many of the recommendations that come out of the committee, we have taken on. And quite often it is because they are indeed providing a different perspective. One of the things that we have taken on indeed is to sponsor a much more deeply engaging commission on the energy transition that we are part of, not just with other oil companies, but actually together with NGOs, with utility companies, with information technology companies to think through how these pathways would look like and what new business models will come out of that. We are indeed and this is also responding a little bit more to a question that Maierk Humbal raised. We have indeed bundled all our activities in New Energies in a new business. The business reporting to into Integrated Gas on the Meitebetsula has the same status as our refining business, as our retail business, as our deepwater business, and next to it now, a new energies business. The idea of that business is that it indeed finds new business models or evolves technologies to invest in the energy transition, but not as a charity, but to make money. This is not a reputational greenwash thing. This is indeed participating in the energy transition. Now we have been doing that actually for quite some time. We do have models in already in this space that work. They are more fragmented. They are probably a bit smaller. That may not have been given the attention that they deserve. And bundling this now will provide just for that. But again, do not expect that we will act economically irrational. And with all due respect, taking electricity and making natural gas out of it is not an economic proposition at this moment. Taking electricity and making hydrogen out of it and using the hydrogen in cars actually can be an economic proposition. And that's exactly what we are doing in Germany, where we are building a network of close to 400 hydrogen retail stations, replicating that model, by the way, also in the U. K. And in the United States, quite often harvesting electricity that has negative value because it is produced at a time that there is no use for it. So these are business models that do make sense. They do not, by the way, require a tremendous amount of capital. So to use proxy or capital as a proxy for how serious we are may not necessarily be the right thing, yes? And to use it as a percentage of revenue, again, would also not be the right thing. Expect the amount of cash that will come out of this business to grow. Expect the amount of investment that we put into this business to grow as well. But we will grow it at a pace that we can also afford to pay the dividend that has been talked about before as well. Because again, I remind you, you can also go too fast in these areas. And on many occasions in the past, we have gone too fast. We started up the Shell Hydrogen business back in the 1990s, and it turned out to be at least 20 years too early with it. We are trying it again, and we will continue to find other ways to get into it. But if we had invested a massive amount in these areas, tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars without any return, there would be another group of people behind microphones talking about other things. So we have to balance this thing as well. We will go at a rate that we can afford to go. And indeed, you're right on solar. Solar indeed in Dubai is a very, very good proposition. There is no way that natural gas supplies can head on head compete with that type of electricity provision. But the sun sets in Dubai every now and then as well. And from time to time, therefore, they're going to need backup. The same is true for Texas, the home of oil and gas in many people's mind. Solar power is more competitive than gas fired powered in Texas. And that's why we are participating in these activities as well. I don't make headlines in the Netherlands, but we actually do, do that. Thank you. Number 2. Thank you, the Board, Mr. Van Buren and Chairman. My name is Martijn Lodermaegs. The first time I attended the Shell AGM in this theater was in about 1995, mid-90s. I was looking for Greenpeace, and I just came back from Brand Spark for who remembers the issue. Today is a completely different setting, and I have to say a lot has changed. I'm delighted to hear Shell embraces the 2 degree scenario and Shell sticks to the agreements of the Paris COP 21 meeting. Mr. Hamburg, you also said that we share a lot of the same values and one of them is this dot on the horizon, the 2 degree scenario. Again, that's good news for me. What I wonder is if we want to go to that scenario, and this is what I understand from Shell today, Shell wants to go to this 2 degrees scenario, I see a problem because the Shell scenarios don't get us there. They will go far beyond 2 degrees. And that is my question. How do you want to mingle these 2? What are you going to do about that? Thank you very much, Meneo Lotterberg. I think this is a very, very important point to clarify because it needs clarification what scenarios actually are. So what we use scenarios for, and we have used scenarios for 40 years, is to try to predict what is likely to happen. And at the time, we made the Shell scenarios, which were called oceans and mountains. We took a view of how we thought society, governments, industry, NGOs, everybody else would come together and try to manage the issue of energy provision and climate change. And what we thought would happen, not what we want to happen, but what we thought the dynamic in society would do is to overshoot to degree C. That's not to say that's what we want and we plan on this and good for us. No, this is what our scenarios tell that it's going to happen. Now of course, a lot of things have changed. In the meantime, Paris have happened and a lot of energy is being mobilized behind the challenge of climate change. But at the risk of disappointing