Okay, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. And as always, it's a pleasure to be back in London, but it's an even bigger pleasure to be back again at the venue where we announced the BG acquisition almost two years ago. And that integration with BG was completed in 2016, and today we want to give you an update on the direction of the company. I'll talk a bit about the results, we touch on the strategy and the progress that we are making on the delivery post the transition in 2016. But before we do all of that, of course the disclaimer statement that you are familiar with. We're making some good progress in reshaping Shell towards the goal of being a world-class investment case. That's focusing on delivering higher returns on capital employed, on a higher free cash flow per share, and of course on reducing debt, so simply put, better returns for shareholders. We are on track to deliver on the 2020 expectations that we set out back at Capital Markets Day in 2016. And 2016 of course was a transition year for Shell, but 2017 is the year in which we will follow through on the delivery piece. We have a portfolio strategy which contains firm steps to managing this down cycle, including a higher ceiling on our capital spending, but also on more predictability in our spending. I believe our integrated business mix is helping to support our results in what is still a pretty challenging business environment that we are seeing today. And in 2016, we saw some pretty large movements in our figures for the BG purchase and consolidation, a higher asset base, buildup in debt, and all of that of course amplified by lower oil prices. I think our results today also show…

Thank you, Ben. Thank you all for joining us today. It's good to be here. In fact, this is the 31st time as CFO I've had what I think has been the great privilege to address you in quarterly results. I also had the benefit of close to 15 quarter-ends before that. So 46 quarter-ends with you. It's been a pleasure mostly, but I think it's time for parole. So let me update you on the financial framework, the great progress we're making in creating value from the BG deal and good link back to the last time we were in here under the other assets and the projects. This morning I do go off script a little, but that was the media, but I will stay on script this afternoon. So in summary in the quarter, excluding identified items, Shell's CCS earnings in the quarter were $1.8 billion. That's a $200 million increase on last year. On the comparative basis, we saw higher earnings in the upstream and chemicals, lower earnings from refining and trading. We also saw a higher depreciation charge, in part the result to BG, and a one-off impact, $500 million, from deferred tax loss, a series of deferred tax adjustments. Cash generation, the cash flow from operations over $9 billion in three months, so meaning after we did our capital investment, we more than covered the dividend payout again for the second quarter running. Dividend distributed was $3.8 billion or $0.47 per share. The Brent oil prices were 13% higher than a year ago, $49 in the quarter, but realized gas prices were actually 5% lower than a year ago, and that's partly a result of the time lag as LNG prices follow oil prices but not immediately. And on a Q4-Q4 basis, that gave…

Thanks, Simon. Now before closing, I would like you to remember that, again, we are aiming at being this world-class investment case for Shell. And in the end, of course, you will measure this as total shareholder return, and so will we. And I think by doing a better job on improving the returns on capital employed, by improving the free cash flow per share, by reducing debt, we can create that better investment case, that world-class investment case. So these are the priorities that we are pursuing internally. I think we set out a clear pathway for you for the next few years. I think it's an ambitious pathway, but it's also a transformation of the company that started in 2016, and now we will switch to delivery in 2017 and the years ahead. I said before I think our strategy is now starting to pay off. You can see it. In 2017 we will be investing around $25 billion in high-quality and resilient projects. And I'm also confident that 2017 will be another year of progress for Shell to show that we are well on track to deliver that world-class investment case. So with that, we have more than an hour if need be to do Q&A. So let's have your questions. Could I please ask you to just take one or two questions at a time, so that we have the opportunity to give everybody a chance. We'll also have some questions on the phone. And I think you were the first one to put your hand up.

Hi, good afternoon, gentlemen, Chris (36:40) from JPMorgan, just one question please around your CapEx guidance for 2017. Just looking at them, this was the breakup that you provided on slide 23. What additional levers could you pull to take that CapEx guidance lower in the same way that you surprised yourselves in 2016? Is there more headroom that you're not talking about? Thank you.

Let me have a first stab at it, and then Simon I'm sure will have some observations as well. Yes, of course, we can take that number lower. And yes, you are right, if you imply that there was a little bit of a surprise in how far we could get into 2016 as well, although we actually did see that we were making progress during the year, a lot of it of course deflating cost structures, a lot of it improving capital efficiency, getting more bang for our buck in the programs that we were executing. The $25 billion is not a cash number, by the way. The cash number is closer to $20 billion actually. So we add back in what we have to book as capital investment being the leases that we also have inherited from BG. And, Simon, I see you're putting your finger up. Simon will be able to explain that in a bit more detail if need be. But indeed, we can bring that number down if we wanted to. What we've said, the $25 billion is not a high flow, but it is I think an appropriate level considering where we are with not only our in-flight projects but also what we have in the way of our strategy. We need to fund our strategy, and I think about $25 billion is roughly right to sustain what we are doing to deliver that expectation that we set out in Capital Markets Day. But make no mistake, if from a financial framework perspective, we feel there is too much pressure on the affordability of the $25 billion, yes, absolutely, we can and we will take it out.

Maybe because it may either preempt or prompt further questions, why go below $25 billion if you don't need to, if you go below $25 billion if you need to or if you can drive cost out of projects you've already approved, which we have been doing. And that's one of the reasons we ended up at $27 billion. We can afford $25 billion, just think of the cash flow statement we've just put out for the year. So these are annual figures. The cash element next year of investment is going to be $22 billion – $23 billion maybe, $22 billion. We'll have a cash dividend of $10 billion on top of that. So you've got $33 billion that we need. We have $21 billion of cash last year at $44, and actually $6 billion of working cap, so that makes $27 billion. There's a one-off tax payment really associated with divestments which we won't repeat. That's around $28 billion. If you add back $11 to today's oil price, here's another $5 billion or $6 billion. So you're already balanced, and the sharp eye amongst you will notice how I omitted interest. There is a lot still to come in the projects, still another $8 billion to come of growth from those projects I laid out, not all this year, but some will come this year. At today's oil price, we don't need to reduce the CapEx as long as it's all going in the right place.

