Thank you, Stuart, for the introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our Q1 conference call for the first quarter in the financial year 2022/2023. We have published our quarterly report. It's also the press release and the PowerPoint that we discuss with you right now on our website. Thank you very much for your interest in CropEnergies and joining our conference call today. You have seen on June 15, we have via ad hoc release come out already with our preliminary figures for Q1. At that point of time, we have also updated and increased our yearly outlook for the financial year. Both, that means the preliminary figures and the forecast for the current financial year we confirm today. Let's get started with the presentation. On page number two, you can find the agenda for today. What is on the agenda? I will have a focus on update on politics. You have been with us during the analyst conference and the annual press conference, and there we have already talked a lot about politics. We are still in this food versus fuel debate, but nevertheless, there are also positive signs, and I will comment on them later in the politics sections. There's also news from the Fit for 55 package on European level, and then we will treat the development of the CropEnergies group. We will have a look into markets and prices and the production and give you an update on our strategy and within this context some information on our acquisition of a 20% share in LXP Group. Finally, we will have a look into the financials for the first quarter and give you some more details on the outlook for financial year 2022/2023. Let's get started with politics. You can find that on page number three. As I have stated in the introductions, we have given a lot of information about the benefits of biofuels. That means not only bioethanol, what we produce, but also biodiesel and biomethane in the context of our annual press conference and annual analyst conference. Because we are in the midst of this food versus fuel debate, the discussion is ongoing. Since mid of May when we talked to you last time, I think there also have been some good signs as of now if you read the press also. In the meantime, we had a lot of press contacts and also contacts with politicians. I believe that today the discussion is much more nuanced. We want to contribute, as I said last time, to this debate and want to inform with the facts and figures and show also the big benefits of biofuels. The situation in Germany is unchanged. Here is still part of the German federal government. They strive for less biofuels. To our understanding, there is still no agreed upon position from the federal government. For the time being, it's difficult to assess for us whether or not this will lead into a concrete legal proposal, which then will be or has to be discussed in government and later on in parliament. This is still ongoing. We believe that this discussion against biofuels, which was initiated by NGOs, falls short, because biofuels are absolutely sustainable. 100% of the biofuels are certified sustainable. There are certification schemes in place which we fully respect. It's also important to state once more that biofuels have no significant influence on agricultural prices. What is really important, the biorefinery concept that CropEnergies fulfills has huge advantages with the integrated productions of food, feed, and biofuels. You find this on the right-hand side once more. If you use 1 ton of grain, it's 300 kg of ethanol that we produce. Even more, that means 400 kg of protein-rich food and animal feed products and 300 kg biogenic carbon dioxide. As I said, also in the discussions, we have seen also good support and understanding. It's not unanimous against biofuels. I fully comply with that and stick to that, there are huge arguments and good arguments for European ethanol. It's not only about CropEnergies, it's for our entire industry in Europe. What we do when producing and then with the mineral oil companies blending biofuels into fuels, this helps us for the security of supply. That means every cubic meter, every ton that is blended reduces our dependency also on Russian gas and oil. It's clear climate protection must not stand still. This is a serious issue for the decade to come. Biofuels help to reduce the GHG footprint of fuels and gives a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions reduction. It also depends on, in the protein field, as we produce animal, food and feed protein products, we reduce our dependency on protein imports. What is also important, also given the fear for recession, that mobility has to be affordable. We can clearly see that the fuels with a high degree of biofuels are cheaper than others. We see this in France with superéthanol, which contains 85% ethanol, but we can also see that in Germany, where an E10 blend is EUR 0.07-EUR 0.08 cheaper than E5. Blending biofuels also helps to have affordable fuel. All in all, my key message here is that we cannot do without biofuels, and especially for our climate policy, we need a strong political support for biofuels. Let's move on and have a look what has been new on European level since we talked last time, mid of May. As a reminder, the discussions on the Renewable Energy Directive moves forward, so the trilogue is ongoing. That's a trilogue between the European Commission, the Parliament, and the European Council. What are the key elements of the proposed revision of the Renewable Energy Directive? In place we have the