Thanks very much, Patrick and Patrick. We'd like to open up to questions now. If you could just please wait until the microphone arrives before you ask your question and just introduce yourself please. First one from Irene here perhaps. Irene Himona - Société Générale SA (Broker): Thank you. Irene Himona, Société Générale. I have two questions please. Firstly, what cost deflation did you actually see in your CapEx in 2015? And then what do you assume in your new guidance for $19 billion in 2015 and 2016? And then secondly, what proportion of the reserve replacement last year, the 107% was ADCO and the PSC effect respectively? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Second question, I will not answer it, sorry. ADCO is a business. If ADCO was an investment figure, it would be there. So you can make your math and your assumption. But what is important that at the end of the day, the organic renewal rate is continuing to improve about 100%. On the first question, it depends what type of CapEx in fact. Clearly, we have some the rig market has been much more reactive to the situation. But of course, other costs. So there are in our portfolio, as you've seen, when you've – I told you whether it's more than $10 billion of new project being invested, part of that has been contracted under EPC contract and there is little room of maneuver. The drilling part of it has been renegotiated. I can't tell you but our new teams have been – done a great job, even cancelling some contracts in order to get new rigs, and what we have been able to obtain is more or less a reduction of 20% if that is implemented. What we have observed in the market and – is that you have – in the Gulf of Mexico, today you can't find a rig of $200,000 per day, as low as $200,000 per day, if you want to make a project. It's not enough to launch a project there, but it is very reactive. And the assumption, what – the market has more or less, when I look to the indicator, which is delivered by (01:03:34), it's around 20%, 25% in the last year, which is quite reactive, by the way, compared to what happened in 2008 and 2009. So reduction of the cost is going quicker, in particular, again in drilling. Our assumption for the time being in the figure for the future is still – was around 20%, so was conservative, when we show you that the guidance of $17 billion to $19 billion from 2017. The underlying assumptions were 20%. I'm confident we will get them.

We have another question. Theepan, same table.

Thank you. Theepan Jothilingam from Nomura. Just two questions, please. Firstly, could you just talk about the value of the credit rating both the tangible and intangible value, and how that may be impacted by a downgrade? And then secondly, if you could just remind us sort of what your assumption would be in terms of the scrip take up for 2016? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Patrick will answer you on the tangible value. I will respond to the intangible value. As I told you, we try – we have – and Sir Patrick show you the gearing as a value in the – is a parameter, which is followed by the board of director as representing the strength of the balance sheet. And so we have been pleased to see that we were able to have a gearing under 30%, 28%, which give us some rooms to maneuver for future years. And in particular, this year, at $30 per barrel, again with the cash flow breakeven I gave you, if you make some math at $30 per barrel, you can see that this could lead, in the full year, is at $30 per barrel to a gearing increasing by 5% more or less, which makes board of director and myself comfortable and I think the CFO as well if we'll up to 33% or 34%. The assumption we use on scrip dividend is 50%, which is what we have observed this year. Again, scrip dividend in fact is an increase of capital dedicated to shareholders with discount. So I encouraging all the shareholders to follow us and to support us. $1 invested in Total is an excellent – is better than $1 invested in other companies. So you should follow more the scrip…

So there is no other range between AA- and A+?

Okay. I think Oswald has a question. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: We'll see if there's a good chance to be right.

Yeah, please.

Yes. Thank you very much. Oswald Clint at Sanford Bernstein. Slightly longer-term question but you mentioned the 2P reserve number and the focus for low breakeven oil projects. Can you say kind of what's in that 2P reserve bucket? What was the general average breakeven on the projects and how is that number falling away as we think about longer-term growth, longer-term competitive of Total? And second question, you've been signing some LNG contracts, I guess recently in January with Indonesia, China, decent 15 years or so. Can you talk about what that's telling you about LNG demand and also what type of pricing is inherent within those plays? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Laurent will prepare the answer to the question on the pricing. Laurent Vivier of Gas is in the room I think. So Laurent will give you the answer. First, I would like to say, by the way, and before Laurent is thinking to answer, to the right answer, that we are pleased to be able to expand our customer base in LNG. It's very important because LNG markets is shifting clearly from a producing – from a seller market to a buyer market. And so, for launching new projects like the project that we have in Papua New Guinea, which is a low cost project in terms of and very well positioned, we need to find new customers. And the efforts this is the focus of Laurent team is to identify new customers, to go beyond the traditional buyers in China and in Southeast Asia, and Laurent will give you some indication on the – on this type of market price. Laurent, you don't deliver the contract. You are not obliged to answer fully.

