Welcome to the BP Presentation to the Financial Community Webcast and Conference Call. I now hand over to Jessica Mitchell, Head of Investor Relations.

Hello and welcome. This is BP's Full Year 2014 Results Webcast and Conference Call. I am Jess Mitchell, BP's Head of Investor Relations, and I am here with our Group Chief Executive, Bob Dudley, Chief Financial Officer, Brian Gilvary; Upstream Chief Executive, Lamar McKay, our Downstream Chief Executive, Tufan Erginbilgic. Before we start, I need to draw your attention to our cautionary statement. During today's presentation, we will make forward-looking statements that refer to our estimates, plans and expectations. Actual results and outcomes could differ materially due to factors that we note on this slide and in our U.K. and SEC filings. Please refer to our Annual Report, stock exchange announcement, and SEC filings for more details. These documents are available on our website. Thank you, and now, over to Bob.

Thanks, Jess. Welcome, everyone, to today’s call. Today is an important day for BP, particularly as it marks the fulfillment of our 10-point plan and the start of a new phase. We are here to look back on a turbulent last quarter, a strong 2014 and a three year period in which we did what we said we would do, and we are here to look ahead to a tough period for the industry, but one that we are prepared for. I will start with an overview of where we have got to in our future plans and I will hand over to Brian to take us through the detail of fourth quarter results and update you on key elements of guidance for 2015. Then Lamar and Tufan will talk in some more detail about their areas of the business. At the end, there will be time to take your questions. First thing to say is that with 2014 now complete, we can confirm that we have delivered the 10-point plan, we laid out back in 2011. As part of that plan, we set a series of goals that we would accomplish over a three-year period. We said, we would focus relentlessly on safety, we undertook to manage our portfolio actively while playing to our strengths and to generate around $30 billion of operating cash flow in $100 per barrel world, and we committed to strengthening our balance sheet to be more capable of weathering uncertainty. This all had a core purpose of creating a stronger, simpler and more focused BP. As we stand today, I believe, we have achieved all that and more. Back in 2011, we were just one year into our recovery from a major incident with multiple legal, financial, environmental and strategic implications. Progress we have…

Thanks Bob. I will start by touching briefly on the price environment in what continues to be a very weak market. In the fourth quarter, Brent fell to an average of just under $77 per barrel, the lowest quarterly average since the third quarter of 2010 and is averaged $48 per barrel so far this quarter. As is now well documented oil prices softened in the latter part of 2014 as market fundamentals reflected production growth in the United States, other increases in global supply and weaker global demand. Prices weakened further following OPEC decision to maintain production in November. Henry Hub prices continued to fall through 2014 as growth of United States shale production outpaced consumption. European and Asian stock prices fell reflecting modest demand and rising LNG supplies. Henry Hub gas prices for the fourth quarter averaged almost exactly $4 per million British thermal units and now stand around $2.70 per million British thermal units. The overall refining environment was low in the fourth quarter impacted by the seasonal reduction in refining margins along with falling crew differentials in the United States. As you all have seen the sharp fall in oil on gas prices has had an impact on our Upstream results for the fourth quarter. However, the full run rate effect of the fall in prices will any be visible as you move through the first quarter and beyond. As Bob mentioned against this backdrop, we are making a number of interventions to rebalance our financial framework that I will come back to shortly. Turning to the results, BPs fourth quarter underlying replacement cost profit was $2.2 billion, down 20% on the same period a year ago and 26% lower than the third quarter. Compared to the fourth quarter of 2013, the result reflects significantly lower…

Thanks, Brian. In December, I shared with you some significant detail about our strategy and plans for the Upstream, so I do not intend to go into a lot of detail today. I will start with a look back at 2014, followed by a reminder of the key activities driving value in our business and other recent and near-term developments. I will end with a brief recap of the key pillars of the strategy I outlined in December. We achieved a number of key milestones in 2014, 18 exploration wells were drilled in the year, we made five new discoveries at Orca in Angola, Notus in Egypt, Xerelete in Brazil, Vorlich in the North Sea and Guadalupe in the Gulf of Mexico. We also continue to achieve new access, including the U.K. North Sea licensing round in the fourth quarter. In December, we signed a new production sharing agreement with SOCAR in Azerbaijan to jointly explore for and develop potential prospects in the shallow water area around the Absheron Peninsula in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea, pending final government approval. This is in addition to blocks awarded earlier in the year in Morocco, Australia, Greenland, the prior North Sea licensing round and the Gulf of Mexico. Last month, we formally received the licenses for the El Matariya and Karawan concessions in Egypt, following the announcement of the award last year. Turning to major projects, our 2014 startups continue to ramp up as planned. The start up of both Sunrise Phase 1 in Canada and Kinnoull in the U.K. North Sea during December, takes the totaled 2014 major project startups to seven. Production from the Andrew platform, which the Kinnoull project ties into is forecast to peak at more than 50,000 barrels per day. Sunrise Phase 1 operated by…

Thanks, Lamar. In the next few slides, I will provide a brief update on progress in 2014, and will set up the opportunity I see for further performance improvement across the downstream and the strategy we will be following to capture this opportunity. In terms of progress in 2014, we have seen continued improvement in our process safety performance, particularly on loss of primary containment, where we have achieved around 20% reduction in incidents year-on-year during 2014, which represents our best recorded annual performances. In fuels, we continue to deliver strong operational performance across our refining system, with Solomon refining availability sustained at around 95% for the year. Our recent reposition Whiting refinery near Chicago is now fully on-stream. We also announced our intention to seize refining operations at Bulwer refinery in our Australia during 2015. In lubricants, our focus on growth markets and premium brands continues to deliver like-for-like profit growth. In petrochemicals, in response to a continued difficult environment, we have undergone a strategic review to create a higher earnings potential business, which is more resilient to bottom of cycle conditions. I will cover this in more detail later in the presentation. This operational progress across many fronts has resulted in operating cash flow growth. Our 2014 progress gives us a great base to build on and I believe there is further performance improvement opportunity for us to capture in downstream. Our strategy focuses on improving returns, growing operating on free cash flow and building a quality downstream business, which leads the industry as measured by net income per refining barrel. Our strategy to deliver this performance opportunity has five main themes. Our first priority remains safe and reliable operations and we will continue to drive for performance improvement, both in personal and process safety. Advantage manufacturing in…

Thanks, Tufan. Now to summarize the key points, we want to leave you with today. We leave 2014 behind having delivered some significant milestones over the last three years, including everything we said, you should expect and to be able to measure as part of our 10-point plan. We now have a track record of delivery, real momentum in our business operations and a proven ability to adapt to tough times. We are well aware that the industry is going into a very challenging phase as we reset to a lower price environment but our business model is a very focused one and we are already well in action to respond. Our near-term priorities are very clear and about delivery in our business, completion of our $10 billion divestment program, a disciplined reset of both, our capital and cost base and a commitment to the dividend is the first priority within our financial framework. Looking beyond the near-term, we have a roadmap for the future. It is based on the potential of our Upstream business, the opportunity to leverage advantage portfolio and improved returns in our Downstream business and our resolve to continue our focus on capital and cost efficiency. All of this works towards our intention over time to grow distributions in line with the approving circumstances of the firm and to maintain a progressive dividend policy. Now, with that, we are ready to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions].