Renewable Energy Directive II, and what is discussed now is also discussed under the label of RED III. That means the next Renewable Energy Directive. This is not new to you, we have already stated this, so there is a methodological change in inside, t hat means, the energy quota of 14% under RED II scheme shall be replaced by a greenhouse gas reduction target of 13% by 2030. When it comes to biofuels, the key element is, that the share that is reached in the member states in 2020, shall be maintained, plus maximum 1%, but within the limit of 7%. As I said last time, this is, to our mind, a good compromise. In the RED II proposals, there's elimination of multipliers and credits. What is our overall assessment from CropEnergies's perspective, we believe, that we still need some higher greenhouse gas targets. That means the 13%, to our point of view, should be revised upwards because we have to be more ambitious on climate protection, and we are not in favor of a one-sided focus on e-mobility. We love it much more in favor of technical neutrality and technical openness for all technologies, as all of them will be needed to defossilize transport. What are the next steps in Europe? The Council, they have reached an agreement on 27th of June. In most parts, the Council is aligned with the European Commission proposal. There are some changes. One is that an energy target, that is what is in place for RED II, with 14%, should be, from the European Council's perspective, maintained, but increased from 14%- 29%. In parallel, an energy target and a greenhouse gas reduction target. This is the Commission proposal, and they also apply multipliers. On the European Parliament level, the negotiations continue, and we expect that the plenary vote is to come in September 2022, and then the trilogue to be started as of autumn 2022. What is our assessment all in all? As I said, we believe these RED III proposals, they go in the right direction. I think we have to be more ambitious when it comes to climate protection. Nevertheless, you find this on page five, there's one aspect in RED III trilogue discussions which we fully opposed to. That is the new CO2 targets for cars. You will have read that the proposal from the member states, they advocate on a ban on vehicles, new vehicles, with internal combustion engines from 2035 onwards. This is linked to the proposal that tailpipe emissions shall be reduced by 100% by 2035. This leads to a quasi ban of the internal combustion engines, and we fully oppose to that. Under the German contribution to the negotiations or to the final compromise that has been found on the council, there's an opening clause for synthetic fuels, for e-fuels, but it's still quite unclear how this shall work, and it's then subject to the discussions, and we fear that this, at the end, might not be a technology neutral regulation. Why do we think this is not okay? We believe, or our assessment is, that we need a fair competition between the technologies. We believe we need all technologies to defossilize transport. What has to be taken into account from our point of view are life cycle emissions from each technologies. We are not okay if only tailpipe emissions are taken into account, because by that definition, it's a methodological definition, battery electric cars are treated as zero-emission cars with. And this means neglecting the energy mix, which is not 100% green. But nevertheless, it's treated as zero emissions. Also there's huge CO2 footprint from the batteries productions, which is not taken into account either. We lobby for that, to be seen how this will work out, but it's clear from our point of view, the internal combustion is not the problem. The problem is what it burns. If you have an internal combustion engine which runs with biofuels and e-fuels, can be 100% climate friendly. Far on politics. Let's have a look on page six. What is the market development in the current year? Let's maybe start with the graph on the right-hand side. You can see here the ethanol sales in Europe, EU-27 plus U.K. You can see over the last four years, there's an upward trend. Our assumption for 2022 is ethanol sales to reach the level of roughly 9 million cubic meters. Production is to be assumed at 7.7 million cubic meters. That means that we assume net imports to come to the European continent in amount of roughly 1.5 million cubic meters after 1.1 million cubic meters last year. Interesting to see what's new on the E10 side. That means a fuel with 10% ethanol. We can see clearly that E10 is number one petrol in many European countries. We have seen in recent months a strong sales increase in France, Sweden and U.K. You can see still last on the list, that's the right-hand bottom graph. Germany is still last on that list with an E10 share of 22%. Nevertheless, also here we have some good news because E10 sales in Germany also increased. We have here the BAFA data for April 2022, and you can see that consumption is strongly up year-over-year, and the market share increased to 23%. If you look in more detail into the BAFA data, you can see that gasoline consumption was up if you take, for example, year-to-date figures, April, that means four months in the current year, we can see that gasoline sales is up by roughly 10%, but ethanol sales are up by 26%. That means the blending has been increased. This also shows that despite the political discussions that we have, biofuels for our consumers or from a mobility perspective are very researched for technology and option