Just a quick follow-up, the cash CapEx is $23 billion or $20 billion?

There are some leases in it and there is some exploration expense, so $22 billion, it's closer to $20 billion than $25 billion, but only just.

Thank you.

Hi, it's Jason Gammel with Jefferies. You've been very consistent in terms of the prioritization of cash and the uses thereof. But one component, one lever you've been pulling is the scrip component of the dividend. I was hoping you might be able to talk about what triggers we should look for longer-term relief on the scrip. Is it a level of gearing? Is it a level of free cash flow generation, any other signals?

Yes, it goes to dividend and free cash flow generation. What we would like because it's more robust through the cycle is that free cash flow generation comes from that growth from the projects. It's not just dividend driven. But the dividend – sorry, it's divestment driven. The divestments will help bring the debt down more quickly. So what we have stated is we will be more comfortable with the credit rating when the debt approaches $20 billion gearing or $50 billion in broad terms net debt. Those numbers have gone up a bit because of the significant number of finance leases that were not there when we made that statement, but it's close enough. When we are in that position, the most likely first thing that we do without committing my colleagues is take the scrip off. We know that it's dilutive. But if you take the scrip off, you don't bring it back again two months later or two quarters later just because you did divestments. You need the through cycle cash flow. So there it's confidence in the free cash flow through cycles and the prices that we see in terms of the cycles. That's when that would be I think a good milestone, it's a good signal, and thereafter you think about the buybacks basically. The one thing that won't change will be the capital investment. That's done

Irene? Irene Himona - Société Générale SA (Broker): Thank you, Irene Himona, Société Générale. I had two questions, please. Firstly on cash flow, you called 2016 a transition year and you had a $6.2 billion cash outflow on working capital, which obviously we can't think of as normal. How are you managing that going forward? Is there any guidance you can give on that working capital? And my second question on a project which is Kashagan, you spoke about the economics of Brazil. Kashagan is a huge project obviously. It costs as much as Gorgon. Can you talk a little bit about cash breakeven or cash generation of that project? Thank you.

Do you want to go ahead.

The cash on Kashagan. And cash coming back from the 2016, their working capital movement, quite a bit of that, as we've seen, has been driven up by basically the inventory, so that's the big driver, inventories. There are other issues associated with trading such as the margin calls that could make it a little volatile on a daily basis, let alone the quarterly. That's one of the strengths of the trading business. We can put the balance sheet behind the position. So it's volatile only in terms of the margin, not in terms of the long-term outcome. So I could never be precise, but our inventory level is around just over 100 million barrels. So you can roughly work out from that likely and back to the movement. What happened in 2016 was the last kick up, and it was in December, so we got no benefit really in the upstream of the $55 oil price, but we saw the down side of the working capital. Kashagan cash, we had a good question this morning about what was the production from Kashagan likely to be, which was we took basically about 300,000 barrels a day. The capacity is going to be more than that. Let's see what the ongoing regular production is, and there is clearly huge potential over time to grow but not immediately and easily. We are only one-sixth of that at 50,000 barrels a day. Our share is going out of the Caspian pipeline, the consortium pipeline. It comes effectively into you all's blends over into the Black Sea. So it was cash negative, cash from operations negative last year because of startup costs. There's a lot of fee still activity before the cash started to flow back, but by December it was flowing back. And there are reasonably good margins because although it's a very high CapEx, the cash margin going forward, it's not that high a cash OpEx unit. So it will, subject to stable production, be a good contributor then this year versus being a negative contributor last year.

And there will be continued focus. We've been very clear amongst all venture partners on further cost reductions in Kashagan as well. You can imagine there has been a bit of an intensive care approach to get the project up and running, make sure that we iron out all the difficulties that you have. It's just a complex asset, bear in mind, but at the time we started it up, it was already 15 years old. So we had to make sure that this went exceptionally well, and it has. But I think indeed with reducing costs and stabilization of the production levels that we are now seeing, this will become a reliable cash engine. And then of course, there's a whole raft of opportunities that we can subsequently look at, but that will come once we are absolutely convinced that this unit is working well.

Yes, Theepan and then Jon Rigby.

Hi, it's Theepan from Exane BNP, two questions, please, firstly one on cash taxes. I think you talked about the deferred tax move, Simon, but I was just wondering how we should go about modeling cash taxes going forward. Is there significant benefit in terms of the deferred tax assets or tax allowances that Shell has built up? The second question, I think you talked about disposals not being driven by timing but more value. But I just wanted to get a sense too on the BG transaction. Do you feel you're ahead of schedule on the disposals? And given this week's transactions, should we also expect that the next phase of disposals should be a little bit more cash dilutive in the short term? I understand the high-grading of the portfolio, but should we model more cash erosion?

Let me have a first pass at question two. And I hope you will forgive us for not being able to give too many details on what it is that we have in the pipeline, partly because it's just not good commercial practice to do so, secondly because things can and will change in terms of the sequence in which they come about. It's easy enough that of course now standing here and say we knew that some of the deals of course that they had been working on were coming. I hope you will appreciate the deals that we have done haven't been easy. So they do take time to piece together to come up with a construct that works for both buyer and seller and to agree to complexities around it. Think of the complexities that we would have had agreeing the North Sea deal. And there are quite a few of these still in the pipeline. It's not going to be a straightforward auctioning off, so to speak, of the asset. So we do have quite a few more in the pipeline. I've talked about $5 billion, material progress on them, so think of that to be announced in the next weeks or months. But then of course, on top of it we have a whole lot more. You will also remember that earlier on I spoke about a broader pipeline, well in excess of $30 billion that we have either activated or could activate. And of course we are activating new projects as we free up capacity to work on this again. We only have so much deal team capacity to do complex transactions like the ones that we have been doing now. So yes, I do think we have a plan or we are on track if you think of it as $30 billion in three years, and I'm very confident that of course certainly with the slight easing that we have also seen in the last few quarters that implied long-term oil prices being a little bit higher, some of the real tough difficulties that we have seen over the last 18 months may indeed ease a little bit. How dilutive that will be on cash, I cannot give you any details without disclosing what it is that we're working on. Maybe you can give some more guidance on it, Simon, but I hope you will be able to bear with us on this, also taking a little bit comfort from the track record that we have demonstrated.