Just to say that it's in fact contrary to some expectation in market, which is quite long, but it's still possible to secure those contract. They are very traditional contracts in terms of price formula. It's mostly oil-related at levels maybe slightly above than what has been done just before, and we've been able to put a bit of hurry up into it as well. It's very classical contracts, all related for, which on average for more than 90%. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: The 2P reserves are more than 22 years of production, so it's quite more than 20 billion barrels. The second question that you asked is complex because, again, what is the breakeven the 2P reserves as the projects – some of them have already been sanctioned, they are 2P. So I told you the cost I gave, which was the technical cost for this reserve is around $23 per barrel. I also told you that the all-in OpEx cash flow was $110 per barrel – cash cost, sorry, all-in OpEx cash cost for all this 2P reserve was under $10 per barrel. With these two figures, I think you can derive what you want as what is a breakeven. It's clearly quite low.

Okay. There's a question at the front. Jon?

Yeah. Thank you. It's Jon Rigby from UBS. Just to follow-up on that last question. Maybe I can ask it a slightly different way. To sort of characterize Total over the last decade or so, I think most people would say that you were early in discussing higher oil prices. To what extent was the portfolio, I guess, it's the 2P and probably even the resource base, reflecting that view? And to what extent, if any, are you having to relook at that resource base and positioning in the context of perhaps lower or simply more volatile oil prices, and certainly, in the context of the comment that you made about it being very important to position yourself at the low end of the cost curve in this commodity market? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I know this comment. Your comment is partly right. Having said that, again, the demonstration we gave you is that people are giving this comment, but in terms of technical cost per barrel, we are today at $23 per barrel and we have the best lowest technical costs. So that's true that we have embarked in some projects and you know I can. You have seen this year when we decide to sell 10% of one project in Canada at a low price, it's clearly because we were considering about allocating additional CapEx to this project was not totally in line with the strategy I just described. Having said that, there is no somebody is wrong, somebody is right. We didn't have the same position that oil buyer in the context of Canada because we are less integrated than them. And so we had – we came to the conclusion that this type of reserves were clearly on the high costs merit…

Yeah. There's a question from Iain.

Yeah. Iain Reid of Macquarie. Quite a bit surprised that you didn't lower your breakeven or at least – the oil price at which you could cover your dividends $17 billion, $19 billion despite the fact you're talking about high levels of OpEx reduction and greater efficiencies, et cetera in the upstream and the downstream. Is this because you're expecting those reductions to be kind of competed or normalized away or is it sort of natural caution, which you're introducing here? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: No. It's just a question that I tell you to deliver stable messages. We cannot every six month change or guidance. I didn't want to do that. We focused in September was a strategic presentation. We gave you that guidance, telling you at $60 per barrel, we will be able from 2017 to cover the cash dividend. If I can do better than that, you will have to wait for September 2016 to have a good news. The last four month, three month, we have focused most of our efforts to understand what will be the answer we will bring to the market on 2016. And we will, again, this is a core of the presentation today. On 2016, as you can see, the free cash flow including net asset sales, breakeven will go down to $45 per barrel. For 2017 and beyond, please wait for September 2016 to have either confirmation, which should not be so bad of our guidance.