to develop sustainable transport. It's within the figures, even though politicians are not fully or not all of them are in favor of biofuels. Let's continue with page number seven. Here we will have a look on the ethanol prices and feedstock markets. Let's maybe I'll also start with the graph. That is quite speaking. We can see that in the current financial year, that's the green line that we are on a very high level, yeah, with ethanol prices in the first quarter of our financial year being above 1,100 cu m, strongly above last year's figures. Last year, you can see that's the black line was characterized by very high volatility. You know, I always state that ethanol markets are volatile, but what we have seen last year, that is, stronger than ever, so with very low prices and very high prices. Since the financial year beginning, we see high ethanol prices, which is triggered by the general price increase we see on all commodity and energy markets after the Russian aggression on Ukraine. Same is true for the grain prices, for the feedstock markets. You can see here also the green line for the current financial year. Grain prices are very high, reaching partly over EUR 400 a ton. This is significantly higher than last year. When it comes to the volumes on the harvest perspective, they are not too bad. If we start maybe with a look on the European market, you can see here that production is expected to be 294 million tons, yeah, after 293 million tons last year, and with a consumption which is slightly decreased at 258 million tons after 260 million tons. This volume parameter, let's say 290 production, 260 production was quite stable over the last three years. There are always some fluctuations, but on average, we have always been in this field, so it's a stable surplus production in Europe. Worldwide, the IGC expects a slight decrease with 2.241 million tons produced worldwide. There is a strong price increase triggered by the Ukraine war. You can also see by this numbers, it's not really an issue with quantities, it's an issue with availability and the uncertainty of how the regions of Ukraine and Russia might or might not be able to export their surplus volumes. On the next slide, we have a point on gas prices because we have to be vigilant here on the energy price side and the gas price side. There is uncertainty about the future, how this will further develop. We see high prices since the beginning of the war, even higher now with a slight upward trend. You can also see recently this has been increased due to the uncertainties of Nord Stream 1. I will come back later to this point when we discuss the forecast for the financial year. We still believe that we will have enough raw materials and energy to fulfill our production plan. Let's come to an update on our strategy. You find this on page number nine. It's our. You know, last year we communicated our new strategy under this slogan, innovation from biomass. Since then, we are fully working with all our colleagues on executing upon this strategy, and we have good progress. The first point is, we want to have sustainable and climate neutrality in our traditional core business of mobility. That means with sustainable and climate-friendly fuels. Even though we have these political discussions, I strongly believe that first generation ethanol is the best and available and affordable technology, which is also available on large scale to defossilize transport. We are fully committed to our current business field. On top of that, we want to develop the second generation biofuels. That means this is ethanol from waste and residues. In this context, and on the next page, I will show you that we have acquired a 20% stake in LXP Group. This is completely linked to the first point of our strategy. That means on top of 1G to develop second generation. We also have good progress on the second field here in our strategy, which is a new business area based on ethanol derivatives. We have already communicated that we plan to have a renewable ethyl acetate plant close to sites. Here the basic engineering is going as foreseen, and we are confident to reach here a positive investment decision later this year. We fulfill also our strategies and projects when it comes to CO2 usage, for example, for synthetic fuels. We also continue projects with protein-rich products for food and animal feed industry. This is all upon execution, and the point that I can discuss with you today is our acquisition in LXP Group. You find this on page number 10. We have within a financing round, we have acquired a roughly 20% stake in this biotech startup. What makes this startup very interesting to us, they have a patented technology for opening up cellulosic material. That means it's a patented process, a mild digestion of cellulosic and hemicellulosic biomass. This can be all kind of biomass. For example, forest and wood residues or straw residues. All kind of biomass can be opened with the technologies. In this production process, also a natural lignin is produced. This is an interesting material for 3D printer inks, carbon fibers, or phenolic resins. In the discussions that we have with politicians, we always stress the point that it's not feasible and not intelligent or not good to separate 1G from 2G interests. We fully believe that first generation ethanol or biofuels need the second generation, but also the second generation needs the first generation. Both of them go hand in hand. What we have in mind is to integrate once this technology