The recent three divestments all have a common characteristic of really strong cash flow in the next three to four years. Thereafter, you have to continue to invest or extend the license or take further risk, decommissioning or otherwise. And it's better that the new owners do that because they will focus more on it. So it's a win-win situation. And so we're basically accelerating that cash flow in the deal. So it is a bit dilutive, but it's all wrapped up in terms of what we would expect to deliver as we go forward. Your first point, Theepan, 2016 was a little odd because the cash tax was higher than the current tax. That was linked to cash paid on divestments plus the fact that the oil price was still going down. Therefore, we paid taxes on the previous year that were lower than this year's profit. As we go forward, that will reverse. We're bringing onstream production in the U.S. and the UK in particular, which will benefit from tax credits, and there's the source of some of the deferred tax balances that we carry. We do have some in Australia as well. So they effectively are used. Cash tax paid will be in some cases significantly below current tax.

Thanks. Jon?

Hi, it's Jon Rigby from UBS. Can I ask a bit of a shopping list. The first is can you maybe dive down a little bit into the downstream numbers for the fourth quarter, which despite the commitment to more progressive visible earnings streams, still seems to display a degree of volatility that's not obviously explained by the macro. Maybe you could just talk about that a little more. The second is I noticed you referenced the Permian. And obviously, I think it's probably a little bit of a hidden jewel that people usually don't work up to you owning. But part of the characteristics of the transaction you did with BG was to deepen in the long-cycle, so LNG, deepwater. Do you feel comfortable with your short-cycle exposure? And maybe to contradict an ongoing rumor in the market that you might sell the Permian, actually would you on balance prefer to deepen in shorter cycle over the coming years, perhaps as your financial position eases? And then lastly, I take the point that someone made about the LNG market clearing. I think it clearly contradicted a lot of people's negative views to start the year, and you appear to have been more sanguine. But I suppose it may even have surprised you a little bit. And as you think about the next three or four years, maybe to this point of long-cycle/short-cycle, when you start to rank your very significant opportunities, development opportunities in new supply for LNG, would you be able to talk around where the priorities lie or which projects sit towards the top end of your list, please? Thank you.

Thanks, Jon. Let me say a few things on long-cycle versus short-cycle. I will cover some of the LNG as well, and then Simon will take the other half of that question as well as the one on the downstream. So you are absolutely right. There are two different types of exposures, two different financial characteristics that you get from long-cycle, particularly if you look at deepwater investments and shales investments. They both, as Simon said, have in our portfolio breakeven prices that are below the $40 mark. So in that sense, you could argue that they are equally attractive. But they actually have fundamentally different characteristics, and we like to have both characteristics in our portfolio. As a matter of fact, we need both characteristics in our portfolio. What we like about the deepwater business is indeed the very high free cash flow generative nature of it. Once you pass the investment hump, it gives a lot of resilience, of course, for the portfolio when it is stable. And what we like about the shales portfolio is actually the ratability of the investment level, which of course we don't quite have at the deepwater side of the portfolio. You cannot ramp up and down that quickly. They come in big lumps. Once you have passed an FID point, you just have to complete. So the only way you arm yourself against that sort of volatility is to have a strong balance sheet to be able to see your investment program through once you are committed to it. But with the shales part, you can flex, and you have to flex, for that matter, because it doesn't make sense to continue with a high investment rate when the realization price of the oil and gas that you will produce over…

Just on the supply projects, LNG, just to complete the story. Keep the kit full at the moment is the priority and develop the markets, but we have delayed in the past couple of years some big LNG projects. We had five possibles from floating in Browse in Australia, Abadi in Indonesia, and Tanzania. We had LNG Canada and we have Lake Charles, effectively the oldest of the two. They're still progressing with some urgency to get the cost in the right place, but not necessarily to take it in the urgent to FID are Canada or in Lake Charles and back to advantaged positions basically. And no particular hurry or commitment to do it, but actually you then work back from the market as to when these projects come onstream, what will the supply/demand balance look like. That's very important to do that. We had 57 million tonnes of LNG sales last year in a market of 260 million – 270 million tonnes. That's over 20%. We have a very good understanding of how to make the most of that in terms of timing investments into the market. Downstream, commitment to reduce volatility, we've deliberately separated equity, the marketing and the refining and trading. Marketing is what we term a ratable business, it's fairly predictable. We have the volumes, we have the margins, we have the customers. And yes, it goes up and down a little in terms of the competitive tension. But around the world, you can see we're able to do several billion dollars a year just from that marketing stream on the chart. Refining and trading is subject to the cycle. It's subject to a few operational issues. Q4 did have a rising market. It's not easy to follow, particularly in supply trading activity, that market. In fact, the products markets in particular were relatively weak, and that came back into products trading. But trading is still making a profit in its own right. It's not a major exposure or volatility in terms of the potential risk there. It's pretty solid earnings, but it is not immune to the cycle, and that was what we saw a bit in the fourth quarter. It is also what I would think competitive as well. So maybe this effect was bigger than we were all expecting. The commitment to reduce volatility, and we talked about it right before, the philosophy here, but a big lever in transparency and disclosure, working over a rolling four-quarter rather than a one quarter perspective on most numbers, hence the wish to focus more on the cash. It's not just because that's the important factor. It's actually basically more stable through the period. A canteen ultimately is a canteen, and is impacted by assumptions and other things that you see coming through according to normal due process and just the issues arising. But mostly they're non-cash.

Thank you. We'll have a question from the phones next. Operator?