Okay. Could I try another quick one then. If I saw here a $30 a barrel or so by September, what sort of actions are you going to have to take in order to satisfy yourself that you can get through that with your current plans for your balance sheet, et cetera? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Again, I told you that from 2017 or maybe I don't – there is an important but I think I mentioned it in my speech. Out of the $17 billion, $19 billion of CapEx guidance I gave you, 60% are committed. But 40% are not committed. So we have financial flexibility in case the $30 per barrel was remaining there. But honestly, there is also in my mind and I insisted in my speech a willingness not to impair the future of the company, so not to overreact. But again, if the barrel, price of a barrel remains at $30 or $40 in 2017, then we'll maintain the scrip dividend if we are not able to cover the cash, the dividend in cash. Patrick de la Chevardière - Chief Financial Officer: I just wanted to add that I give you the numbers of our liquidity, and we can go through a long cycle of a low oil price with that.

Question from Thomas here on the left. Thomas Y. Adolff - Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd.: Thomas Adolff, Credit Suisse. Two questions. One, actually, linked to Ian's. So you've kind of presented plan B, 60% is committed out of the $17 billion to $19 billion, and you have sufficient liquidity, et cetera. But at some point, if China goes into a hard lending, U.S. is in the recession. You don't have the support from strong downstream earnings. Where does the specialty chemicals business sit, which is non-core, and you can actually monetize and generate a lot of money out of it? The second question, I guess, is maybe more for iron ore and I wanted to know what sort of discussions you're having on fiscal terms and local content now regarding the former. We're interested in Angola and Nigeria because you do have a big reserve and resource base. And in theory, if the terms are right, you can extend production for a long, long period of time. And regarding the latter, I'm actually more interested in Brazil, because 60% local content requirement in Libra, that's a pretty high number. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Okay. Two different question. Specialty chemicals are non-core. I will not change my position on that. Having said that, they are very good quality assets. And in my view, it's not the way – I don't want to sell such asset just to fill some gaps in the balance sheet. Second question on Angola, Nigeria. I can't speak about Angola because in Angola, maybe you've seen that we have been twice in Angola in the last year in July and then in December and it was mentioned by Sonangol that some agreements were signed. Part of these agreements were clearly to –…

Okay. There's one here for – sorry, forgot your name. Anish Kapadia - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. International LLP: Anish. Hi. It's Anish Kapadia from Tudor Pickering. A couple of questions, please. Firstly, in terms of when you're looking at new investments now in this environment, I was wondering how you balance looking at short cycle investments versus long cycle in terms of replenishing your portfolio. So, for example, you've got relatively small exposure into the U.S. onshore where you could ramp up CapEx quite quickly in a recovering oil price scenario relative to your long cycle exposure. So just thinking about how do you look at maybe getting more exposure to U.S. onshore versus taking on more projects in terms of deepwater? And then the second one, looking forward to 2017, you haven't said much about the projects that are coming on stream. You got quite a few large projects that you're operating, so the likes of Ichthys, Tempa Rossa Kaombo, Yamal and Egina. I was just wondering if you could highlight how those projects are going and if there's – what are the key risks in terms of delivering those on time? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Okay. First question, I expressed we're disappoint but I like in my strategy to focus more on my strong points than on my weak points. My strong points is clearly not U.S. shale. As you see in that room, a lot of people of Total, who are experts in shales will you give me the names. And secondly, I suppose I spend a lot of time on this topic, it's probably the most complicated question. But what I observe is that the objective is not just to make a short-cycle CapEx, it's to deliver cash…

Okay. Thank you. There's one question at the back. Neill?

Thank you. It's Neill Morton from Investec. I had a question on M&A. I'm well aware that a question in M&A is usually a waste of a question. But I just wanted to clarify some of the messaging you gave out today. I think this morning, Patrick, you too was quoted as saying that the recent pitches from investment bankers didn't make sense economically. And you've also talked about preserving the strength of the company and the balance sheet, et cetera. But Patrick, you also said during your presentation that you, "had to prepare for the oil price rebound". You needed to make bold decisions and that you saw opportunities in the coming months. What did you mean by that? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I just tell the truth, I think the strategy for a company like Total. But we are – don't worry, we are fully aligned on that subject. No difference. We are clearly what I think is the best strategy is to invest when you are in the low part of the cycle, because then you can benefit from low cost or for access to new resources at a low cost as well. Having said that, because and the balance sheet can be used to do that. Having said that, we are not in a hurry, we are patient. So I – this is where we agree together. Today, yes, that's true. But a lot of bankers come toward the offices explaining us that we need to spend the money immediately and quickly. All that is very expensive and too expensive. So we have to be patient. The – as I told you, our model is perfectly fitted with that. From 2017, we have more financial flexibility. It's just a question of patience. We are studying opportunities, that's our job. But, again, if we move, it's because we'll have the strong belief that it's worth. So I don't take you with that. We will not move, but again, don't believe – this is will be on, again and linked to my answer to Anish, I prefer things that I can control and then which we are good than things that I don't control and where it will be an adventure.

