Welcome to the Royal Dutch Shell Q4 2015 and Full-Year Results Announcement Call. There will be a presentation followed by a Q&A session. I'd like to introduce your host, Mr. Ben van Beurden. Please go ahead, sir. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thank you very much, operator, and welcome to today's presentation, ladies and gentlemen. So you will have seen that we pre-released our fourth quarter 2015 results earlier in the year, the 20th of January. We wanted to do that ahead of the shareholder vote on the BG transaction. And this morning we've confirmed our fourth quarter results. But before we go there, let me highlight again the disclaimer statement to you. So again, our integrated business mix is helping to support our results in what is a quite challenging industry environment today. So we're pulling on powerful financial levers to manage the company in the industry downturn. We are reducing cost and capital investment as we refocus the company and we respond to lower oil prices. So the combination with BG, the completion of the transaction, expected to take place on the 15th of February, will mark the start of a new chapter in Shell to rejuvenate the company and to aim to improve shareholder returns. So Shell is becoming a company that is more focused on its core strength, a company that is more resilient and competitive at all points in the oil price cycle and has a more predictable development pipeline. Let me first update you on our HSSE performance because as you know the health and safety of our people and our neighbors and our environmental performance remain the top priorities for Shell. And I believe that we have the right safety culture in the company, a track record that…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. We will now take our first question from Thomas Adolff of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Thomas Y. Adolff - Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.: Hi, guys. Two questions for me, please. The first one for Simon, and I guess the second one as well. Simon, in your own words from earlier this year, you said Shell has been good at spending and not so good at earning and that change is on its way from within. So I guess my question is what is the size of the price for Shell stand-alone if you become less bureaucratic, more lean and efficient by, say, 2017 and 2018, and I guess more linked to return on the return profile whether it could be as good Exxon's? The second question, I guess, is on CapEx, the $33 billion and you say further reduction if it warrants. And if it does, I wondered where it is coming from since I can't really see any FIDs being included really in that $33 billion. And yet you're still spending about $10 billion more than Exxon. Thank you. Simon P. Henry - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Thomas. I'll have a go. But Ben might want to comment on the second one – the first one, sorry. It's two separate questions really. The better at spending than earning, I'm not going to verify that quote. The point was it has been, on occasion, recognizing performance on spending or generating new opportunities more than operating. And that was a comment about internal culture, which is what your second point is about. The idea that Shell is bureaucratic relative to other players in the industry is an utter and complete myth. Believe me,…

Certainly. Our next question comes Theepan Jothilingam of Nomura. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen. Could you just remind us again how you think about the credit rating from here? How important is the single A and what's the right balance between protecting the balance sheet and the dividend? Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Simon? Simon P. Henry - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Theepan. The credit rating is important. We need to be able to continue business whether access the capital markets or counterparty in the trading business. So it does matter. An A rating doesn't preclude us from either of those, the more general reputational importance on working with partners and governments. It is, however, important that we do protect an investment-grade rating and that we manage the balance sheet accordingly. We talked quite a lot previously about the importance of the dividend and the cash, the priorities for use of cash. And we have no changes to say today. So essentially, the dividend comes first, and we need to address the – effectively the gearing that provides the capital on the balance sheet, the financing. And then the choice is between reinvestment and buyback. And that is our stated approach and no changes. We expect post-BG the gearing will increase from around 14%, which is the lowest in the industry at the moment for the big players, to below 20%. It's not clear exactly because we'll need to complete the accounting, but somewhere in the low 20%. And it is important as I think I have made clear before that thereafter we do what we can to turn that number downwards again before we start to make other choices about allocation of capital. But the dividend is underwritten. And the dividend policy remains standalone for this year. And the policy remains unchanged. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Thanks, Theepan. Thanks, Simon. Can I have the next question, please?

Certainly. Our next question comes from Jon Rigby of UBS.

Yeah. Thank you. Sort of two related questions, actually. I mean, you noted the high votes approving the deal on both sides, although I know there was a reasonable percentage that voted against on the Shell side. So given that you were very active in meeting institutional investors and dealing with the market through January in the run-up to the vote, could you perhaps sort of talk a little bit about where you felt there were misgivings in maybe how were articulating the benefits of the deal or maybe where you needed to push further in persuading people that the deal worked and was good for you? And then sort of the second follow-up, as I understand I think as we widely reported in the press, there was a get-together of the senior executives from both sides of the company I think last weekend. And I just wondered whether there was anything, any impressions, anything you can talk about that came out of that vis-à-vis the combination going forward? Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Thanks, Jon. Let me take both of them. Indeed, we were very happy with the high vote on both sides. I thought 83% was a very strong endorsement in a, shall we say, very nervous market environment that we're operating in. I think in terms of misgivings, as you call them, I think there is indeed concern about the oil price outlook. I think that was on people's mind, and I think in general sort of nervousness and concern with the market was growing in that period. I think that's behind us now. I think we move forward. It's now for us to demonstrate that the majority of the shareholders who voted for this were right, and we will do…