Guy Baber of Simmons, please go ahead. Guy Baber - Piper Jaffray & Co. (Broker): Thank you, guys, very much for taking the question. Simon, I know you like first to focus on the trailing four quarters as opposed to the last two. But for cash flow, the second half of 2016 obviously was very different from what you did first half of 2016. The portfolio has been changing. The environment has changed in terms of the costs that you were realizing. Should we be looking at that second half of 2016 cash flow run rate therefore of about $8.8 billion a quarter as more representative of what your portfolio is capable of instead of the trailing four quarters? I'm just trying to get a sense of the sustainability of that performance. If you could speak to maybe one-time items that may have boosted that cash flow, I think that will be helpful.

Thanks, Guy. I think I will focus on the four quarters. The first two quarters were particularly weak, and that can be weak for a variety of reasons, mainly price. The recovery in the third and fourth quarter, we also had timing of tax payment for the first half of the year. We had higher tax payments, much higher tax payments. There were one-off items in it. And as we go forward, future tax payments, in addition to the comments I made earlier, they lag the profitability. So that will always be the case, you pay tax after you earn the profit. The working capital, there are times when we extend additional working capital to the traders. There are times when we pull it back again. In fact, that's a deliberate choice. That's not just the inventory moving up and down. That is another factor. So we do that for value. We do that because of the supply positions that we have, the shorts and the longs length that we are aiming to match. So the longer the period, the better, to be very clear on this, with cash flow. But the first two quarters were very unrepresentative. Remember not a year and a week or so ago, the oil price was $27, which is when we asked for your support for the BG deal, so that was an interesting time. And that was an unrepresentative level of volatility in the market, which has a direct impact on our ongoing cash flow. Though the second half of the year is more representative, but some of those factors reversed in that period. As we go forward, take the year, take your view on price, remove the working capital effect. Take into account what we said on cash, recognize further cost savings, recognize the project delivery. Those are the things you need to think and build into the model.

I'll take one more question from the lines first, thank you.

Blake Fernandez of Howard Weil, please go ahead.

Folks, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. I had two, maybe I'll just ask both if it's easier. For one, we appreciate the outlook on the American shale ramp-up to about 400,000 barrels a day. The capital associated with that, $2 billion to $3 billion, do you think that that's a good run rate in what you need to spend to achieve that 400,000 barrels, understanding that obviously you could see some cost reinflation there before other projects? And then the second question is on divestitures. If I'm not mistaken, the production associated with what you've announced so far is about 190,000 barrels a day, which is roughly about 5% of the portfolio. And I believe you're marketing about 10% of the production, so you're about halfway through there. Yet, the divestitures announced and closed so far is about $10 billion, so you're about 33% through the target. I guess long story short, do you think you're on track to only need to sell 10%, or do you think that number needs to move up a bit? Thank you.

On the second one, I wouldn't be too hung up with the numbers. I think what we said at the time was think of this as a production slide that we are marketing or that we're thinking of. We also said we would probably get out of 5 to 10 countries altogether. Of course, the sequence in which this plays out and how this will play out will always be to a degree unpredictable. So don't do some sort of interpolation and correlation between all of this and think that we are on or off track or ahead or that something else is coming. It will be what it will be. What we said at the time, it is material what we are doing, and it is indeed. That's why we mentioned the volume, and that's why we mentioned the number of countries. It is meant to be high-grading and streamlining the portfolio, hence the numbers. But it is not an indication of value. Simon, would you take the other question?

Yes, the shale outlook. The $2 billion to $3 billion, yes, is a good run rate of the costs we're seeing at the moment, and there will be two factors going forward. One will be we'll continue to take the cost out, particularly as we look to consolidate acreage or operatorship which enables the longer laterals. The cost inflation, yes, it may happen. We know some of the service sector has being working literally on survival cash margins and that there needs to be some flowback of that. But we're in the reasonably good position of choice. We don't have to do most of this investment, and let's see how it goes. But once we start, we will finish the development in a particular area. But there are still in this just 50 to 100 wells. It's still much smaller than, for example, an offshore development, and that's how we think about it. Once we put the contracts in place, we'll do it. So $2 billion to $3 billion is certainly okay for a while. Let's see how it goes. We could spend more, no question, but not yet. We're okay where we are.

Thomas? Thomas Adolff - Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.: Thomas Adolff from Credit Suisse. Simon, I've always enjoyed covering Shell. I've got a few questions. The first one, I want to talk about 2016 and 2017. And just very briefly about 2016, what went right and what went wrong, and how did it compare with your budget at the start of 2016? And as it relates to 2017, perhaps you can talk about some of the operational risk factors, maybe talk about Pearl GTL and if you have bigger issues there whether you're insured against these issues. The second question I had was on concentration risk. And as I understand it, you have different definition from one country to another. But as it relates to Brazil, I wondered in the upstream whether you're interested to add more. And obviously you have preemption right on an asset that has been bid for and whether you can talk around that. And if I can be cheeky, a quick question on LNG as well. I know you're quite bullish on the longer-term outlook for LNG. But also in LNG you have contract expiries, and I think you have quite a few of those in the 2020s, partly from the BG portfolio but also partly from your portfolio. And once you absorb the current wave of development, how should I think about the absolute size of Shell? Should the next wave of FID merely offset these contract expiries or should I be thinking about Shell potentially even growing in the early 2020s? Thank you.

Good questions, let me take the third question first. Yes, we are in a position of considerable strength with our integrated gas portfolio. We've repositioned this business very clearly as a cash engine because we need it to be a cash engine at this point in time. It has a tremendous potential for cash generation. It is roughly a third of the capital employed in the company. So it needs to produce strong returns as well because it is actually – of course, it is such a large core of our company. But at the same time, of course, we have – and Simon already mentioned, we have a tremendous amount of opportunities to grow as well. I think at the very least, we will aim to hold the position that we have. So as the portfolio slightly matures, as contracts roll off, as joint ventures expire, the objective of course is to hold on to what we have. Partly it will be by continuous refreshing and renewing and getting into new sales contracts as well. A lot of our volumes of course are still relatively shorter term. They are 5 to 10 years, not all 25 years. And the longer supply deals, yes, we will continue to extend that as well, including extending them by replacing the ones that are irreplaceable with new projects. To what extent we will be able to grow that portfolio at that point in time, I'm sure we can, but we'll have to see how attractive it is at that stage of the game. We're talking here about into the 2020s. We certainly believe in the potential of LNG supply and LNG demand to grow. We still think that gas demand will grow twice as fast as oil demand, and LNG will grow twice…

Brazil concentration risk?