a lot of people, if you add up all the commitments being made in Paris, it's not going to deliver 2 degrees. So a lot more needs to happen than just Paris. Again, it doesn't mean that that's what we want. As a matter of fact, our portfolio would be a whole lot more resilient in a 2 degree scenario than the scenario of 3 degrees or more. So we are not against it, far from it. But it is just at the time we made these scenarios, we thought this was less likely because of the way customers behave, the way voters behave, the way governments behave, the difficulties of putting a price on carbon, the public opposition against carbon capture and storage as well as many, many people making out that it's actually a simple problem. So it can also be solved 5 minutes to midnight. Now what we have done is to change the dynamic because I know there is a lot of confusion on the way we deal with scenarios. And now we have said, this is a scenario that brings us to 2 degrees C. We love this scenario. We hope this scenario will come about, and we put our wheel to the shoulder to put this scenario into reality. But again, read it and decide for yourself how trivial it is and whether we can wait to 5 minutes to midnight to start acting on it. I think it needs a lot right now, and we are advocating for that. It doesn't mean that we don't like this. I like it as much as a parent as I like it as a CEO of this company, believe me. Thank you. Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jan Liefermans from the town of Boxtel. For 52 years, I'm working with many organizations for a fair and green planet. So you can imagine, I'm very glad this is your video and with the expressions you give to us. I have only one concrete question. In general, we hear that climate change will become dangerous in the future. But I have the question about the present situation. Do you know the report by the office Dara in Madrid with the title climate vulnerability monitor? It's a question for all of you. In that report, 2 crucial figures are calculated about the present situation with climate change. Per year, every year in the last years, they have counted already 400,000 climate deaths, 400,000 climate debts on our planet. All over the planet, what is happening. And the whole chain, that's the second figure. The second figure is about the whole chain of the production and consumption and exploration of all fossil fuels now used, so gas, oil and coal. And for that figure, they calculated a 4,900,000 deaths per year for many cases from the mines up to the fine particulates. So, if you look at these figures, 400,000 climate debts and 4,900,000 people killed by fossil fuels indirect and direct, we call this there is an eco site happening on our planet, an eco site and all of us have a share in this. And also Shell has a big share in it. So my question is, there is a very big reason and how we respond to that. There is a reason the more to quicken the process to run to speed up the transition towards sustainable energy. And you have a very, very strong position in this change. So my concrete question is, do any of you know this monitor, the Climate Vulnerability Monitor. If you don't know it, I'm luckily, during the lunch, I'd like to give you the link to that report. It is the 3rd in a series of 3 already. So my question is very concrete. Thank you very much. I'm not familiar with the report, but I would like to see you at lunch and get the link and I'll guarantee we'll study it. And I think we agree completely as what Ben just said, we must speed up the pace. The current commitments, even the Paris commitments, aren't enough and Shell stands ready to do our part in that. Thank you very much. Number 2? What I consider to be wonderful is that Shell has withdrawn from Formula 1 racing while they're going to continue until 2020. But I think that's an excellent example. It's a matter of setting the example. It's a shame that Heineken is going to take over because don't drink and drive is their slogan. And of course, racing and drinking don't go together. And something that I find very good or that I would propose is that Shell would sponsor hydrogen racing or ecological racing. That's very sustainable, and it's not polluting, and it doesn't produce as much noise. Yes. But my question is Shell is doing a lot in terms of solar panels. My question is can't you do that in the Netherlands as well? And could you communicate that very broadly because most Dutch people don't know anything about this? And if you show that you're very much involved in solar we haven't stepped out of Formula 1. And we are still sponsors of Ferrari. We've been there for 50 years and long may it last. I'm sure there will be new types of racing that will be equally exciting, and we will take a view on whether we want to participate in that as well. But for now, we are still sponsoring Formula 1 and I love to watch it. That's not the reason why we are sponsored, by the way. I think when it comes to solar in the Netherlands, I think what probably works better in the Netherlands is wind. We have more wind than we have sunshine here. And it is actually quite a good mix of renewables and gas that it is that we promote. We've been very open about it. We have also been open now that we are going to participate or that we are participating in a tender for a large spin project in Bossela in the North Sea. And we see that actually as a much more sensible model, renewable wind and together with gas for an uninterruptible power that we believe we can make money in. Not necessarily because we're going to invent the next best windmill, we will do that together with others, but because we believe that there are business models that we can build on a wind investment with trading and indeed providing uninterruptible services as well as bringing our expertise on offshore engineering as well as