Thank you for polling your questions and for your patients. We will try and get round to everybody today. We will start today in the U.S. with Blake Fernandez from Howard Weil. Are you there, Blake?

Yes. Thank you, Jess. Good afternoon everyone. My question is around CapEx. It sounds like most of the reductions are coming from exploration and access. Bob, it sounds like you are maintaining your internal $80, old deck, so I am just trying to get a sense, does this mean we should expect kind of ongoing FID you are sanctioning this year as you would have otherwise?

Blake, thanks, and Lamar is here. It is more than just exploration and access. We think, we have got some projects that we planned to FID this year actually early in the year. Based on what is happening, we are going to retool them again and there is one that you have heard about before that we have taken a steps back from. We will certainly do that again as a big Mad Dog project and in the Gulf of Mexico. That is a good example. Lamar, maybe you want to comment on some others.

Maybe just a real quick frame, Blake, we are going to maintain spending and safety reliability integrity and the high return base in fuel type spending, exploration and appraisal we do have some flexibility to move some of that sideways or defer high-grade in re-phase we will be doing that. Projects in execute phase, we will continue to do those projects, especially, facility side and we will look at optimizing so to speak the pre-drill drilling expenses and the tempo by which we get the drilling done over the next several years. Then in the projects in the pre-execute or the pre-FID phase, we will definitely defer re-scope and re-approach some of those projects. Mad Dog might be a good example where we do think they will benefit from deflation and we will access that to the best of our ability, so there will be some changes in each and every one of those categories, because you can imagine we want to be as efficient as we can be and it requires examination of every single dollar, but it is a holistic approach where we make sure they were safe and reliable and yet we still preserve the future.

Okay. Great. Thank you. My second question is on the Lower 48. I am assuming on the separation looks like it is still on track, but I assumed it has it is own balance sheet. Does this macro changes forced to liquidity or for balance sheet structure and are you still expecting to increase rig activity as outlined in the December? Thanks.

Blake, yes, everything is continuing as we hoped and expected in the Lower 48 and the balance sheet is said they will react to the environment just like their competitors are. Although, as you know we have not had really high levels of activity in the Lower 48, so you won't see quite as drastic of capital reductions there, but they will certainly be working just like their competitors in terms of making sure each and every dollar they spend is going to be the right dollars to spent, so we expect that to continue. We will be reporting separate financials later this year, which will give you some insight into that, but yes everything is on track and cause some capitals coming down, so that is good.

Okay. Thank you.

In the U.K. now, we will go to Oswald Clint of Bernstein.

Yes. Good afternoon and thank you. Yes, maybe a question on return on capital, return on average capital employed. I guess, one of the things we are also looking for is steadily growing return on capital, which is something, Bob, that you have been targeting. I do not think it did not step up too much last year, but as I think about this CapEx reduction, the shelving of marginal projects, the returns here in the Downstream business going up, plus also some cost deflation which you might access, do you have more confidences at this point that the return on capital metric might actually step up materially from here. Then, secondly, just a question on the North Sea, on the impairment, I know that part of that was to with increased abandonment provisions. Maybe some thoughts on the U.K. at this oil price and what sort of abandonment costs and ultimately does not feed into kind of the near-term CapEx, if you choose to start abandoning some of the North Sea? Thank you.

Bob, let me take a stab at that. North Sea first, on then the abandonment costs, those abandonment costs went up mainly due to a change in interest rate we calculate to decommissioning value on in fact. I think the North Sea is an area that we have stated before and I talked about in December is a challenged area. We need better performance rather North Sea plant reliability is not where it needs to be and of course we got teams working very, very hard to get that up, but we need to see a step change in performance in the North Sea. The quality of the assets is good and we have a set of new projects coming on Clair Ridge and Quad 204 that effectively repurpose the North Sea for us in the West of Shetlands area. I think everyone is struggling a bit in the North Sea, and we have got all work to get our plant reliability up and this particular impairment is related to an interest rate change in the decommissioning cost.

Oswald, on return on capital, I think, we have been saying that we must increase return on capital going forward here. I think, we have said this publicly, but the average return on capital employed of the roughly $35 billion of Upstream assets that were sold had a return on capital of about 50% to 55%. Now, that is a huge return on very mature highly depreciated assets, so that by definition has brought our return on capital employed of the group down and I would expect it to continue to rise here up and down a little bit with the oil price cycles, but we are definitely high grading the portfolio going forward.

Okay. Thank you, both.

Okay. Thanks, Oswald. Next question from Jason Kenney at Santander.

Hi. Good afternoon and thanks very much for the opportunity. Do you think there will be a profit or loss from the Upstream America's business in 2015 in a $55 a barrel environment? That is the first question. The second question, I suppose another quarter another surprise for the Russia contribution. I know there has been accounting changes and there was possibly late in the day you have guided on your thoughts as to where that could have been, but it was a surprise for most people on the divisional result from Russia. With the changes at Rosneft to be announced in the FX hedging, are you able to give us a kind of a steady quarterly outlook for what Rosneft might contribute on an EBIT basis under again a $55 oil price? Thanks.