A question from Aneek. In the center of the group.

Thank you. Aneek Haq from Exane BNP. Two questions actually if you don't mind. The first one is similar to some of the conversations we had earlier. But when you – I don't think it's an unfair statement to say that over the past few years, you've probably given up some of your integration that you had previously. With the chemicals businesses sales, et cetera, but is there a plan potentially given where you are with the lower oil prices today to potentially grow maybe marketing even more aggressively than you have done in the chemicals potentially even more aggressively? And then the second question on LNG. I think you said two-thirds of the contracts that you had was sort of price review or after 2020 price review in your September presentation. I just wondered if there had been some pressure on those contracts just recently given the oil price fall. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Okay. No. First the first question, we didn't – I mean, frankly, I think we were strong on keeping the integration of the group. What we sold, what we have sold as chemicals, our specialty chemicals like the additives, where there was no integration between the additive and the rest of the company like there is no integration between (1:30:50) and the rest of the company. This is why I answered to Thomas that they are non-core. The integration is what we kept, and when we made the IPO about Arkema for the same idea, what we kept in Total was basically the petrochemical with the crackers and the big polymers, which are linked to, I would say, the downstream of refinery. And when we set together, we put together refining and chemicals as a division. It was exactly the idea…

A very short answer. Nothing has changed. We had a roughly two-third of the portfolio which was subject to some price reviews. We were talking about the E&P portfolio, so those are long-term contracts, 20-year contract with partners, which are usually integrated companies and dilution as well to shareholders in the (01:33:58) plants. So, no, nothing has changed since September with no discussion on specific terms. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: But what we told you in September, remember, it's what one-third review is after 2020. One-third. One-third with no price review. One-third after 2020. And we have one-third before 2020. So maybe on the focus is more on the one-third before 2020 for your answer. Okay.

Okay. A question from Marc I think, here at the same table.

Thanks very much. It's Marc Kofler from Jefferies. Another question on the downstream please. I was just wondering if you could give us an update on the (01:34:38) year-to-date. And then also, just sort of more broadly thinking about refining in 2016 versus last year, if there's any sort of more structural observations you might have on the market, be it around strength in gasoline cracks or perhaps any observations you might have on refinery utilizations as we run through the year? Thanks. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Philippe Sauquet will answer to the second question. I can answer the first one. I've done it in my speech, but I wasn't clear. It's $41 per tonne year-to-date since the beginning of the $41 and today, this morning, it was around $36. So $35 per tonne assumption is not so optimistic but Philippe could answer, but as you see, the gasoline market and the various components of the product market. Philippe Sauquet - President-Refining & Chemicals Segment: Yes, for – as a you know, 2015, we saw in fact a soft increase of gasoline demand especially in the U.S. but also in Nigeria, India and China. So the demand was very high in 2015 and the cracks were very high. 2016, of course, remain to be seen but what we see in the beginning of this year, we are at the – even in the winter some high cracks on gasoline. And what we are seeing at least on the supply side is that a lot of project of new capacities have been delayed, mostly by integrated players. And therefore, even if we are a bit less maybe optimistic on the demand side, 2016, the supply side is much lower but was anticipated and this is what we…

I think there's one from Lydia (1:37:52) right at the back. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Lydia (1:37:56) is at the back. That's strange.