our expertise in wind that we have. Many people think that we are out of wind. We're not. We have a 900 megawatt position in North America, in California, where we are investors in wind farms, which we, by the way, also trade around. We do very, very clever things with using wind farms and hydro powered dams in Washington State to provide uninterrupted or renewable to the Amazons of this world. So there are many business models that we can participate in. It doesn't necessarily all have to be the same in every country. For the Netherlands, less solar, probably a little bit more wind. Number 1? Mr. Chairman, as you may well know, my name is Heinemann, Mr. Chairman. There is a saying that says that efficiency must come first and demand will follow later. Thomas Edison once said that an invention is 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration. Now this just goes to show how expensive and difficult and costly it is to develop new things. Indeed, it is possible. If we would turn the Saudi Arabian Peninsula or would cover it with solar panels, I mean, we could provide energy to the entire world. But how would you transport this energy? Of course, you can do that with high wires, but 30% of the generated energy will be lost if transport takes place over large distances. Another problem is how are you going to store these enormous amounts? You can do that with batteries, with lithium and cobalt. And lithium is a side product of nickel, and nickel is a scarce mineral. So just goes to show that we shouldn't be too optimistic. And we can't just say, well, in 10, 15 years, we have to have done away with fossil energy. Mr. Van Bier is absolutely right. That could take until 2017. Well, that takes me to the following comment, Groningen, and I'm not talking about compensation. Possibly, people will be entitled to compensation. But the Dutch government that has benefited incredibly from gas production should contribute. And why should we restrict gas drilling if it is possible to inject certain substances into the ground? I'm not a geologist. I don't know whether you can do that, but it may perhaps be possible. So that is my question. Does Shell use the budget that it has for these operations? I mean, you could use it for this project. So that's it. Those are my questions. Maria Heinemann. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Heinemann. Reply in English. You're absolutely right. It's a lot of the developments that we have have been much more the result of a lot of attempts and a lot of hard work rather than a single brilliant idea. On you're also absolutely right on the problem with solar in Saudi Arabia or in the Sahara. If we were to transport it by long range, high voltage cable, nothing would arrive on the other side. That's the unfortunate problem with electricity. It just has a lot of transmission losses. So you have to find other ways of transporting it. Another way is to actually use that electricity to produce hydrogen. Now hydrogen, you can transport. Not easy, but you could liquefy it much in the same way as LNG, put it in ships and send it across. That's not without its issues either, but it is a technology that would fit us better. And it actually would make probably earlier economic sense than try and use long distance transmission. It is precisely one of the business opportunities that we are investigating and working on together with a number of other companies, and we will be shipping hydrogen in liquid form from Australia to Japan to see how this can work out and whether this is a model for the future, but it will be a long range thing. On Groningen, yes, we have looked at all sorts of different ways together with NAM. One of the ideas is to inject nitrogen and to somehow keep the pressure up with nitrogen. That has a lot of downsides as well. And we but we continue to look on what sort of solutions could be available there. This is a long lasting problem. Other questions on But why should we decrease production in Groningen? Because the damage has already been caused. Even if we would stop the entire production in Groningen, the tremors will continue for years years. So what's the use? That's a long range discussion we're having with the with NAM, with the shareholders, but certainly also the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Remind me you that the vast, vast, vast majority of their revenue from Groningen goes to the state. It doesn't go to us. The cost of doing it goes predominantly to us. So it and of course, it is a complex dynamic with multiple players, including the regulators, STAAD 260 of the Mainer as well as the National Coordinator all play a role. And it would be too easy or too trivial to try and sort of summarize it here, I'm afraid. But it but I can tell you, it is a very, very complex problem that we work on from all aspects, economically, technically, socially, etcetera. Thank you again for your questions. Next question is at number 1. Good afternoon. Thank you. Edouard Dorte, Green Planet. And I'm the person behind the 1st multi fuel filling station in the province of Drenthe. I'm an entrepreneur. 