is proven on a large scale usage applications. We want to integrate this in our existing biorefineries. What is LXP Group now doing for the year 2022-2023 is building up a pilot plant for 15,000 tons of biomass. This is very interesting. If you want to have further information on LXP, you'll find, for example, also on the MIG Fonds website. This is the early investor in LXP Group. You'll find additional information under portfolio news. So far on politics, markets and strategy. I continue now on page number 11 with the financial figures. You can see at first sight, even though there is uncertainty coming from politics, if we look into our Q1 figures, they are very strong. We take this really as an indicator that despite the political discussions, there's a strong demand for biofuels. We, as I said, we believe that our technology is best to defossilize transport in the moment. We meet the requirement from our customers and the mobility needs. You can see, let's start with ethanol productions, but I will go into the details later on. You see ethanol productions is up as also revenues reaching almost EUR 400 million. That's a new record for quarterly revenue. Also same is true for operating profit with EUR 87 million, t his is an exceptional value. Our net financial position now amounts to EUR 332 million. We continue on page 12 with some details on production and operating profit. Let's start with the graph on the right-hand side. You can see that production is really good. With 281,000 cu m, 19% above prior year's quarter with 235,000 cu m. It was a strong production in all of our plants. This is positive. When it comes to revenues in line with the higher production, our sales volumes went up in the same amount. Given the high prices that I've already shown you on page seven, we came out with revenues of roughly EUR 400 million. You can see that, cost of materials also went up significantly, by EUR 163 million additional cost, compared to Q1. This is linked to the fact that on the one side, we have a higher production. That means a higher raw material intake, but also from a price perspective, raw materials followed the overall trend, like all other energy and, raw material commodities with much higher prices. We came out, as you can see that further operating expenses and income, are quite stable. We came out with an EBITDA of roughly EUR 98 million. Then after EUR 10.6 million of depreciation, we came out with an operating profit of EUR 87 million. In this figure, we also, that's also what we communicated in our ad hoc release. We benefited from early price hedging because as you know, we do a rolling hedging for commodities, and they were a huge part done prior to the start of the Russian war against Ukraine. We benefited from early hedging. That means lower raw material prices. Let's have a look on page 13. Here you can see what is coming below operating profit, but there are no extraordinary items or special items. That means these restructuring results, special items are zero. Our equity result is slightly positive. This is linked to the CO2 liquefaction joint venture with Solvay. You can also see that financial result is slightly positive. We see here every quarter else some unrealized currency gains or losses. For Q1 this year, it's unrealized currency gains leading to a slightly positive financial result. Taxes came out at EUR 23 million. That means tax rate is at 28%. Sorry, I correct myself. Tax rate is now at 26% after 28% in prior year's quarter. Finally, we came out with an EPS of EUR 0.74 per share. Let's come to cash flow on page number 14. You can see, given the high EBITDA, we also came in with a high cash flow. Cash flow itself turned out at EUR 73 million. We have positive effects from working capital changes, leading to an operating cash flow of EUR 108.5 million, which is a strong figure. When it comes to investments in property, plant, and equipment, you see here EUR 4 million in CapEx. This cannot or this is not to be annualized. Times four. Quarter one, there was less expenditure that we foresee for the remainder of the year because our CapEx forecast for this year is in the field of EUR 45 million-EUR 50 million. At the end, our net financial cash position turned out at EUR 330 million. As I stated over the last conference calls, this gives us a good starting point for executing upon our strategy. As I said, other projects will follow, and we will use this cash position to execute upon our strategy. Last but not least, I want to give you some insight into our outlook. You find that on the page 15. We have already increased our outlook for this financial year on June 15, and we confirm the figures today. What are our assumptions for our forecast? I mean, it's clear the Ukrainian war and the situation gives a particular uncertainty to not only us, to the entire industry in Europe. There are also recession concerns. We believe from the mobility perspective that there will be a normalization. I mean, we see increased infection rates, but the demand for mobility is high. We see here, or we assume a normalization of the mobility behavior. As I said, the impact of the Ukraine war on sales, energy and raw material markets is still difficult to assess. We make the assumption that there will be a sufficient energy and raw materials so that we can fulfill our production plan. What has changed recently, the declaration of gas emergency plan alert in Germany. We make the assumption that this will, for the time being, not have a significant