Jason, let me take the first one. Then I think Lamar can talk about the profitability in terms of the United States. To degree the account of $55 a barrel given what we are doing around deflation. Yes, Rosneft, has adopted a standard actually which makes complete the economic sense in terms of locking debt against future revenues and we will see what the effects of that are quarter-by-quarter, so they have adopted IAS 39, which makes complete sense. I am not sure that could have been signaled to market any sooner. It is something which is considered by their board and they discussed and implemented back in October, but I think it is good that you say your Clair, it is exactly the way we would have approached it ourselves into the same - my fresh reporting. In terms of giving indication going forward, I think Rosneft have all the same challenges that we have and our whole sector has around trying to drive deflation, the cost base, managing sourcing and uses of cash, so I think Jason if you have to be patient and wait a few courses before you start to see any sort of stable earnings figures going forward. At 60% drop in correction in the oil price and I suspect we are going to be here for a short to medium while that is going to take time before you start to see those results flow through to the earnings numbers. At these levels have rules of thumb that you may be know where to apply historically that pretty tough to apply when you have this bigger collection in the oil price, so I think it just too premature. I would turn it over to Lamar, if you can give any more indication on the U.S., but I suspect that would just be difficult.

No. I think it is exceptionally difficult right now to predict individual asset performance throughout the year at $55. We got to see how the cost base can adjust where we are going to constraint our efforts. We you will get a better view by way of seeing the Lower 48 separate that will help but right now don't carry my head and probably I would not say anyway the addition of those three sets of assets. If I could footnote to what Brian said about Rosneft because it is complicated. We came in this morning at 6:30 in the morning. Here in London Rosneft had issued to fairly detail press release explaining the accounting change in the background on it, so some of you who are trying to model that might want to have a look at that might help.

Thanks very much.

Thank you. We will go next to Theepan Jothilingam of Nomura.

Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a few ones on the cash cycle actually. Firstly, just coming back to the 2014 result. The group beating that sort of $30 billion, $31 billion of cash flow. Could you just talk about compared to your internal estimates where the bps was? Secondly Brian I think you mentioned there was a working cap how release how do you see that going forward in to 2015 and then sort of a broader question. It appears you are more vocal on being a bit more bearish on the duration of where oil prices maybe. What should the aspiration to BP be in terms of sort of balancing the cash cycle going forward? Are you thinking $60, $70, I am just trying to get up a sense compared to your 80 to 100 that you used to talked about? Thank you.

Thanks, Theepan. On the cash cycle question, I think it is some the bps in order to the performance came through across the whole piece actually both in terms of the strength of the Upstream EBITA that we are still coming through in terms of 4Q I think Q4 operating cash number. The recovery in the Downstream compared to the same prior year ago and we are starting to see some of these functional costs that we spent the last 18 months to two years talking about in terms of simplification effort, but Bob had highlighted previous quarters. Around the 60 odd initiatives that we had around the corporate center and the overhead, so they were starting to flow through, so I think that they were starting to flow through so I think that underpinned everything towards the back end of the year and that is why you saw such a strong cash number coming through. In terms of working capital, I think, we had signal we had would expected about two-third of the $5 billion bill. We saw in 2013 to reverse out actually low less than about $2.2 billion reverse down in terms of working capital release. There is a lot of moving parts around working capital as we are going to 2015 with these oil prices where we are. Payments had a provisions, as you can imagine, Theepan, they way we are looking at everything across the board which comes back to your third question about re-balancing the books, so I think it is a bit too premature to talk about what we expected to be but direction at low prices we tend to get reduce of working capital, but the price was pretty low at the end of last year. In terms of philosophy on balance…

Theepan, in terms of being bearish on the oil price, I think it is more a function. We look at supply and demand, there is an excessive supply, there is a lot of factors of course on this. Certainly, U.S. oil production is not going to adjust overnight to a change in the price. I mean, we see oil production continuing to increase in the U.S. at least through the summer. Even though the rigs counts are dropping very fast, stocks are filling up around the world. You have got probably floating storage before long here. When you have that much storage out there, it takes a long time to work that off. You look at the, of course, China is growing. No question it is growing, but the rate of growth is off, which is accounting for quite a bit of demand growth in the past, so we will just have to see, but time reminds me a little bit of 1986 in terms of the potential here for this play extended down term I think anytime the price of oil drop 60%, it is not a correction. It is something different. Of course geopolitical events could impact things the other way and create some dislocations, but there is a lot of chatter around the world about agreements with Iran and that could be a negative pricing signal, so we have got a plan at our company quickly to be ready for that without sacrificing a couple of things. I mean, we defer projects like Mad Dog. We actually think there would be more valuable when the costs come through and we think there will be lower. We are not going to compromise on safety, reliability or training for hazardous jobs. That is none of that. Everything is off-limits there, certainly, all are compliance and ethics commitments, so there are boundaries around what we are going to do, but we are going to continue to drive simplification into what quite frankly had become, we have become a really complicated company after 2010 and it is time for us to right-size it anyway.

Okay. Thanks, Theepan. We will take the next question from the web from Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer. Thank you, Fadel. The question is, is the reserve right-down a reflection of the assets quality and how does it reconcile with BP's strategy of value of a volume?

Let me take that Jess. This is Lamar. I don't think it is a reflection of asset quality. If you let me go interact for just one second, we have had some reserve revisions. Once we have those reserve revisions, they can trigger an impairment test and we have done impairment tests on these assets and the unfortunate I guess, if you don't like write-offs, the unfortunate thing is you do the impairment. At least we do. The impairment test with the five-year strips, so some of these in near-term assets that had summer reserve revisions were tested at the five-year strip, so 48 to whatever the five-year strip is, and that caused some impairment. I think it is a fairly conservative way and a correct way as we understand it under IFRS to look at our assets and the amount we have on the books following our IFRS accounting really.

Okay. Thanks, Lamar. We will take a question now from Thomas Adolf from Credit Suisse. Are you there Thomas?

Hi. Thank you. Two questions please? The first one on your dividend, I guess. If I look at your revised CapEx guidance, it is a much bigger cut than it appears as you know. Isn't that really an admission that your dividend base right now is just the wrong one, particularly as you say 2015 is a bit of a transition year in oil markets and you have a relatively healthy balance sheet. Actually one of your competitors did say earlier this week that the industry is over distributing. Second question is, just the point that Brian made on breakeven, I just wanted to get a better sense for how you define it. How does the breakeven look if you ask out the scrip dividend and any disposal proceeds, so really organic breakeven? Thank you.