Thank you. Our next question comes from Martijn Rats of Morgan Stanley. Martijn P. Rats - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Yeah. Good afternoon. I wanted to ask you two things. First of all, can you talk a bit about the Downstream? Because towards the tail end of 2015 and early 2016 now we've seen a fair bit of weakness in oil demand coming through. And it's very difficult to understand to what extent and by how much that impacts the earnings throughout the Downstream and particularly coming after such a strong year 2015. I was hoping you could provide some forward-looking comments on that. The second thing I wanted to ask you goes back to, as of this time last year when we also talked about CapEx, and back then you indicated initially that your intention was to keep CapEx flat. And there was very much the impression, or at least it's sort of my reading of the situation, that a lot was locked in, and that in a short period of time you can't really do all that much. Yet if you then look at the actual amount of CapEx savings that have been realized this year are rather large. So clearly it seems that there was some flexibility that emerged during the course of the year that it seems you didn't foresee in January. And I was wondering where that flexibility is and what at some point made you able to make the reductions in CapEx that in January 2015 still looked more rigid, so to say? Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Thanks, Martijn. I'll take the second one, and Simon can talk in a bit more detail to the Downstream point. I think sort of despite what Simon said…

Certainly. We will now take our next question from Asit Sen of CLSA. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Hello, everyone. So two questions, one on Brazil and a second on Nigeria, if I may. You have a small project in Brazil that's starting, BC-10 Phase 3. And then Libra is in the works for a 2018 start. Could you talk about the current operating environment, how you see the outlook unfolding? So that's on Brazil. And second on Nigeria, surprised by the postponement of Bonga South West given the relative size of the project and your footprint in the region. Could you speak to kind of the relative cost structure in Nigeria in the current operating environment, please? Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. I'll have a first go at both of them. And perhaps Simon wants to add a few points as well. Yeah. Brazil is, of course, now becoming a key country for us. Of course, it was always an important country, a country that we have operated in for 104 years, so we know it quite well. Indeed, BC-10 and, of course, coming up Libra, very important projects. And of course it will be significantly more with the addition of the BG division. So we do pay a lot of attention to the environment, what is happening in Brazil, not just the general macroeconomic environment but also what is happening in terms of fiscal stability and other factors. And of course we have been very, very close with the Brazilian government to understand what their intentions are to get assurances from them in areas where we needed them. And you will have seen in the media that quite a few of the plans that – or plans, the aspects that we're talking about over the Christmas period have now also gone away. But Brazil…

Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Operator, can I have the last question? Is there any further questions?

We have no further questions at this time. But again, ladies and gentlemen – apologies. We will now take our next question from Alastair Syme of Citi. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hi, Ben and Simon. Can I clarify the mechanics of how you're going to put together the business plan ahead of the 7th of June, when I guess you get to see the assets from the 15th of February? You must do some sort of re-running of business plans. And I guess there's a macro assumption, a long-term planning assumption that will be implicit in that. I know you're not disclosing specific thoughts on the macro, but will you be using the same macro deck that you used for the business plan last summer? Simon P. Henry - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Director: That one's probably for me, Alastair. It's a great question. Thank you. We obviously put our plan together back in October, November. We actually have more than one price line in there in terms of what we can do, what we need to do. I happen to know that BG has done pretty much the same thing with relatively similar price lines. So we're both working on one forward projection, which is quite similar, as the baseline, and both of those have – and what would we do if the price turns out to be at the lower level. But legally and formally, we do not have access to the details of the BG planning information until the 15th of February. So we won't actually get under the hood. So the best estimates that we can make, pretty much the same as yourselves, and that probably goes for a few months is pro forma at the two companies reflects $1 billion of depreciation of the PPA, the purchase price premium, that we are going to pay. And we'll confirm that figure in the Q1 results I expect, as we won't know that until we've…

Certainly. Our next question comes from Lydia Rainforth of Barclays. Please go ahead.