2013, we opened this filling station. It was opened by Mr. Benz Hoppe, the CEO of Shell at the time, Mr. Vigral, etcetera. I'd like to take you back in time when we were working on the plans with engineering. This was somewhere around 2012. And I was telling my story, my dream, what was I doing, what was my dream. I wanted to match the best of both wells, fossil fuels, but also a new generation of fuels that would be more environmentally friendly. And I thought that people receive me would receive me with open arms that it was a wonderful idea that all the oil companies would say, come in, we're happy to talk to you. But I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, it was a terrible disappointment. It was not the case. There were only a few companies that were prepared to talk to me. For most of them, the risk was too big. A couple of years ago, that was 2012. Shell was one of those companies. Shell opened the door and embraced the idea. The other oil companies that talked to me showed the true colors because profit turned out to be a determining factor. And Shell wanted to go even further. So it's 2016, 3 years have passed, 3 years of fighting, fighting hard with a relatively small team, with 15% of the fuels that we sell are sustainable fuels. And this is the province of Drente. Once again, we all know about Drenthe archaeological site, but also an agricultural province. And now we're looking ahead again. And now we're talking to ING and IBN AMRO for refinancing. We have to wrap things up by the 1st June. Nothing is certain. Very exciting. So here's my first question. Because the Financial Daily published an article just this week in which the Employers Association called on banks and pension companies to set up an investment fund of €100,000,000,000 in the Netherlands to allow for and encourage a transition to a more sustainable world. And I'm wondering, after everything I've heard today and all the goodwill that Shell is portraying here, what would be the role Shell could play in this respect? Because Shell also has a pension arrangement. So I'm looking at you. We've achieved good results. We have a rollout team. We want to move forward. We want to see whether we can set up more filling stations. Plans are 90%, 95%. And my question to Mr. Van Borde is, if I finalize my plans, if they're 100% ready, could I present them to you? Would you be prepared to look at them with your team to see whether they're feasible, whether they dovetail with the plans that you have and the principles that you have? And should that be the case, would Shell be a catalyst for me? Because now we really have to look very hard for funding. Looking at 2020, we're looking at an amount of about €10,000,000 that we need to get, which is quite an amount of money, and we really need strong stakeholders. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. I think this would be better handled if we talk about it just after the meeting so we can understand particular aspects of your proposition. It's not really a question before the whole shareholders today. But we'll be glad to talk to you when the meeting is over. Is there another question? Number 1? Thank you, Mr. Halliday. My name is Hanneke Heldeblom. And I want to go the 1st speaker that we had in this meeting. I'm fully in agreement that we focus on renewable energy. And I agree with Mr. Van Burden. He explained perfectly to my view why we shouldn't vote negative on Resolution 19, because Shell needs time to do this and I'm fully in agreement that they have the intention to do so. That's my first remark. But my question is, we made we all together made a mistake when we started getting the gas out of Groningen. I have been there as a candidate for the European elections in 8, 6. That's 30 years ago. Then there were already claims that the walls had crashes and that something was happening. It was denied. It was vehemently denied. This was because of the gas. Now we are here. We made a mistake. We didn't put money aside, as someone said in the room. Sinterklaas did what he did. That's a mistake that's made that we can't do again. My question to you now is, those people that are so angry, rightfully, that are so desperate, rightfully, because they are being sent, as we say in Dutch, from the and nobody is giving them the guarantee that the money that they need to restart building the house has been given. The lady who was sitting next to me said, this old farm is being demolished and I have to build a simple house. I don't get proper money. Now you are the company who makes profit. Can't you give as the company, as the main company who makes profit, give them some form of guarantee? The government doesn't. Mr. Van der Kamp doesn't. They are sent from the crusher to the moor and they are desperate. Kant shall give them some guarantee that the mistakes that we made then are not being renewed. They get a guarantee if the House has to be renewed, if the School has to be renewed, Shell will assist. And I am willing, as a shareholder, to have a little bit, a little bit less dividend if they get what they need and what they deserve. The guarantee should be given. Thank you very much. We've addressed this earlier. Ben, could you just highlight again how the process works? Well, thank you very much for your very impassionate comments there. Again, let me just give a little bit of context there. It is indeed NAM, which shows a 50% shareholder who is the operator. NAM Indeed, this has been a difficult journey to try and understand exactly what is the right thing to do in terms of manage risk and to manage risk within sort of acceptable levels that society finds acceptable. But we've been very, very clear, and I repeat it again, the damage that is being caused by earth tremors, the liability is very clearly with NAM, and NAM will fulfill its obligations. There is no doubt about it. NAM will also fulfill its obligations when it comes to strengthening. It will also fulfill its obligations when it comes to the broader agenda that the National Coordinator Perfoni has set out. We don't shy back from these as shareholders in them, and I know I can speak on behalf of ExxonMobil as well in that respect. I know that sometimes things are not quite reported like that in the media, but I hope he will take the commitment of me and the company and its worth for it if we say that we will stand by our commitments, which doesn't mean that it's an easy or simple process, This doesn't mean that people will not have to go through the difficulties of claims and processing them. We put a separate organization in there, independent of NAM, Sticht