On the second point, I am not sure it is actually particularly relevant. We offer a scrip, our shareholders like that scrip and they take it up. Certainly for last year, we were surplus around $2 billion of cash in terms of balancing the books and we would look to that in terms of going forward within the oil price set. In terms of dividends…

I think, we are comfortable with the division level. I think that is why partially, I think it is prudent to do it regardless of the dividend, rebase the company for what could be a new price range. It is absolutely a priority for us in cutting the CapEx. It has more to do with finding value and making sure we spend the CapEx and the shareholders money carefully in this lower price environment, so it is not really related to the dividend.

Okay. Thank you.

We will move on to the U.S. again and take a question from Doug Terreson of Evercore.

Good morning, everybody. One of the key things at Upstream Day that Brian highlighted today was cost efficiency and working with the service providers to the cost [ph] structure with a more challenging environment that Bob talked about. My question regards an update on the outlook for cost efficiencies in the Upstream and specifically there is a supply chain that the company is most optimistic about our should we assume that the benefits will be fairly broad-based. Also, is there an order of magnitude amount of savings that the company feels it can attain in the upstream, maybe along the lines of the declining cash costs that Tufan highlighted on his slides on 39?

Doug. Hi this is Lamar. Let me try that.

Okay.

I think, we will seek, we have seen this before and in past cycles we see cost reductions both on the capital side and really on the operating side of reduction of 20% to 30% in 18 to 24 months. We think we will see the same type of thing. It generally shows up first in rigs and seismic in terms of where the contracting space, but it happens everywhere. We have got, to give you a sense, I don't know how many total contracts we have. I wish I did, but we have got 1,250 coming up for renewal in 2015. We will be using those as opportunities to react, to understand what the cost set should be only activity associated with those contracts going forward. There are a lot of contractors and obviously other operators out there making big changes today, so I think we will see broad-based cost reductions. It will probably happen fastest in the U.S., where some of the capital is being trimmed back quickest, but we will see it broad-based and we will see, I suspect if things stay relatively stable in terms of price and everything, we will see 20% to 30% reductions in the next 18 to 24 months. Our job will be to access that as best we can.

Sure. Lamar, I think one of your slides in December talked about the lag effect, so would you say that this cycle is from an timing perspective about where you thought we would be at this point? Are we are running pretty close to your expectations with timing?

To be honest, it is hard to judge, but I have thought about that and I do not why, but it feels fast right now.

Okay. Good. Thanks a lot.

Doug, it is Bob. The other things I think will also happen in previous times when the price drops this fast, this sharply, not only does the supply chain move, but also governments take a look at taxation as well in terms of rebasing the industry.

Good point. Thanks a lot, everybody.

Thanks, Doug.

Okay. Thank you. Question now from Jason Gammel of Jeffries.

Hi. Thanks very much, Jess. I wanted to ask you a couple around divestitures program if I could please. My recollection is that the Upstream was the area, where you intended to generate most the proceeds. It is that still going to be realistic given the drop in oil price and indeed would you be perhaps better off as an acquirer if you start to distressed assets in the market. Then the second question is, I believe Brian made reference to having a bias towards distributions for discretionary cash. Would you consider divestitures proceeds to be discretionary cash and with those then be bias toward share repurchases or do you think you are done with share repurchases in the price environment?

Jason, let me just talked about last point first, which is we will retain buybacks as part of our armory, but recognize that we are in a transition right now with 60% of our revenues on the oil price side not there, so therefore as we rebalance the books through this year next it will be discretionary, but we are going to keep it within our armory. We are not going to [ph] spend buyback, so that actually would have not been in the market so far this year. I think, we purchased back about $800 million last year in the market right up to 2037, so we will keep it within our armory and we will make sure that we start the flexibility to do buybacks, but we are not in the market right now. In terms of divestments, I think when the outlined the original $10 billion, I think we set a lot of it will be more early life assets, not late life assets, so to that degree not quite as dependent on the oil price, and you saw the transaction that Lamar completed just recently in terms of the Paleogene in the Gulf of Mexico, which I think is an example of that in terms of shorter term in terms of not long life type-fields. The bulk of divestment proceeds left to come, a lot that is going to be across the pace, less of it now Upstream, so the $4.7 billion the remainder will be biased towards Downstream, some of the corporate businesses that we have, less of it coming out of the Upstream and still one or two midstream assets we have around tunnels and pipelines and so on, I think that is fairly well on the pinned for this year and there are less dependence on the absolute oil price.

Are you seeing attractive prices on distressed assets in the Upstream is just still too early in the price correction?

Lamar, do you want to just pick up, where we are in terms of potential assets that we might chose to acquire during this period as well.

Yes. I mean I think it is a little early to be able to talk about with certainly any specifics, but I think this is all going through a transition for everyone right now, so I think it is a bit early on that.

Fair enough. Thanks a lot, guys.

Okay. Next question from Irene Himona of SocGen. Go ahead Irene.

Thank you. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Just three quick questions pleased. Firstly, in December you flagged the $1 billion pre-tax restructuring charge to be taken over five quarters. I just want to clarify in Q4, it appears that you took $433 million in restructuring and rationalization costs is the $1 billion unchanged or should we expect an increase of perhaps an acceleration in line of the macro environment. Then secondly, India, I note here [ph] the assets. Can you remind us perhaps or clarify what view on Indian gas prices as used behind that impairment please? Thank you.

Irene let me just pick up the first piece, the $433 million we took in 4Q, the first tranche as we saw it, the original $1 billion restructuring charge came out of really the simplification efforts that we have been talked about over the last five or six quarters. When we came to roll the plans up in December, we could see $1 billion so thereabouts of restructuring hence why we put the announcements out there around the Upstream Investor Day. That was ready around how we right-size the company for the smaller footprint off the back of all the disposables. For now it is still our best estimate, but we will keep updated on that as we progress through this year. I would certainly anticipate that we will use the $4 billion, but in terms of whether there is more than that, we will no more, as we progress through quarter-by-quarter, give around the rebalancing the books of the company?

On India, I think if I am right, there is some exploration right offs, so I am not sure there were impairments if we had an impairment it was was very, very small one. Isn't there some exploration write-offs?

Yes. There was. I think, the thing to think about in India is that there has been a good step made on gas prices. One step that effectively applies to the base assets, it requires a different gas price to unlock the discoveries in the developments that we have got and we are hoping in 2015 that we can work with the Indian government I get that done, but it does require higher basically a gas premium in the gas formula for these projects to be unlock.

Thank you.