Thank you. Two questions, if I could. The first one on the OpEx side, and there have been some very, very impressive improvements in the upstream OpEx of the barrel side. Can you talk about where you think that ultimately can go to. Are we looking at a case of we can go back to 2006, 2007 levels in terms of – if the oil price stays where we are? And if actually is that sort of thing possible? And the second one, just to come back to that longer-term outlook, you showed two slides on that longer-term outlook, one being on there's a shortfall in supply for the oil side. And so is 2020 by the time we get there. And then the next slides, talking about gas prioritization and towards the 2-degree world, can you just talk about how you're making those decisions in a world where the policy, particularly in carbon pricing is very early on and that we're not actually necessarily have the policy to support that 2-degree world? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I think, the OpEx can go as low as where they were in 2005. There is no reason. We are in an industry where the cost, I mean, either the OpEx or the fiscal terms are following the price. Everybody wants us to continue. We want to invest. The full system – those countries want us to invest. The supply chain wants to invest even they have capacities to deliver, which are not used anymore or which will not be used. So it's a question of finding the right balance. As I said often I usually measure a cake. Okay, the cake is divided not by three but by nine, in fact, the surface of the cake. So the…

Any more questions? Chris?

Thank you. It's Chris Kuplent from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Just two questions. The CapEx cut for 2016 going down to $19 billion, can you explain where that cut is coming from compared to your previous assumption of $20 billion, $21 billion. Is it because you're not really – I didn't, I wasn't aware of any major FIDs that are coming up, so I didn't see much that you could delay. So, just some color on where that reduction is coming from? And talking of FIDs and thinking about 2017, which one of those projects that you've highlighted in your speech you are most excited about and you think are the best prospects over the next 18 months to FID, and under what long-term planning assumptions would you be happy to do that? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I tried to answer in my speech to your first question. The decrease is due to first to, clearly, some market effects, for example, in the rig markets. So, have taken that into account. The negotiation which were led by Arnaud teams were efficient. And so we have taken part of that. The second point I mentioned as well is that, again, we have a policy on mature fields, in which we invest. We have a two-year payout on that. So, we have reduced part of the CapEx, because at $30 per barrel, you don't have the same payout but on $50 or $60 per barrel. So, we have reduced – $30 or $40, we took $40 more than $30, by the way – we have reduced the level of CapEx allocated to some mature assets, so, some mature assets as well. So, there is no – these things have been done – by the way,…

Thank you. Just to clarify on your first answer. It does include $1.5 billion of exploration. And I remember in September you said that is not enough for 100% reserve replacement ratio. So, that budget still includes room for external... Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: No, no, no, look, you have all the answer in my answer. If you look carefully to what I told you today, you have all the answers. The $1.5 billion explorations, the CapEx part is around $1 billion more or less – a little less, it's included, as it's shown on the slide, in the $19 billion. Then, I told you something else, that the net asset sales minus purchase is around $2 billion, and we have a plan for $4 billion sales. So, that means that we are targeting to buy assets for $2 billion somewhere.

Understood. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Not only in upstream. So, again, yes, we will. The objective of an oil and gas company and of Arnaud teams is to have 100% replacement rates from reserves and we have to ensure the future even if you can have years up and downs. But, again, you've seen the slides shown by Patrick, we have improved year after year, our capacity, to the organic rates of return, so that's the answer.

Okay. I think Lucas has a question.

Yeah, thanks very much, Mike. You've done most of the forecasting for me. So, thank you very much. Couple of points of clarity and then one which is slightly conceptual. Points of clarity, just in terms of the growth estimates for this year, I presume that there's no assumption that Yemen comes back in 2016. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: No assumption. No, we are realistic guys.

Okay. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: So, you could have a good surprise but I'm afraid this one will be a very good surprise, unfortunately.

Thank you for that. And then just on LNG, a couple of questions. First, whether Laurent might be able to give us some – what the average realized price for your sales was this year. And how much – what proportion of the contracts have collars? So to what extent can I feel secure around pricing in the current year? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. That's a good question, this one. The realized price we gave you from Patrick presentation, 33% on the world gas portfolio. I'm not sure we want to disclose what is the impact on LNG, but it's true, the 33% is less than the 47% on the Brent, there are two effects. One is a lag time in the formula, the second is that on many LNG formulas, you have what we call the – it's a S-curve, so you have what you call a floor somewhere, and which could be hit and sometimes we don't like it on the – we are not liking the S-curve when it was reaching the high prices. We quite like these ones on the low prices today. So it helps to have this gas price being resilient.