in Verde Juane to make sure that this happens as efficiently as possible. And claims are not being managed by geologists, but they are managed by very professional people in that respect. And if we can do and should do more to make that process easier, then we will. But we cannot turn back the clock to 1957, I'm afraid. Thank you. Number 1? Mr. Chairman, again, Sylvia Van Merve, representing Institutional Investors as under Item 1. Shell now has received a resolution by Follow This, a group of Shell shareholders that want to accelerate the pace at which the world becomes more sustainable by transforming Shell into a renewable and energy company. And the resolution reads, Shell will become a renewable energy company, and we expect a new strategy within 1 year. We consider this resolution to be of a different variety than the resolution of 2015 presented by the Aiming4A Group, seeking for enhanced disclosure. And this resolution was massively supported by us. The reason that we now strongly that we disagree is that we strongly value a clear distinction and responsibility between the management board and its shareholders. It is not our place as shareholders to take responsibility for such an important strategy change. That responsibility lies with the Board of the company. And of course, it's Shell duty to inform shareholders in the right way about its strategy and its risk management, so that shareholders are in a rightful position to judge the company's policy. So while we very much welcome the spirit of the initiative of FollowThis, we are not able to support this shareholder resolution in its current formulation. Our vote against the shareholder proposal to follow this is in no way a signal that we will hold you responsible to the words, Mr. Ben from Burden. We will play a role you said and we will play and we will be a leader. We will judge that these words and this policy going forward as shareholders. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your comment. So there were a number of questions that were asked along the way. Ben, could you respond to those now, please? Thank you very much, Chairman. And there's a few that I hope I have covered already. I think there was a first question that was raised, if I believe it, by Mr. Mike Crossman about the future disclosure. And I can tell you, of course, this is a moving process. There will be, of course, as we gain more insights, as we formulate our responses, as we deal with the resilience in our portfolio, there will be a natural process of dialoguing with our shareholders, whether it is at special meetings that we hold or whether it is in the annual report or the sustainability report or on occasions like this. I think it is, at this point in time, kind of difficult to predict exactly how these disclosures will look like. But yes, this is an issue that is important for us and for you, and therefore, we will continue to talk about it. And of course, the key thing is indeed the resilience of the portfolio. I've not been able to sort of express that in quantitative terms. The other report that you can also take a copy of, which talks about resilience of our portfolio and what it would take to change, describes it more in qualitative terms. And I think over time, we will be able to be a lot more precise. But our portfolio is different and more complex. It is more complex than the BG portfolio, which was a pure extraction and winning portfolio. If you bring into things like petrochemicals, refining, lubricants, you cannot just have carbon intensity targets that make sense. So we will have to have a more sophisticated approach for that. There was a question on whether we would have a net zero portfolio. I think it's very important to distinguish between having a strategy that makes the company successful in a society that has net zero emissions, but it doesn't mean that every component of the energy system then has to be net 0. We will still need hydrocarbons going forward. Think for instance of the process of making steel, which is a very, very high temperature process that can only be done at intense heat levels, that can only be supplied by natural gas oil or in today's world, a lot of it being coal. You cannot say we will make that process net carbon 0. It will not happen. In the same way, you cannot make making cement net carbon 0. Also the setting of cement will create CO2. We cannot wish that away. We will have to compensate for that in other parts of the system. And these other parts of the system may well be in other segments of society. If we can play our part by carbon capture and storage, we will do so. But it would be too simplistic to say a net zero economy means that every component of the company of the economy needs to be net zero as well. I think that's an important clarification to leave you with. I've heard maybe wrongly, but I've heard it certainly in the press that we would somehow be against Paris, that somehow we would be lobbying against outcomes like we had in Paris. This is absolutely not the case. As I also said in the special shareholder meeting that we had in January, we have been very active in Paris. We are not a signatory to the Paris agreement because that is for sovereign countries. But we worked very, very hard to get the right language in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement that allows economic measures like carbon pricing to play their part in the journey to a net zero economy. I cannot claim that it wouldn't have happened without the Shell involvement, but I can tell you that our involvement has been really appreciated by governments who wanted to achieve the same against a lot of vicious opposition against carbon pricing in Paris. So I'd like to claim a little bit of credit for at least doing and advocating for the right thing. And I would take offense to the idea that somehow we would