Next question from Martin Rats at Morgan Stanley. Go ahead Martin.

Hi, good afternoon. I want to ask you two questions. I want to take up on that 1986 comparison, because it also back then there were some a pretty spectacular cost reductions and CapEx savings, but also if you go back to the annual reports of the day, the company did look particularly well prepared to deal with that crisis back then as in the sense of BP was growing quite fast and the free cash flows are quite comfortably recovering the dividends I was wondering and how you feel your position at this moment, particularly in the context of that 1986 comparison. Secondly, I wanted to ask you about Egypt. In December, you still that the company's plan to invest $100 billion over the coming sort of 10 years if I remember correctly with gas projects and West Nile Delta was of course a big chunk of that, but I was wondering how you think about that project given current oil and gas price expectation?

Okay. Thanks, Martin. In 1986, if I think back I am not sure the company was positioned particularly well going into '86. I think it had higher oil price assumptions and it was somewhat stressed, but you are right about the amount of capital and cost reductions in the industry that happened, that we think could happen now. How is the company positioned going into this year, well having completed now well over $40 billion of divestments, I am glad that happened. Timing on that and quality of those are good. I think going into 2015 with a gearing of 16% is good I think you will see companies smaller companies in particular in the U.S. are highly, highly leverage. I don't think a 16% gearings particularly highly leveraged, so while it is good to be tough and we needed to do lots of things as well bring our overhead down having sold the $40 billion in our overheads were actually up a bit. I think, we are positioned about as well as anyone going into 2015 and for Egypt. Lamar?

I don't remember saying $100 billion over the next 10 years, but nonetheless Egypt is a place where we do have a lot of investment opportunity and some good projects to do. West Nile Delta, that particular project is not entirely, but it is pretty well insulated from the price and the price change that has happened over the last few months. Obvious, we will do everything we can to make it as efficient as we can, but I think West Nile Delta will still be a project that will go forward.

All right. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Martin, back to the U.S and Guy Baber of Simmons.

Thank you guys for taking my question, I had a question on the balance between the obvious focus on capital discipline and restraint versus the ability to grow the long-term resource base of the company through the cycle over time, so the question is I guess in deciding to rest reset that capital base to a lower level, do you believe that $20 billion of organic spend is an adequate base level that is sufficient to drive the long-term resource base over time. Over the current level of spend need to be supplemented by rising exploration spending over time and be supplemented by acquisition of resource. Just curious about how you think about that balance. Then moving toward 100% organic with their placement as a goal that you guys believe the up-line of site 2?

Bob, this is Lamar, again. I think, it is a great question. I think obviously the $20 billion and how much activity we can do off that $20 billion is contingent on how we get the cost base for that $20 billion, but beyond that I think root of to your question is about renewal through organic means versus a combination and I quite frankly I think it is going to take a combination of organic and potentially acquisitions and I put unconventional resources in an organic category just not exactly like exploration, so I think those three pieces of the pie are going to play going forward.

Guy, I a supplement when we have sat down and went through in great detail of portfolio, we look out to the end of the decade. I mean, we still got 50 to 60 major projects that we are looking at and may pace a little bit different timing, but some of them look good and it we will just keep going with them for sure. If we were in a position where we were short of major project opportunities, we got more than we can do. We had that before this price drop. We were always going to have to prioritize. Then secondly over the last three to four years, we have really reloaded the exploration portfolio acreage some discoveries in the appraisal, so a slower pace of exploration and I don't think it is going to change our ability to grow and I just add that to what Lamar said.

That is very helpful. Then I had one follow-up. You mentioned prioritizing base spending in 2015 is one reason you are able to reduce the overall capital budget. I was just hoping if you could elaborate a bit on that comment and just perhaps quantify for us how that spending level has declined in year-over-year terms and specifically where you may be able to make cuts. I am just trying to understand those implications, whether that affects your base decline rate at all and just how you think about that decision-making process?

Guy, I cannot give you specifics today, but the base spending that I am talking about that is going to be maintained around, safety reliability and integrity. That is going to be the same as it has been. It might be a little bit lower in some instances because we have done a bunch of turnarounds over the last several years, so it may attenuate a little bit. The infill programs generally are very, very high return and I don't there is going to be attenuated that much and I think that is important to secure the cash flow in the near-term. My point was more they were going to examine an every single dollar in every single category, not so much that we were going to find a silver bullet in the base. I think our base decline our aim is to keep that based decline in that 3% to 5% range we talked about in December.

Okay. Thanks, Lamar. That is helpful.

Thanks, Guy. Next question from Anish Kapadia of Tudor Pickering Holt.

Hi just first question is on your 24 paying cash flow from operations I am just wondering if you could split that between Upstream and Downstream, kind of looking at the Upstream number, give some kind of updated sensitivity for full 2015 for the oil price?

No. We don’t normally give that level of granularity in terms of breaking it down. You could probably do some rule of estimates, but no we don’t actually we won’t break up the operating cash flow to be commercially sensitive in terms of what sits between Downstream and Upstream.

Okay. Second question is on just looking at your taxes to 2015, I was wondering if there was going are going to be any significant difference that you would expect in terms of cash taxes versus P&L taxes this year?

Cash taxes have been running at about 8% lower than tax charge, which has all to do with how we roll out the provisions versus what we have cash [ph] the provisions that we have in placed in terms of defer tax. It is typically running at about an 8% difference between paid and charged I think as we enter this year and we start to see the earnings profiles, there is no question the effective tax rate will be lower than the average that we saw this year, but there are so many factors that influence that it is impossible this point to really give you guidance. We have got a rough indication of what we think it will be based on the plans that we have rolled up, but I think given the sharp drop in the oil price it is impossible to sort of come up with specific guidance at this point.

Okay. Thank you. Just one follow-on if you can, in terms of your assets in the U.S., I think you pointed to the Eagle Ford assets being a fairly high quality, I am just wondering how you kind of think about those assets in this whole price scenario, but then as well as some of the relative assets in the U.S. in terms of low-level pro scenario?

In terms of the Eagle Ford that is a very high quality set of assets in the Eagle Ford. Obviously, we would be working with our partner Louis on exactly what the activity level is going to be maintained through the year and I suspect to be a little bit of attenuation there. The other assets that we have are more gassy and we have had very, very little capital activity on those assets and actually ironically some of our activity may go up a little bit in the Lower 48 in certain areas certain areas, certain sweet spot, so I think we are probably a little bit different than the average in the U.S. independent space.