Brazil concentration risk, yes, good. Let me take that one as well. We have a strategic risk management approach that says we should not concentrate too much in a single country. And we actually have different thresholds for different countries. As you can imagine, the threshold for countries like Iraq, like Nigeria, is lower than the threshold for places like Brazil, which is lower again than the threshold that we would have for Australia and the U.S. So we have a graduated approach, where we basically see say how much capital employed or how much cash flow do we want to have coming from a single country or how much do we want to be in the hole, which is more the approach you take for high-risk countries like Iraq. At the moment, Brazil ranks in our top three in terms of what we get from it, and therefore it is already quite high up in the concentration risk category. But at this point in time, also the attractiveness of Brazil is very high. We still believe in the fundamentals of the Brazilian economy. We still believe, of course, in the fundamentals of the resource base that we see there. So in principle, yes, again we could take more, and we are looking also of course with interest to the next licensing round that will come probably already this year. There will be another one probably next year, and we'll have to take a view on how competitive these resources will be in our portfolio. The good thing we have of course is that our work program for the next 10 years is reasonably well pre-booked. So what we need to do now is to add resource to the funnel that we are going to need in the course of the next decade, maybe even as late as the second half of the decade. So it's not as if we have to jump on everything that comes across our way. But we do know that there are some very attractive potential resources in Brazil. So we will look at it keenly to understand how much attractiveness and how much of it we want to take on, bearing in mind that indeed we are extending the risk of Brazil. It will not necessarily be immediately increasing, but whatever we take on, of course, certainly the licensing rounds will only come on in the course of the next decade. Now on Lapa, the acquisition of Total of the Petrobras part in it, we know the asset quite well. We just started it up or we planned the startup of course in December last year. I hope you will forgive me for not disclosing how we are looking at that opportunity to preempt. We are very well aware of it.

Do you want to answer on good or bad versus budget? There were lots of questions in there

I know. You were making good notes, so you can...

Just on GTL, we're saying, it is an operational factor in first quarter, maybe second quarter. We're just effectively taking the plant down at the moment. It could take a couple months to bring it back. We don't know yet quite how long it would take. There will be an impact on the earnings. We can't give you a number on the earnings, but we did say 100,000 barrels a day, lower in the integrated gas business overall, which is an aggregate both of the Pearl, Woodside, and Gorgon coming on, Woodside coming off, and Pearl. We can't insure the uninsurable except by us. What was good and bad against the budget, we've just been through a review with the board and the scorecard is at the top of my hand. The costs of both capital and operating expense, we did better than we expected, and I think in large part because of the reaction of the organization to the integration process of BG and visible low prices and the energy and enthusiasm and the motivation to get things right, the opportunity that was there. Some of that we're certain will flow through into 2017. There is great momentum to do the right thing, which is very good to see, whether it's in projects, finance, running the kits in the North Sea, management of spend, simplification, et cetera, some great progress there. Safety, HSE, that's the first thing I should have mentioned. We did have three facilities that were not good. Overall statistics came back to a reasonably good place. Keep that in mind, we integrated BG. And by and large, though they operated well, their statistics were not as good as Shell's. So we've brought them more up to the common standard. Our refining and chemicals availability, that's a bit of money on the table but not a lot, not that material. Upstream availability, we have a program, Fit for the Future. I think Andy [Brown] talked about it. Some of you saw, that added around 100,000 barrels a day or 3% to production, in terms of better availability, low maintenance periods, and just the reliability of the upstream kit. That was a real positive because that should be sustainable as we go forward. And the last thing I will say against the budget, we made the budget on divestments. That was a company's point to make, to be brief on this. And the fact that we've delivered so much in January is a good indicator. We kept saying all along ranges. You may think we were prevaricating. Every deal that we just announced in the last week, there was a really good possibility of closing it before Christmas, but you don't because you go for the right deal, not just to get it into a particular timeframe. If you put the 5 and 5, we could have done 10 last year. We can't give you an exact timing, but we want to give you the right deal.

And then Lydia.

Hi, Biraj Borkhataria at RBC. Just going to slide 19, your deepwater production profile, am I right now in thinking as we move further out, the lines are a bit more fuzzy than they were in the last presentation, and just wondering if anything had changed there in terms of the longer-term deepwater outlook, whether that's venture divestments or IR having artistic freedom, anything on that?

As I don't make the slides myself, I don't know exactly what were the reasons for the...

I do.

...fuzziness, maybe you.

There is enhanced fuzziness on the grounds that it's four or five years out we're talking. That makes it somewhat over-specific. And my new head of Investor Relations or Jessica's new head of Investor Relations would probably regret being too specific, bearing in mind divestments may play a part. There are what would be an aim to clean up the portfolio in the Gulf of Mexico to make sense. And conversely, there are investment opportunities in, for example, Nigeria that if they go ahead, they go ahead. If they don't, they don't. And so the big drivers, the Appomattox, the Stones, the Brazilian program. Question mark around Vito, we've not taken the final investment decision, although it was a great project. Kaikias, we said we're nearly there. So a combination, we just toned down the specificity, but there's no real change in the underlying expectations.

And no change in intent either. This is still very much the growth priority that we know what we are doing with. As you can imagine, we had three growth or three strategic themes that were impacted in a big way by BG. It was integrated gas. It was deepwater, but also our conventional oil and gas portfolio. We completely revisit the strategic intent of all three of them, the funnel, where we are, the plans that we have for them. We worked it through with the board. We did integrated gas and deepwater last year, purely equal with the conventional oil and gas portfolio. We have very clear intent on all three of them going forward, both BG, on deepwater, absolutely no change in the strategic intent, as we signaled in Capital Markets Day in June last year. Lydia?