But sorry, did I hear a proportion that are – that have built around an S? Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: I think it's more – quite a high proportion, I think. Yeah? No? Laurent?

No – but – yes. Most of the LNG deals do have an S-curve. To give an exact point of inflection, it depends on the history of the contract. So it's really a kind of continuum. But the fact that you have those S-curves, the fact you have as well a few constants in the formulas do help in terms of the resilience of the LNG prices. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. You have constants as well which are almost as important as the S-curve.

And then, Patrick, I mean a more conceptual question, the price moves in a cycle, and I don't think that many of us would disagree with you that prices at some point have got to rebound. But structurally, it feels as though we're probably in – maybe this plays to the point on operating cost, we're now into a period where the industry is quite possibly going to face extended period of price deflation, and that the U.S. will help that price deflation along. So, where does that leave you when you think about investing into things like Papua, whatever duration type projects where the capital upfront is substantial. The breakeven today may be $7, $8 on gas, but in five years' time, the breakeven on that same project will be $5, $6 gas. And the reality – and the danger is that consequently, you find actually, what looks competitive today is taken away from you very quickly tomorrow. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: But you know, Papua is a good example of a long cycle investment. So, I'm more nervous today on some short plateau on which even if I benefit some low costs, as the price remain low, I will produce most of my reserves during four years, five years at a low price where it's more risky there. But on Papua, Papua's main challenge for me first is to find the customers with good contracts. But again, if today, I think in 2018 – 2017, 2018 when we'll go to the market to ask for bids to build a new LNG plant, I'm not sure there will be many projects. And the people, the EPC contractors would be very happy to come to us. And so, we'll be in a pricing power position where we could benefit from low costs. So, if you keep that perspective, I'm confident, but again, we have to be very serious and disciplined on the costs we obtain in order to maintain the low cost base. But Papua is well positioned near the markets. So, transportation costs are minimum. I think it's a good project. We will not rush on it. We have no – I mean we won't rush. We have first to find the customers and second, to stabilize a scheme so we are – but again, I think, in that case, I'm comfortable with investing in long cycle projects.

Okay, thank you. After all of Lucas' questions, we have time for one more. Yeah. So Kim, right at the back.

Yeah. Hi. Kim Fustier of HSBC. Could you please characterize the current environment for asset disposals? Most people would say it's more of a buyers' market, yet you appear to have front-end loaded the disposals target for 2016, or was that rather slippage from last year's target which you didn't quite manage to achieve? Thank you. Patrick Pouyanné - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer: It's clear that it's not the best time to sell upstream assets. Again, this year we have made some excellent deal in upstream in 2015, I will not mention them because the buyer will not be happy. And we have done some deals like Usan, where we decided to stop. So, if you want – but in our portfolio, we still have some non-core assets, not the specialty chemicals, Thomas, don't dream. But we have other assets like pipelines, like fertilizers, like things which frankly are not core and that we can try to divest. So, the $4 billion target will – we are looking to see if we could have some good offers from upstream mature fields, for example. You have companies today to try to benefit from the situation, to get some mature fields and maybe it has interest for us to divest some of them. It's a question of, again, of cost base. But again, if we have the right value; if we don't have the right value, we'll keep the asset. So, we have many ideas. The advantage to have a large company like Total is we have a lot of assets, and we are discovering new assets sometimes that we don't know including an infrastructure. And so, we are pragmatic. And I know it's not the best time for some of the assets, but when you go to the infrastructure market, you find buyers.

All right. Thanks very much, everyone, for coming today. Thanks to two Patricks for all the answers. I think all the Executive Committee is here, so if you'd like to join us for some drinks at the back of the room, we can carry over – carry on the discussion over a drink. Thanks very much. Bye.