Right. Thank you.

We will take the next question from Rob West of Redburn.

Hi. Thanks very much for taking my question. I would like to return to the theme of having a lower oil price expectations and quite unanimously seem to expect the rapid bounce back in crude prices. My first question is a specific one. You know, recently outbid on the Abu Dhabi onshore license renewal by one of your peers. I was wondering is that evidence that with the lower oil price need to be somewhat more disciplined in investing those marginal dollars in that specific case. Second, more generally if your peers are willing to outbid your on new licenses and a new set of contract even we have project capacity? If we look beyond 2015, does that mean that if that happens you are willing invest less in them so long run growth and I guess return that cash instead rather than targeting longer term growth then you expected the oil price to bounce back?

Rob, I think. we are keenly aware of the feedback we have had from major shareholders and I factored it beyond the major shareholders, just people that broadly observed that the oil and gas industry for about half a decade now has generated lots not operating cash flow and puts it back in the projects of which are turned out to be pretty low returns and this is even in high $100 oil, so we have been working hard to make sure that we have a discipline around our capital. I am perfectly comfortable with the changes that we are making. It is an investor focused strategies we do think in terms of value over volumes and I think that a disciplined reset of both capital and cost is very prudent. We have actually seen this movie before. This is there are four times when prices come down say over the last 30 years only once was there a rapid jump back and that was probably 2008 and 2009, but other times there is more of a rebasing here and we see the fundamentals could do that and I think we needed to do very carefully but we need to do it quickly and I think that is good for all seasons and I think we are going to keep that commitment to the shareholders we will make sure that we protect the dividend, but I don't have a problem with taking this focused approach now. I don't think we are going to just cut into that really long-term value. We may defer some, but that growth will come, I believe, with lower capital and operating costs. Then Abu Dhabi, I have only read in the press, so don't know anything other than that. I think total was awarded a share in that concession, but beyond that I am not sure that process is over either. I just don’t know, we don’t know.

Okay. That is very clear. Thank you.

Okay.

Next question from Lydia Rainforth of Barclays. Go ahead Lydia.

Thank, Jess. Good afternoon. A couple of questions. The first one on the cost base or the prices [ph] trying to reduce the cost base. What source of proportion of that is actually going to the corporate overhead as opposed to in individual businesses? Just within that, can you give us a couple of examples? Then secondly just in terms of actually a very quick question on the reserve replacement rates ex- Rossneft if you have that. Thank you.

Lydia, on the first point, as per the simplification issues we are talking about, we already in the process of taking somewhere around 10% to 15% of the corporate and functional overhead costs. As we now look through all of our activity on an activity basis, we will be looking to take out at least as much again if not more and we are going through an activity review of all our activities and functions, human resources ITNS, solid information system, all of the activity but coming back to Bob's earlier point not compromising safety and operational risk or comply, that would actually will not be compromised, but in terms of everywhere else we are looking at where we can take activity out, which should all help us within in terms of rebalancing the books going forward. On the reserve's piece at this point, we do not normally give that sort of guidance that will come out as part of our annual report and account in 20-F filing.

Perfect. Thank you.

Turning now to Fred Lucas of JPMorgan. Are you there, Fred?

As I am, Jess. Thank you, guys. Welcome the intention to rebalance your cash flows under oil price outlook, but I wonder if you could just authenticate simply [ph] how you do that. I guess it sounds like you still intend to grow your capital employed a little bit more slowly with the low rate of CapEx. I am just using BP's would have some oil price sensitivity, we may have lost around $45 going from a $100 $55, plus or minus. Your EBITDA sensitivity would suggest that is an EBIT loss of over $12 billion. I think that on a pre-tax basis, that was almost $9 billion of earnings I guess drop straight to the cash flow and given your capital employed base around $140 billion, that's a employed loss of return of 6% on your return on the capital, which in 2014 was not very good is below 10% versus where you are back in 2011. That was 16%, so I hear what you say, but have sold [ph] assets with the your return on capital on capital employed is pretty much hove and it looks like it may hove again, so I am trying to square the circle away where you get to cash flow balance, but in order to do that you got to be clearing your cost of cap expense and see how you get there. How can you recover that loss of cash flow was $9 billion to initiate that balance.

Yes Fred, there is an awful lot of lot of information. You have just drop into that question, I would be very happy to go through each of the pieces with you. First of all, you have jumped to $55 revenue year-to-date averages 48, so do not get over enthused by whether oil prices in a last few days.

…the numbers were.

No. Absolutely, so that is exactly what I am looking at Fred, and that is exactly where we are in the process of rebalance the books, but I mean I thinks it is a little this disingenuous to think about the business $115 of barrels and the returns as you have just described them it from our perspective were not satisfactory and that is something we were looking to grow. You can't then assume the oil price goes to old $55 if that is where you want to sit and we have a cost base that was built at 115, so we have got to start to drive deflation into. That that will drive costs out, so we have going to pretty handle on what level of costs we need to drive out over the next short to medium-term to get those returns back where they need to be, but we can't do that overnight as you would expect. You cannot lose that much revenue over night of a big chunk of your portfolio, so it is one of the things that we are very focused on it is kind of one of the things that are looking at in terms of how we rebalance the books. It is not just about rebalancing the sourcing use of and the rules of thumb you are using kind of interesting and $115 a barrel, but for someone that has follow the market as long as you have Fred you will know there is rule of thumb will not be applying down at $45, $50 a barrel and that's something we will look and reset through this year to help with guidance in terms of future quarter so it is just a bit premature this point, but obviously agree with your points.

Yes. Fred, this is Bob. I think the question, the sort of stock to stock reality that you have painted there is an industry one. It is not just the BP one.

I agree. It is not unique to BP, but I would love to have BP's kind of bridge those numbers. I mean EBITDA versus the last year I appreciate is not linear when you fall by as much as $40, $50, but assuming it is approximately right and assuming that you continue to go capital employed and tell me if I was wrong then it is very difficult to see how you can that loss of capital return. To get back to that point of cash and balance, because I assume cash balance is synonymous with the business that earned a exceeds cost of capital?