negative impact on prices. When it comes to politics, given the fact that we see so many good arguments in favor of biofuels, we do not believe that E.U. member states will lower their blending obligations. It's the other way around, given the high advantages of biofuels, we believe that E.U. member states will essentially maintain their blending targets for biofuels. Given that context and given those assumptions, we assume revenues to range between EUR 1.45 billion-EUR 1.55 billion. That means midpoint 1.5. EBITDA with a midpoint of 230 and operating profit with a midpoint of EUR 190 million. That means in a range of EUR 165 million-EUR 215 million. Far the presentation on politics, markets, and financials. I'm now happy to take your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star followed by one on his touch tone telephone. To withdraw your question, you may press star followed by two. Your questions will be answered in the order they are received. If you're using speaker equipment today, please lift the handset before making your selections. Anyone who has a question may press star followed by one at this time. One moment for the first question, please. First question is from the line of Axel Herlinghaus from. Oh, I'm sorry, just disconnected. The next question is from Thomas Hofmann from LBBW. Please go ahead. Mr. Hofmann, can you please unmute your telephone? Yes. Good morning, Dr. Meeder. Thomas Hofmann from LBBW speaking. Dr. Meeder, one question to the possible shutdown of gas imports beginning of end of July. Is it possible that the German government will shut down your gas needs in Germany if things getting worse? Thank you, Mr. Hofmann. Thank you. I mean, the situation is we have this gas alert system, and then we are very vigilant. For the time being, we do not believe that this will have a major impact on us, as we are very important industry, also in Zeitz, we believe this could be less than 10% affected. If Zeitz gets no gas anymore, that wouldn't be so negative for you, for the company? Yeah. I mean, yeah, but we see this isolated. For me, it's really difficult to judge upon what will then be the overall situation in Germany. This would have a major impact on many industries. For the time being, it's really difficult to assess. I mean, the advantage that we have that is that four of our plants are in different regions with a different energy setup. We believe whatever happens, we will be able to mitigate production issues, but we are not shielded against. Okay. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Michael Schäfer from ODDO BHF. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks for taking my question. I have a couple of them. Maybe start with the current trading and what we just referred to on the raw materials or energy side. Mr. Meeder, you stated in your outlook statement basically that you don't expect any major significant negative price impact from whatever kind of declaration of gas emergency plan, et cetera. We have seen second level in the meantime. We have seen spot prices going through the roof over the past couple of months, now trading EUR 160 or even EUR 170 per megawatt hour at TTF. I wonder whether you can shed some more light on whatever type of hedging you have in place and what shields you from, let's say, the most recent spot price evolution. This would be my first question, maybe the second related to this one. You elaborated on the back of the very strong performance you have shown in the first quarter and what you're guiding here on a quarterly basis in the upcoming quarters. The Q1 benefited strongly from very early favorable hedges on raw materials and energy. The question is now, since you're assuming virtually a halving of earnings or EBITDA wise in the quarters to come, so what's... What's the kind of underlying assumptions you have on the pricing side and how the spread may then basically evolve, or should we think about any kind of volume contraction on your side as well? This would be my operating questions, and then I have a couple of others as well. Okay. Let's start with this current trading and the hedging. As this is confidential information, I cannot disclose the full hedging rate. I start with a more generic answer. When it comes to raw material hedging, we typically start whenever we see interesting prices. We start hedging raw material prices, let's say 12-18, sometimes 20 months ahead. Yeah. Several quarters ahead, we build up positions because the longer you go, the lower the liquidity, but step by step, we build up hedging position. That means, if we talk now about Q1 for the current fiscal year, you can assume that the major part of our raw material intake is hedged, not fully, but a major part is hedged. The same is true on energy prices for our plants. We have hedges in place long-term yearly contracts with hedging and prices. That's where we depend on spot prices. Also, we have already a high hedging rate for energy prices. You can also assume that the major part is already hedged. As I said, we do, for example, for the raw material hedging, this 12-18 months ahead. You can assume that over the next quarters, this will decrease significantly, and then also we will be affected by the higher grain prices. Nevertheless, as you have seen on the chart, grain prices have left the regions of above EUR 400, being now more in the field of EUR 330 per ton. Nevertheless, this would be an increase compared to raw material prices in Q1. Looking next year, I mean, I know it's early, but