Thanks, it's Lydia from Barclays, two questions, if I could. The first one on the chemicals side and the divestments on the SADAF side. Given that you've talked about chemicals being a growth area, why was that one that you wanted to sell and how does that future relationship work? And the second one probably more for Simon and just in the context of 31 quarters. Is this the most efficient that you've seen Shell, just in terms of the context of historically, and what is the magnitude of what Shell can be going forward?

Okay. Let me talk about SADAF. SADAF has been part of our portfolio for quite a few years. It's a joint venture that we have had with SABIC actually from the original Shell Oil days, if I remember correctly. There has also been a project or a joint venture that we've been looking at for quite some time together with SABIC. What are we going to do next with it? We needed to do something with it. We needed to invest in the value chain in order to make this project a springboard for further growth in Saudi Arabia. And then these fit also in the strategic narrative of the kingdom, who want to have more downstream petrochemicals and also manufacturing industries around clusters like this. We've worked it for some time. In the end, we decided that the project that we were looking at were not a project that we could align on. We then got into a discussion of what is the future of this venture, what sort of investments are going to be needed. And then, of course, the interests started to diverge, with us of course knowing that this would come to an end of the joint venture agreement in 2020, and SABIC had a different view on it. So rather than to see could we extend it with a big investment program around it to provide the execution for expending it, it became how much are we really committed to the outlook and how much of the investments that we need to do right now will be recovered in our work and the best thing to do was to basically amicably part, which from time to time happens in joint ventures. So there's nothing special about it, no change of heart, nothing to do with our growth priorities. It's just one of these things that happens in ventures.

Is this the most efficient obviously in Shell?

Have you looked into the future?

You read my mind. My answer would be not yet. And the reason is, and just let me reflect. Up through the late 1990s, Shell was the – almost the benchmark of a federal system, autonomous unit. Every one of them, wherever it was in the world Nigeria, Egypt, Brunei, they were efficient and effective. But the world moved on. The world became much more global, much more standard. So I have 120 different ways of running retail, so it was no longer appropriate. We then went through probably a decade of bringing it together, globalize it, think about functional expertise being applied. So that has some very good things, but it can also lead to what one might call excess professionalism and the perfect being the enemy of the good, characterized the last five years and particularly on the bend getting the balance right. Whether it's functional expertise meet asset ownership and deliver the best bottom line outcome, whether it's being provided from the Projects and Technology group or my finance and IT group, there is a much better conversation. It's not just about efficiency. It's about effectiveness as well because the extra dollar might have gone to something worthwhile. And some of you might have met our head of retail, who would be able to persuade any of you within five minutes that the extra dollar was worth spending. Now we don't believe him, not every dollar, but a lot of them are, and that's what's driving the marketing results because he makes more money from spending the extra dollar. And so what we're having is a much better conversation about that. And why do I say not yet, because I know where that conversation is taking us, and that underpins the statement I made. There is multibillion dollar potential on OpEx alone and a bit more probably for the additional margin that Istvan [Kapitany] will deliver I'm sure. And getting that balance right is not easy in an organization as large and complex as Shell, but we're making the organization less complex and we are delivering. And I have every confidence that Jessica will be able to stand here in a year's time and say yes, we did make progress on this.

Thank you. We'll go on the phones first and then to Oswald.

Doug Terreson of Evercore, please go ahead.

Okay, first, congratulations on your progress and good luck to Simon. And then second, Shell has been an industry leader in recognizing the transition that's underway in energy markets and making some hard choices necessary to reposition and hopefully reward shareholders through what you refer to as your world-class investment case. And on this point, when you consider that total shareholder return of the super-majors has only been about 3% annually over 5 and 10 years, which was below some of the market indices, my question is, how do you think about the use of market indices in your comparisons to fortify your framework somewhat, as one of your competitors has announced this week? Or do you think that just using super-major comparisons for instance for performance and compensation should be strictly held to, and why or why not?

It's a remuneration question. I'll take it, it's market indices. I'm not entirely sure whether I will get the question right with the answer I'm going to give, but please say so if I don't. First of all, thanks for acknowledging that we have been indeed a leader in the energy transition, and we continue to do so. Our ambitions are indeed to be a company that is in the vanguard of the energy transition that we are right in the middle of, to future-proof the company, but also to make sure that we find new ways, new business models of making money in an energy system that will look different decades from here on. If I talk about TSR, yes, we have been lagging behind in TSR. I've said before, the first nine decades of the existence of the company, we were clearly the number one, and we lost that in the 1990s when we didn't quite participate in the consolidation of the industry that happened, and we have been fighting our way back. And we want to be back in that number one position again. And we think we can by doing – by focusing on strengthening our returns on capital employed, by focusing on the free cash flow per share, by making sure that we have a resilient financial framework. And if I don't think back on what it is that we expect to be by the end of the decade, which is $25 billion to $30 billion in total free cash flow if you add in an inorganic piece as well, double-digit returns at $60 oil, compare that. It's $12 billion over the last three years, 8% return at $90 oil, I think that ought to drive a very significant increase in total shareholder return. I don't know what else would. Now, what does that mean? If I think I get to the question you referred to, what does it mean for how we look at our remuneration or rather how the board would look at how well we are doing, all of these metrics are actually in our long-term incentives. It is all about free cash flow. It is all about return. It's also in absolute cash flow because we do not want to shrink ourselves to greatness by getting out of positions and improving the total by improving the returns and the free cash flow per share through a divestment or liquidation of the company. And it's also indeed focusing on TSR. So I do think the metrics on which we judge ourselves and the metrics that will drive the very substantial or the biggest part of the senior executive remuneration at our company are aligned with what we promised to our shareholders. Now again, I apologize if I haven't quite got into the heart of your question, but please clarify whether this does it. Okay, good. I said I would go to Oswald next.

Yes, thank you. Just back on LNG and your comments about creating new markets, really in the context of China's recent plan last week or the week before, which seems to say oil production will keep declining, shift more into natural gas, is that a big opportunity for you, or are you already too big? You're obviously China's biggest LNG importer. Can you get bigger there, or they might start to stop at that kind of market size if there's a lot more gas demand. And then secondly, just on exploration, maybe could you give us an update. Talk about any successes last year, if there were any. I didn't note anything, but I note that you have changed out your head of exploration recently. So just really an update on what's happening with your exploration strategy. Thank you.