be advocating against climate measures and good policy. A question from Jack. So earlier on, I don't think we have fully answered. So yes, new energies will evolve over time, and the returns profile of that business will evolve over time. And I hope you will not be surprised if the top ten companies in solar in the world cannot make any money out of investing $5,000,000,000 a year. We're not going to be any better than them on day 1. It will take us time to find business models, to do things differently in a way that will preserve our capacity to earn and our capacity to pay you a dividend. And therefore, we will have to be not only smarter or different, but we will take our time to get that business to a path of profitability. And we'll report on that very regularly with Oddity. And we'll report on that very regularly with our institutional shareholders, and I'll be very happy to bring them back here in the future as well. And indeed, we will try to bring, as much as possible, the shift to renewables and the decarbonization of our portfolio in corporate targets that are well understood and it can even be reflected in incentives for management. But it's not an easy process, as already Hans mentioned, because of the diversity of our portfolio and the very fact that these types of transitions will take decades. And I hope you will agree with me that having a target that can only be measured in 30 years so that some part of my salary can be paid to my grandchildren is not necessarily going to really be the right thing to go about it. Our company also works on these things because it matters for our staff. I have many lunches with staff around the world or in the company's office here. And the only topic they want to talk about is what are we doing on climate change. And that's not because they want to be paid for it, that's because they really care as well. So it's not just all pay that drives this. We will indeed invest more in Humanities. The amount of money that has been mentioned before, the €200,000,000 is predominantly investment money in research and development. And of course, when we step up more investments in real projects, these numbers will be more significant numbers. I think I probably answered all the other questions in the conduct of the previous speech and the discussion. But if there is anything else, I suppose we should take that as well, Chairman. Yes. Thank you very much, Ben. Mr. Van Baal, would you have some closing comments? Yes, thank you. I will have a few closing comments. I will keep it short. We are all hungry, I suppose. First of all, you're absolutely right. The world asks for more and more energy, but they're not asking for oil and gas. They're asking for renewable energy. 2nd, I want to encourage you, you say you are a rational company. Please have a look at the figures again and see how the cost of getting oil out of the ground is increasing and how the alternative is decreasing exponentially. And again, imagine your company not being tied your result not being tied to the oil price. Imagine keeping your investors on board, your investors who want a green portfolio on board and imagine what it will mean for your brand. I hope today shareholders will send a clear signal to Shell. We've heard Sylvia Van Varthe on behalf of a lot of investors. They don't vote for the resolution, but they support the spirit. So that's great. Let me finalize again by saying you again, you are a good company. You can be a great company by taking the lead. You are the most innovative company in the oil and gas industry. So let me again repeat, please explore new business models instead of new oil and gas. And again, you have our support. Thank you very much. We appreciate your highly constructive dialogue. I see no further questions on this resolution. So would you please post the results that were voted prior to the meeting started? Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we're getting close to the end of our meeting. Mikhail, could you give us the procedures that we need to close? Right. Thank you, Chairman. You may cast your vote by completing your white paper poll card. If you agree with the resolution, please put an X in the box marked for. If you do not agree, put an X in the box marked against and the same for if you want to withhold your vote and abstain. The scrutineers will establish from the register how many shares you hold, and we'll assume you will wish to vote all your shares in the way that you have indicated. If you wish to split your vote, please ask a member of staff at the registration desk. If you have lodged a proxy form in advance, you do not need to complete a card and at today's date, 24th May 2016. If you not sign your card, your votes cannot be counted as valid. Please deposit your card in one of the ballot boxes, which you will see clearly marked as you leave the auditorium. These boxes will be removed in about 20 minutes or if earlier, if we're satisfied that the voting process has completed. The final results of the poll will be sent to the Amsterdam and London Stock Exchanges and shown on the Shell website tomorrow morning or later today if the time permits. So to explain, there is the votes here in the auditorium today, cast by you on your paper poll card, and that will establish the final vote of this AGM. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mikael. This brings us close to the closing of our meeting. I want to point out to shareholders that on Thursday in London, we'll have another gathering for interested shareholders and Simon, Ben, myself and Mikhail will be there to answer questions of our London based shareholders. We appreciate your attendance and the quality of your questions. We have now formally declared this meeting closed. Have a safe journey home. Thank you very much. 2:10. The first 4 AM, welcome. 4 hours and 10 minutes. It.