I take it from when it comes to energy hedging, so if you roll into next year, probably, you know, this is when you should, when we should expect basically the higher energy prices or to basically enter the P&L. Is this a fair assumption? Pardon, can you repeat that, please? Sorry. If you look into next fiscal year, I mean, I take it basically that you're pretty much hedged on the energy side for this fiscal year. As we roll through, I don't know how you see current prices and whether you are hedging actively right now on the energy cost side rolling into next year. Are you a bit, you know, cautious given the where we are in terms of the sheer, you know, the sheer price level which we have seen in gas, or are there any mitigating measures you're already preparing for heading into next year in order to not take the full hit from what we see right now in terms of energy costs? I mean, we have first hedging positions until 2024, but on a much lower level. In general, you can say that for the financial year 2023-2024, there's low hedging positions. We believe that when it comes to, let's start maybe with grain prices. We have seen or if you look historically, we have been seeing grain prices in the EUR 180-EUR 190 a ton. Yeah. We believe that the new normal without, that means without an uncertainty from the world, we believe nevertheless that the new normal for grain prices is clearly above EUR 200 a ton. From our perspective, we will not see prices to come back like we have seen over the last year. We assume a general price increase on the raw material side. This is linked to inflation, higher cost for fertilizers, for fuels, for everything. Agricultural production prices go up. We assume higher prices on raw materials. When it comes to the ethanol, we have seen over the last months, and we assume this to continue. We see quite a good correlation between high raw material prices, high energy prices, and the ethanol prices. That means from our hedging, when it comes to ethanol hedging, we do very little, because we do not if you look into the forward curve, there's a strong backwardation. For the time being, we are not willing or doing buying into the backwardation. Mm-hmm. Okay, cool. Understood. Coming back to a bit more regulatory side of things. I know we discussed this in May, but since then, looking into the German press over the weekend, you know, that at least they put something in terms of on the calendar, so that next week on the thirteenth of July, so that the German cabinet may meet, and on the agenda, there will be on this discussion on the potential whatever is kind of regulatory change here in Germany, or at least proposed. Do you have any more insights on this one you can share with us? No. As I said, from our knowledge, there's still no unified position. Mm-hmm. We follow this primarily also over the press, and here you can see that the Transport Minister, Wissing, declared in the press that he's not willing to accept this proposal as the transport sector needs to, or is accounted for, or is accountable for, CO2 reductions. That means taking out the technology which has over 90%, I think it's over 90% of the CO2 reduction is done via biofuels. There is a strong opposition from the transport minister side against this proposal. We do not have the full picture. It's clear we have an Ampel coalition which has to find compromises, and it's difficult to assess whether this will really lead to a legal proposal that is then really debated upon in the government and then in parliament. So far, what we can see, there hasn't been any stakeholder consultation. That means that we have not been addressed officially with this law proposal, and it's unclear for the time being. As I said, there are so many good arguments in favor of biofuels, personally, I do not believe that this will come because we will not meet our climate goals without biofuels. This is true not only for bioethanol, but also for biodiesel and biomethane. I do not believe that there will be a drop in first-generation biofuels. It's to be seen. As you said, I think the thirteenth of July is the last consultation of the government before the summer break. We will see what is the result of this meeting. Okay. Finally on your future, basically. On LXP, can you—I mean, you talked about the pilot plant, plants, which they have 15,000 tons. Can you shed a bit more light on the kind of CapEx requirements and on the technology side? What's the kind of input/output we should think of on this technology? What's basically the purpose or, let's say, the typical setup you are then also envisaging when it comes to assuming the pilot plant is working well, if you want to integrate this into your biorefinery. Just a bit more color on your maybe midterm plans, assuming that this is all going according to plan. Maybe related to this one, when you announced in January that the agreement with Johnson Matthey, there was a statement that by mid this year, we may get an answer on whether or not feasibility was successful. So can you update us? Has there been any deferral? Because you referred to that by later this year, you may make a decision, yes or no. So any update would be helpful on that as well. Thanks. On LXP, I cannot give you some more information. For what is important for us, that is within the investors group. We as CropEnergies are the strategic partner, yeah, besides the financial investors. We have been welcomed very well within the group, and we believe that we from CropEnergies can give a strong