Okay, let me take the second question first. On China, yes, I think China will remain a very significant growth opportunity for us, for LNG, and for natural gas. Think about it again. China's energy mix about 6% of it is natural gas. They have clear ambitions to grow it to 10% to 15%, and ultimately I suppose to something that is much more like what we have in Europe or in the U.S., 25% to 30%. That of course is a massive amount of gas if you think of it. A lot of it will of course come as bio-plant gas, but an awful of it also is LNG. So we still see very strong growth in natural gas going forward. Will that happen organically and automatically, et cetera? Yes, to a large extent. But for those of you who did pay attention to what China announced I think this morning, they announced another 54 gigawatts of power stations, coal-fired power stations being cancelled. I don't think they will all be replaced by wind farms. I think there will be a very significant amount of natural gas replacement for that as well. And if they were all replaced with wind farms, we'll be looking at that as well, of course. But I was kidding. So we see indeed a tremendous potential in China. Do we have already too much concentration risk in China? I don't think so. Of course, we need to be – we need to tread careful. We need to understand how we grow our position in China and how we diversify within China itself. One of the things we will also be doing, which is part of this market-led growth strategy that we are referring to right now, we will be asking ourselves a question. We have been asking ourselves the question. In which countries can we set up a gas marketing and trading operation as well as a power marketing and trading operation, where actually the regulatory framework will allow us to do so? And at the moment, we are doing exactly that in China. Where we can be in country trading and marketing gas and power, we will. So China is an opportunity for us, India is an emerging opportunity for us. Brazil is another opportunity for us. So we will be entering these markets to be our own customer. So we do not have that concentrated risk of supplying long-term contract LNG to single buyers, where you of course are then dependent on the quality of that long-term relationship and the credit of that particular buyer. So being more integrated into these markets is a strengthening of that position as well. But we will be able to take on in that sense more China risk or more China market risk going forward.

Exploration, when we stood here two years ago, we said we'd do less, we will need less. We did get the total spend down around $2 billion last year, which is in much less frontier. And you tend to hear about the frontier, maybe not the focus in the basins where we are. So in the Gulf of Mexico, the primary success is around Fort Sumter and helping support Vito and Appomattox. In fact, Appomattox gets bigger every time. We look at it, although the design route, not the charges. Obviously, we have to make sure that we can get barrels through the actual facility that we're building. We have good success in the UK. Beryl, actually that supported the sale process, and we've got the contingent payment in there for successful development in future. If we were just a small E&P, you'd be giving us great credit for that deal, drilling a well, monetizing it immediately. And Malaysia, again around what we have done well. Oman, around what we have done well. Nigeria is possibly the biggest opportunity along with Trinidad going forward. You probably won't hear much about any of these. A lot of it is about being careful, using existing infrastructure, working on basins we know well. The Nigeria funding scheme that's been developed and hopefully will be implemented in the not too distant future is a very strong incentive for everybody to start doing right by the investment again. So all of those can come together over time within the $2 billion limit that we've set for ourselves going forward. There will be less frontier work until we see a different, almost both requirement, but also opportunity.

Thank you, Martijn. Martijn P. Rats - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Hello, it's Martijn Rats from Morgan Stanley. I wanted to ask you two questions. First of all, you mentioned both Brazil and the Permian as examples of areas where you have breakevens below $40, and I was just wondering if you could comment. Relative to the size of the company, how deep is the pool of investment opportunities that work at those type of oil prices? Because more and more of the work we're hearing are on projects that have these very low breakevens. But relative to with the close to 4 million barrels you produce, how material is that pool? Can that pool of investment opportunity keep you going for years, or are we just talking about like a handful of projects that maybe carry you for the next one or two years? And the second thing I wanted to ask you about is about the Permian, following your positive comments. My understanding is that the joint venture with Anadarko ends around the middle of the year. And I was wondering if that is a material event or not, but if so how you see that relationship going forward.

Okay. Let me start off with the first question, ask Simon to complete it and then you can think a little bit more when we move on to shale and our relationship with Anadarko, which is very well noted, by the way, Martijn. We actually had exactly that discussion in the board as well a little bit earlier in this week, looking at the S-curve of opportunities that we have. And it is really an S-curve with a very, very large plateau in the middle. And the interesting part of it, it is actually reasonably evenly populated with opportunities that will come out of the unconventionals, opportunities that will come out of the conventional oil and gas business, and opportunities that will come out of deepwater. So it's not as if we have everything concentrated at the front end, when it is say the Permian or unconventionals and the other opportunities sitting at the tail end. Now, my memory fails me at this point in time to remember exactly what was on the x-axis in terms of barrels and how big that would be in relation to the company, but Simon's spreadsheet and mine will probably quickly work it out. But I would say if I more qualitatively talk through it, I think if you look at it, in the deepwater we do not have any lack of that in the opportunities. Indeed, in the sub-$40, in some cases sub-$30 range, to keep on flogging away for at least a decade. So we do not run out of running room of opportunities that are just not good enough. And at the same time, these are getting better all the time. And it's not just a matter of getting better because we see costs further deflating. I think the regime that…

Now the S-curve line was no longer $40, but most of it was under $50. The deepwater wells started off with a $50 cap, and then he's pushing it down to $45, and he's in competition with Greg [Guidry], who runs shale. So while we're on the deepwater, the two of them are literally in competition to bring the line down. We said that's pretty healthy inside the company. And yes, you're right. Anadarko does end in 2017. We're both well aware of it. We're both doing quite some work. There is a bit of a patchwork of operatorship, et cetera. At the moment, that has some implications for who makes decisions and also how far you can go laterally in terms of when you drill. There's a solution to be had where we both end up in a better place. It just is not yet agreed. It's a win-win potential negotiation, not a zero-sum, somebody wins, somebody loses. So I'm pretty confident that we'll get to a point where we're both in a better position. Probably the operatorship is consolidated in a different way, but it should be, at least in theory, either value neutral or some transfer of value one way or the other. Sorry, it shouldn't be value neutral, it should be value-accretive to both of us, and we should both get our fair share ultimately.