Thanks and good afternoon. A couple of questions if I could. The first one is just on OpEx, and the $3 billion cost-savings target. Is it getting easier, do you think, to make those cost savings come true, or as the organization is just getting used to working in a slightly different way? Or is it actually getting just more difficult given how much you've already taken out? And then the second one, it's an accounting one, and Simon, apologies, I should probably know the answer to it already. But within the fourth quarter cash flow numbers, was there any particular cash impact from any of the restructuring charges that are associated with the cost savings? Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Lydia. Let me take the first question and then maybe Simon wants to add his perspective to it and also talk about the second one. I think in a way it's probably getting easier. First of all, the number that we mentioned, the $4 billion cost takeout for last year is an all-in number. It's a net number. At the end of the day, our costs have come down with it, of course all the one-offs, all the specials, all the redundancy costs, all the things that basically are the price you pay for taking cost out. Of course, some of it may also reoccur in 2016, but some of it also won't occur. So in terms of headline delivery, that is sort of a bit of following wind that we have. But at the same time, yeah, I think it's not just a matter that people are getting more practiced at cost takeout. Believe me, we didn't discover the importance of cost takeout in 2015. We have been working on…

Our next question comes from Biraj Borkhataria of Royal Bank of Canada. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Two, if I may. The first one, just a Q4-specific one. You had a particularly strong quarter for the Integrated Gas business. But I gather there's some FX impacts in there. But I was wondering if you could give any color on the actual trading performance in the fourth quarter, because one of your peers actually highlighted a particularly weak quarter in Q4. And then the second question was looking ahead to 2016 and the gearing numbers, you've mentioned a few times that a low to mid-20% of gearing is about as far as you want to go. And I wonder, if the disposal market is not as strong as you would like it to be, how far would you be willing to let that drift upwards if you're not getting the value that you want for the assets you want to sell? Thanks. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Biraj. Simon, can I hand over to you? Simon P. Henry - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Biraj. Yes, in Australia the deferred tax asset in Integrated Gas had a positive movement in the quarter, a couple of hundred million. Other than that, the gas business is a strong business. We have good long-term contracts in place. Overall for the year, the realized price in LNG was just under $8 compared to something over $13 the year earlier. And it's the mix in that marketing – or the marketing mix that gives us the resilience and the diversity to be able to not only achieve good results in a tough environment in IG but also the platform to develop the new contracts, as I've talked about in the speech. The gearing, low 20%, you're absolutely right. I…

Our next question comes from Irene Himona of SGS. Please go ahead. Irene Himona - Société Générale SA (Broker): Thank you. Good afternoon, gentlemen. On slides 29 and 30 you show the split of cost cutting in Upstream and Downstream. You show $1.7 billion Upstream, $1.6 billion Downstream. I presume these reconcile to the $4 billion overall reduction. But clearly, relative to the smaller size of the Downstream business, it seems that the cost cutting was much more intense there. And I know that over the years Downstream free cash flow was around $7 billion; actually it paid 80% of your cash dividend cost. So I had two related questions. Firstly, do you see this balance of cost between Upstream and Downstream changing after BG? Do you expect more of the $3 billion targeted cost cutting this year from the Upstream? And then secondly, given those quite intense obviously Downstream cost reductions, are you maintaining the targeted 10% to 12% sort of normalized return at midcycle margins? Or do you think the portfolio can actually do better than that, which is material in an environment of margins sort of coming off some pretty record levels last year? Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Irene. Let me just give you one clarification. The $3 billion that we talk about is legacy Shell cost. We do not know in great detail of course what the cost structure and makeup and allocation is within the BG portfolio. So that will only come a little bit later. What we do of course know is that there is synergies between these two that can be added on top of that $3 billion. Then of course there will be quite a few moving parts because these synergies will also…

Certainly. Our next question comes from Christopher Kuplent of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Yeah. Thank you. I'll keep it to just one question. Just wanted to ask whether there is a particular reason why you in your presentation, Ben, dropped the reference to future ambitions regarding share buybacks. Just wanted to see where your head is on that topic at the moment and particularly how you're thinking about continuing with the script going forward, maybe linked to oil prices or not. Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thanks, Chris. Don't read anything in the fact that it wasn't on the slide. It is there. We will do it. There's quite a few other commitments and statements that we made in the original $2.7 billion and in the prospectus that were not on that particular slide. The entire package of commitments and promises is still completely intact.

Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Operator, can I have the next question, please?

Our next question comes from Iain Reid of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hi, gentlemen. Ben, just coming back on the previous question in terms of commitments, et cetera. I noticed on the dividend you called that an intention rather than a commitment, and I wonder whether you're prepared to reiterate that even if oil prices remain at this sort of level you still intend or commit, perhaps better, to pay a similar level of dividends, say, in 12 months' time as you are paying today. And on the second question, just interested on the startup date you've got on your project, that slide there. Has Prelude gone back? You're now showing it as a 2018-plus project. It was not that long ago when you were telling us that 2016 was more likely the startup date. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Yeah. Thanks, Iain. On dividend, really no change. No change in the commitments that we have made. We have said we underwrite the dividends for seven quarters in a row. $1.88 for last year, at least the demand for this year. There is no change to that. And in terms of our overall dividend policy after this year, also no change to the dividend policy that we had before. So don't read anything in it. There is in that sense no change from the promises that we made as well as no change from the way we have approached the dividend in the past. We understand the importance of the dividends. We understand our own capacity to pay the dividend. And therefore there is no change in whatever it is that we have said before. On Prelude, we always said material cash in 2018. And that is pretty much what we are saying today. So also there no real change. Okay. Thanks, Iain. Can I have the next question, please?