Well, I think that is why and you say we have a bearish outlook on prices. I think, what we have is a prudent, realistic response to what is happening in the industry and we are going to do it fast. We are going to do rapidly, we are going to go through the cost and the cost base and that is how you move the dial quickly and that is what we are going to do across all over activities. I think, we are the only ones who have put in pay freezes and other things, significant reductions as we go through, but that is exactly why we are going to move fast. I mean, I think you create it sounds like a distinguishing us but I will tell you the industry broadly has the same issue in those that sort of delay it is not wise and you need to know we are all over it, and I think we can do it. We have gone through '15 is a reset year, you obviously cannot get there in 15 but we are going to get it down in 16 we see the roadmap to do that. we know how to do and that is what you should hear from us sense of urgency to rebase the company in 2016 and beyond.

Bob, what would you say satisfactory return on capital for BP?

Well, again, $35 billion to $40 billion is a 55% return. That is why you have seen those numbers come down over time. I mean, we just divested in some more those in December and you have to know at what price that is as , well but I think you will see we are taking any price really you will see an increase in our return on capital employed going forward and of course that will vary depending on what price you assume.

I mean, Fred, maybe just to sort of help, I mean our long-run assumptions have not changed at this point, so we still assume along run assumption of $80 of barrels for our 20 to 30 investments still stand good and we held that when the price are $148 of barrel and will hold it now while it down at $45 to $50 a barrel, because we think long-term that is where it what will end up we just don't want to join this period of transition back to those several levels aromatic is going to take. I think we are just planning to be very, very prudent about how we do that.

When does your long-term start Brian?

What you mean when does just start?

When do we get back to that $80?

Fred, if I could answer that question for you, I would be a very rich man.

I think, we have to plan it on, minimum a year and it could be several years.

Right. Over that time, you think you can recover the loss in return on capital employed you like to experience it this year and get back to prior level.

You get different numbers depending on what price to use.

Yes. Fred, we will be able to give that you as we get quarter-by-quarter and you start to see the progress, just like we did with the 10-point plan. It was over 12 quarters it was delivered and you will see progress under this point last year. I don’t think many people thought we could hit the $30 billion target. If you looked all the summation of all the various things, and we have exceeded, and I would fully expect that we will be able to do the same thing over the next couple of years assuming the oil price stay where it is. If it is above, where we expect it to be, that is all upside.

Okay, guys. I will leave it at that. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Fred.

Okay. We will take the next question from Chris Coupland of Bank of America.

Thank you, Jess. Hello, good afternoon. Just two quick questions, on the CapEx outlook, I just wanted to see that $3 billion cut year-on-year can you put a number on your exploration spend budget for 2015? Where is that going to and can you refer to a few FID deferred? You have talked about Mad Dog, which other FIDs do you still plan to make during 2015 and if I may Brian I appreciate your will need a bit of time to update, but can you at least confirm in which direction it is going as the oil price drops not just from 100 to 90, but over way down to 40? Thanks.

Let me go first, Brian. I think, we are staying on a group numbers today. We are not breaking all these things down into the intricacies of the plan, but the exploration difference in 2015 versus 2014 will be significant, but I am not going to give a number today. In terms of FID's, Mad Dog I listed as a potential referral, there have there been no decisions made on that. As far as I think that is a project actually there is more about just of finding the optimum way in time to go to the market to understand what the cost of that project will be, so that is still to be worked with partners. Other examples we are looking along the normal pass. I think expansions of heavy oil in Canada would be some things that we will be looking at to defer potentially. Our portfolio, the whole thing will be looked, but very similar things to what other people are looking at.

We got to be a little careful about saying exactly, which once because we are partners in some of these projects and we have to consult as well as.

On the rules of thumb, I think it is just premature. I mean, if I would have sort of gut feel it is probably going to be slightly high on the oil and slightly lower on the gas, but until we sort go through the portfolio looking all the effects of the PSAs what that means in terms of different prices set just premature at this point, so we will update when we can.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Chris. We will take a next question from Lucas Herrmann of Deutsche Bank.

Yes. Thanks very much, gentlemen, afternoon everyone. At least two of I might just to bring Tufan into things, I guess, very patiently. Chemicals it's a business that over the last three years, I guess, has struggled would be the right phrase. If I go back three, four years it was delivering near a $1 billion of profit. I guess what I don’t really understand is, you seems to have advantage assets particularly in the PTA chain advantage technology and yet in the losses remain I guess surprising relative to the strength of your position. To what extent to or what time period, Tufan, or to what extent and do you think it is still possible to move back towards the kind of numbers that you were delivering in 2010, 2011? That is the less first one. Secondly, Lamar, I wondered if you would like to talk a little bit more about the transaction you have undertaken with Chevron. It just the same in ways they have disclose what payment you might received, because is classic case in some respects, realizing value from exploration, but what intrigued me was the decision to seed operator ship in a basin, which you have a very strong position and that you have been always been exceptionally proud of. It is not criticizing what you are doing. It is better understanding the logic for seeding?

Let me start with petrochemicals. First of all I will say I think PTA right now is at the bottom of cycle. We knew that loss of capacity came in China and how long do we believe this bottom of cycle will last at least I will say couple of years maybe three years or more of until the excess supply clears out, therefore.

Is that two to three years from now ?

That is my expectation if I look at that, but I would say therefore if you look at the strategy, we actually fundamentally changed the strategy. Strategy is right now to say we have significant restructuring, especially in automatics business to reduce the cash breakeven more than 35% as I mentioned in my presentation. This is good for all seasons, frankly. If the environment picks up and gets to the levels you are talking about, then we expended earnings potential of the business. If it stays at low levels, we have a much more robust business, hence why we came up with this strategy, especially in automatics restructuring, but one thing I want to say in acetyls, we actually see a better markets and it has been growing and we expect environment to improve even further in acetyls, so I think we may selectively invest to capture that earnings potential in acetyls business.

Right. Thank you.

Lucas. Hi. Lamar. I think, this was a very important transaction. We have not given the compensation side of it yet, but I think it was an exceptionally important transaction one that we have been working on for quite a while. Effectively it creates commercial alignment across the number of blocks in a neighborhood of quality discoveries, probably the largest and highest quality Paleogene discoveries or some of them at least. The simple logic is that we can do more optimal development and capital efficiency for the whole through deciding together and collaboratively with Chevron and Konica, where our host may be what would it look like, what would tie-in from where. There is massive synergy in that teams, where I think we will have seconded members both ways and the teams. We may operate some of the drilling. They operate the operatorship. It is an emotional issue sometime, but as I have talked many, many times we are dedicated to try to find the absolute best way to do something. Chevron has the ability, they put up Paleogene field into operation, they built facility, might look very similar to something we may use in this consortia. The technology development needs to be done by multiple companies rather than one and don't forget we still own Kaskida 100% and operate Kaskida as well as other exploration prospects that we operate, so it is a balanced way of trying to get the most value out of this play really.