Colin, it's going to come to you. Colin Saville Smith - Panmure Gordon (UK) Ltd.: Yes, Colin Smith from Panmure Gordon. Two questions, first one again on chemicals. Just in the context of it being a growth priority and looking at the indicative CapEx going forward. And bearing in mind that you're 100% in the Pennsylvania cracker, but we've never really had a lot of detail when that project gets going. I just wondered if that was included at reasonable scale from 2018, or if you could just talk a little bit about what the program is for it. That's the first question. The second one, I think, Simon, in your chart on shales you have seven blobs but you talked about five core positions. I just wondered if you could elucidate what those are. And I noted that you specifically included Argentina in that, and Ben just talked about the Vaca Muerta. I wondered where you thought that was in terms of maturity and what it takes to actually get you more engaged in doing something with it, bearing in mind the fairly significant progress that some other operators have been making there in the last year or two. Thank you.

Okay, when you talk about the Pennsylvania project, keep (1:43:01). And do you talk about (1:43:03), the capital spend step-up that we will have in 2018? Colin Saville Smith - Panmure Gordon (UK) Ltd.: Yes.

Okay, the overall project, so we sanctioned this project, but of course for affordability reasons, we also said we will have a slower start in terms of stepping up spend on the construction phase. So that will indeed now come because it's ready to get there. And we are still working our way through some of the permits that we need to have, but that's just the normal state of affairs that you will have in any project. But I think by the end of the year, certainly in 2018, we will be in significant investment mode. We haven't announced exactly when it will start up, but expect that to be not anymore this decade because it is a very large greenfield project, but we have gone quite a long way already in terms of getting the site ready. You may recall or you may not know. This was an old zinc smelter that was in need of remediation that we took over and remediated it on behalf of the government and basically now are in a position that we can start building on it. All the silver works, et cetera, are ready for that site. It is indeed a 100% project at this point in time. It is a strategic project, partly also because it is so strategically advantaged, but also because it will be a reentry for us in polyolefins. We had been in polyolefins, got out it through a very difficult convoluted way in the past through a number of joint ventures. This will be a reentry in a way that will sustain our position as a polyolefins player. On the Vaca Muerta, let me say a few things, and I'm sure that Simon will have a few things to add to it as well. Indeed, it…

You guys read these slides pretty closely. We've got seven positions. The five key positions, three liquids, Argentina, Permian, Western Canada. If you include Fox Creek, there are two plays up in Western Canada in liquids. Fox Creek is the one where we will invest to develop, not at the same scale. It may have the quality of the Permian. It doesn't have the same scale as the Permian for us, at least not yet, so there's still a little bit of learning in that area. And Groundbirch and Appalachia. So Groundbirch in Western Canada and Appalachia, basically the Utica, the Marcellus are the two big gas positions. So the five are Argentina, Permian, Fox Creek, Appalachia, and Groundbirch. Haynesville was an acquisition from BG. It's okay, but it's not got the scale or the quality of the other positions. And we actually sold in the Haynesville our own position some time ago. The BG position is better than the old Shell position. It's a valuable asset but it's not necessarily going to stay in the portfolio.

Okay, thank you. What I would like to do is to call it to a close now. There will be opportunity of course for those of you who are here to ask some further questions after this and we have a few drinks. Thank you very much for the questions that you've asked. Again, a reminder to you that, as Simon already announced, we're going to do an update on LNG in London, Singapore in February. In March, we will do another one in New Orleans in the U.S. looking at really how we see that industry going forward. Then of course, we have the first quarter results scheduled on the 4th of May in this year, and that is something that I will do then together with Jessica. Now, normally I have the last words in these sessions. And I think it is appropriate that I give the last word to Simon on this occasion because it's his last results engagement with you. But before I do so, let me say again how incredibly valuable Simon's legacy is in Shell. Of course, you all know Simon from the days that he was in Investor Relations, maybe even before. You also know how tough the journey has been since 2004, but it is a journey of a lot of progress, a lot of legacy positions being filled, being built and established that in the end provided the springboard for us to do BG, and that is a legacy where Simon's fingerprints are all over. So of course, in the last few years, we've had this tremendous time working together on the BG acquisition, which was a period that of course has been transformational in many ways, transformational for our relationship. We got to work really well together. And it's with tremendous joy and satisfaction that we can look back on what has been achieved. And Simon inside the company is very, very well recognized for that and rightly so. Simon, I've enjoyed working with you tremendously. I wish you well going forward, but I think the last words today are yours to have.

It's tough for you guys, I think, because I'm saying farewell. I'm not sure what I'm saying farewell to, but hopefully a better legacy than there otherwise would be had I not been involved. I had a bit of fun with the press this morning, so I'll be slightly less off script. My first words with you guys, actually literally some of you guys, December 2000, when somebody came up, one of you came up to me and said if you do nothing else, move this bloody strategy meeting from the week before Christmas because nobody remembers a word you say. And that was the first, and some of you may claim the only thing I ever actually delivered that you asked. So you were absolutely right. I personally have benefited hugely from that relationship, your ability to – and this may sound strange, simplify and get to the core of what actually matters, whether it's value or risks or some of the choices and decisions we make. And should we say hold up the mirror to us, ask the questions in a way that particularly work for us, don't always do, is actually incredibly powerful and helpful. Because no matter how much we try and surrender ourselves with a diverse challenging critical community, we don't always get the full story, but from you guys we do. That is important. Don't lose that. I'm sorry about the modeling. I'm not a spreadsheet guy by nature, I must say. We can do probably better, but we can never get to perfection. The important point here is I do believe and you have a big part to play in this. Shareholders are a necessary evil. They deserve to understand how we create value through cycle in the longer term. There are a…

Ladies and gentlemen, that will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.