Our next question comes from Gordon Gray of HSBC.

Thanks. Good afternoon, gentlemen. It's a Downstream question actually. You've been through a process of rationalizing part of your Downstream business, pushing through capital efficiency. My question is if I look at your slide on CapEx, it looks like in rough terms you're planning to spend about $7 billion across the whole Downstream business, which is compares I guess to a long-run history of more like $5 billion. So maybe you can just let us know how much of that increase is maybe dependent on the FID in Pennsylvania and/or what else is leading to what looks like an underlying increase in investment in the Downstream. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Yeah. Thanks, Gordon. Indeed, it's – Downstream typically has, by and large, its capital budget made up of sort of stay-in business CapEx, so rather high-asset-integrity type CapEx. Turnarounds that we capitalize, catalyst change that we capitalize, and then of course a whole raft of small projects that are basically also there to sort of defend value. So it is continuing to invest in our retail network, it's continuing to invest in our lubricant blending plants, refineries, chemical plants, to just basically stand still or to capture a little bit of value here and there by debottlenecking, et cetera. If you add all of that up, and if you add on top of that a little bit of value growth, you do indeed come to about $5 billion. Sometimes there is slightly bigger projects in there, sort of like $80 million, $100 million, $200 million projects. And by and large, it's made up of much smaller projects. Now we have indeed a few opportunities to invest in very advantaged projects. They are predominantly in petrochemicals. So you mentioned one, the Pennsylvania cracker. There's another…

Okay. That's great. Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Thanks, Gordon. Can I have the next question, please?

Our next question comes from Bert van Hoogenhuyze of Stroeve. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Two questions. First, your working capital has been reduced by $1.6 billion. And in view of the things you said about suppliers showing more receptiveness on the one hand; on the other hand of course some suppliers are more or less on the brink of bankruptcy. So the ability to suffer more cost reductions is probably limited. In that respect, would you expect further working capital reduction in the same record for the coming quarters? That's the first question. And the second question was, I was a little bit surprised by the number, the gas prices you made in Asia. Does this mean that indeed contract prices are adapting much faster than we really thought to the lower oil prices? Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Okay. Thanks very much, Bert. Let me make a few comments on the first question and then I'll ask Simon to complete it and take the next one. You're absolutely right that we need to be – we need to take a long-term view on how we deal with the supply chain. And so again, as I said earlier on, this is not a matter of taking our – all our competitive rates in the current environment that we have and put more pressure on our suppliers because ultimately we suffer from that as well, either because it will quickly bounce back because it is temporal or more fundamentally, we basically destroy capability that we all desperately need again when the oil price springs up and we will all be wanting to pursue a more aggressive growth path as an industry. So, therefore, the need to really work together with our supply chain partners to come with more structural solutions. Working capital reduction will remain an important…

Our final question comes from David Gamboa of TPH. Please go ahead. David Gamboa - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. International LLP: Thanks. Good afternoon. I have two questions, please. One on the Downstream side of things. So looking at Q4 cash flow in the Downstream, it was quite weak excluding working capital benefits coming that you just recently talked about. I'm just wondering if you could provide some color around if we stay at current refining and pet-chem margin levels, what is the cash flow expected in 2016 from chemicals and Downstream? I appreciate we will get more visibility on this when you change your reporting structure, but if you could provide a bit of color on the 2016 development of the Downstream cash flow. And on the CapEx side of things, could you break down out of this $33 billion how much is going into the Upstream base spend? And what is your expected underlying managed decline rate taking into account BG? Thank you. Ben van Beurden - Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director: Thank you, David. Simon, why don't you take them? Simon P. Henry - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Director: So Q4 cash flow, you note, you generally don't need to just look at the working capital, you need to put in adjustments in for the cost of sales adjustment as well for any short-term period in terms of site cleaning up. The difference between cash flow reported in the earnings and I think the differential is maybe not so high if you look at it in that sense. The go-forward, by and large, cash from ops tracks earnings in the Downstream, other than working capital on the inventory, the total inventory, the pace of argument is roughly 100 million barrels impacted and this will…