This is to accelerate delivery over and above the ability of the distributors work together on technology? Do you think Chevron already in the position where it can push this development more aggressively than would be the case that would it just be in your hand?

I think there is a pretty good chance that working together will accelerate development and it will be the right development rather than everybody for themselves. That’s what it is fundamentally about.

Okay. Thank you.

Moving now to Bertrand Hodée of Raymond James. Bertrand Hodée: Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my question. Two quick ones if I may. The first is on Mad Dog, your latest view on Mad Dog I think in December '14 was that development cost were coming down to around $14 billion how much deflation you still need on Mad Dog for this project fly let's say at lower oil price assumption of $50 or $60. That is my first question. The second question, you took an impairment of $1 billion in Angola around. Can you explain the rationale behind this impairment? Is it also linked to decommissioning cross-linking or is it something else? Thank you.

Bertrand, this is Lamar. Let me hit the second one first. The impairments in Angola, we are not going into detail on individual area impairments too much, but there was a combination of reserve write-downs that triggered the impairment tests that I talked about earlier with a very pretty much lower oil price $48 strip, as well as some decommissioning effects on cost service both, and I forgot your first question. Mad Dog, we think, Mad Dog cost have come down as I talked about in December, partly due to its design in scope and partly due to better prices in effect. I am not going to give any sort of the target in terms of where we are trying to get to, to make it economic at oil price, but I do think there is very significant savings yet to come in Mad Dog, and we will take the time to understand how and when to go to the market to try to access those better costs. I think we will certainly have to work with partners and make sure we are on the same boat on this and aligned, but I think that is going to be an example that probably goes to the right a little bit. Bertrand Hodée: Just one follow-up on Mad Dog, do you still intend to go to contractors in March as you said in December are you going to proceed back?

Well, I think we need to talk to the partners, but I would think, well I am not going to give guidance on that. We will go when we think it is ready to go. Bertrand Hodée: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.

Thank you. We will move now to Neill Morton of Investec.

Thanks, Jess. Good afternoon, everyone. A couple of hopefully quick questions, just firstly on the gearing, you talked about 10%, 20% ban, while uncertainties remain now going into 2015 your strong balance sheet of 17% it is not a million miles away from the total pinned of range just wondered is that laying in the sand that you could defend at all costs. Secondly on Macondo just wondered whether you are looking to appeal the Phase 2 ruling and of so, would be a time deadline on that? Thank you.

Thanks, Neill. I would just pick up that first question. You recall the prima condo are gearing about almost 20% to 30%, so we reset that into latter part of 2010. In the 10% to 20%, band, which where we talk about while uncertainties remain in to degree the environment was one of those uncertainties, so I would not go as far saying it is a strong hard-line the sun, but it has been an incredibly powerful way to manage the company going forward and there is no question at these oil prices It gets back to rebalancing source use of cash, which is one of the reasons why we are taking all the actions that we are taking recognizing that the number of incentives that help us so I wouldn't call it a hard-line of sun, but it is absolutely key part of our financial framework right now and we would anticipated at current price levels of where we see today, we can still managed through this year, cover the dividend, rebalance the books to described you today and still stay within that band of 10% to 20% We are pretty confident about after this year?

Some slight flexibility to do some things that we do anticipate inorganically, but that's a small things your second question which was the Phase 2 of the trial for those complicated the Phase 2 was the one that looked at what they called the source control and response to the spill the judge ruled that we were not grossly negligent in that and had a value of the oil and we are just considering options for phase to appeal and really no guidance at this time.

It there deadline Bob.

I don’t think there is a deadline. Actually, although I have been exposed to a lot of legal points, I actually don't know and there's probably no one right now that can answer whether there is a hard deadline or not, but we won't let ourselves be timed out from what we think is right.

Sure. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Neill. Question now from Richard Griffith of Canaccord.

Good afternoon I have not listened to the entire call, so as a quick point of clarification really. You have talked about CapEx budget going down this year if I have heard you correctly driven by activity reduction with a view to capturing service industry deflation perhaps from 16 Ohm went with times further your CapEx expand from 16 onwards could be low given how cautious you are on the old price outlook?

Sorry. Lower than 15.

Well, I think the CapEx guidance is an adjustment to what we see as an environment. We are not making assumptions of deflation in that CapEx number, but we see opportunities to defer secure longer-term growth by deferring and avoiding the issue of putting CapEx in something that might not get the right returns. I think as we look beyond '15 into '16, I mean, we will have to judge this. It is hard to say. I mean, it feels like that level is about the right level for us in a lower oil price environment to secure of the growth but I think it is probably a little bit premature to lock it in.

Yes. I think at this point which it is a bit premature and we will have to see what happens in terms of deflation. Of course that will ultimately drive to lower number, but it is just too soon at this point. We will be able to update you quarter-by-quarter we get through this year and see how time progress.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, all. There are no further questions, so I will just hand back to Bob to say a few last words.

Well, thanks, Jess. Time is going fast this year. First, Happy New Year to everybody, we are already into February, quite extraordinary. I think as you listen to what we have said and what we have been saying now consistently, I would remember that we are an integrated company, so we are responding in the Upstream very, very strongly and of course the Downstream actually offers us some growth in cushion to this. What you are hearing from us is we need to prudently prepare the company for a different environment. This is more than a price correction. It's quite significant and we have been through a lot as a company and I think the company, the broad management teams across the company are quite still that responding to challenges and problems. In this case, we are going to have a disciplined reset of both, capital and cost. We think it is prudent to do that. We got a commitment to the shareholders of maintaining a dividend and over time having to be progressive. We have some momentum and what we are doing I think, we have been pretty fast off the market in an our view of adjusting here we will do it carefully, but we will do it rapidly and look forward to talking with you next quarter, because think about this the average price in our industry of $77 in the fourth quarter so far as running $48, so these are not going to be dull quarters ahead of us, but we are not going to be complacent. Again, thank you all. I hope your years are off to a good start and we will be in touch. Thanks.