support within the investors group for this for LXP Group, given our experience in ramping up and running industrial facilities. As I said, the big advantage that we see in the LXP technology is that it can open up all kind of biomass, residues and waste. We will contribute, and we will work together with the other investors in LXP to bring into our expertise. As of today, it's too early to say which kind of raw material then finally will be used, at what site, at which scale. This is too early to say. We are very happy with this being welcomed in this group of investors, and we want to bring our expertise to make this LXP Group and the joint venture a success. When it comes to Johnson Matthey, we are here in the final steps of the basic engineering. This goes forward according to plan, so we will soon have the final results. Based on that, we will take a decision. One thing that we already see, even if financial figures are not, or the basic engineering is not finally closed, so is that I think that is true for all investment projects right now. We have done our preliminary calculations based on the prices and assumptions being 12 months old, and then we clearly see a cost increase, yeah. This is clear. Every commodity, steel, every whatever you need for building a plant has increased. We are prepared that the investment cost shall be higher. It's, as I said, as the basic engineering is not finalized, it's too early to discuss about figures. There is an upward trend for the cost, but that does not put into question our analysis and strategic thinkings that we have with Johnson Matthey so far. Okay. Thank you. As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star followed by one on your touch tone telephone. Next question is from the line of Axel Herlinghaus from DZ Bank. Please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for taking my question. I have just one. It's to the E10 demand in Germany. The E10 has recently increased the demand significantly and reached market share of 22% in April, as you said, which is still quite low compared to European average. The main reason for the increase may have been the relative cheapness of E10 at the pump in the context of the Ukraine war and inflation. Do you think E10 will now have a more favorable growth path in Germany on the ground of the more established use right now with a more kind of minimum market share of 20 or more? Yeah, I believe this is to continue. I mean, also it has to do with all the stakeholders in their discussions. ADAC is clearly in favor of E10, saying this is the better fuel helping to defossilize and being cheaper. The reason for being cheaper is the fact that the CO2 tax in Germany is only on the fossil part, which is completely correct because the biogenic part is CO2 advantageous. That means with higher CO2 pricing, the differential between E10 and E5 gets even higher. I think all the consumers that have now tested E10 will be positive about E10 and will continue to do so. I think so this E10 upward trend in Germany is to continue, yeah. Thank you. If I may, I would have another one. Yeah, for sure. Okay. Against the background of at least currently the worsening natural gas supplies outlook, especially for the forthcoming winter. Could you say something about production planning at your production Zeitz? And will all production Zeitz be affected in the same way by a kind of gas shortage in European countries, or are there local differences? Especially in the sense of an alternative or backup strategy with other heating energy sources. I've already answered this question, so nothing really new or additional that I can say. The point is that four of our plants are in different regions. That means with a different energy source and other energy supply routes. Nevertheless, I believe if there's a shortage for the European economy, this will have impacts. We have plans for each and every plant. There will be some countermeasures possible, but we are not fully shielded. Yeah. Oh, okay. Thank you. I lost the line for some minutes, so. Yeah, yeah. Okay. yeah. Okay. Sorry for doing the same question once again. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Herlinghaus. Next question is from the line of Thomas Schießle from EQUI.TS. Please go ahead. Thank you. This is Thomas Schießle. Dr. Meeder, a question on your pension obligations. They show a decrease. What is behind that? A little bit more light on that. A question on the markets, expectations from CropEnergies concerning next fiscal year. You indicated that you foresee that you are planning to an increase in ethanol production. On the other hand, the European Commission is indicating that the grain production i n the E.U. will decrease because of less use of grain quantities in biofuel production. That doesn't fit together in my view. Please, what is the solution of this misfit? Thank you. Yeah. For the pension, this is primarily linked to the higher interest rate. The second question, you have to rephrase, please. I did not fully get it. The grain harvest projection of the E.U. Commission. Yeah. For the next harvest year is a little bit decreasing in- No, it's up. Let's have a look on page seven. You can see that the grain forecast is 294 against 293 million tons, so stable. Yeah. I mean, it's 1 million ton plus. This is. I would say this is stable. Oh. Okay. I get it. As I said, over the last, I mean, there are always year by year, this differentiates. If you look into the last four years, we always have been, when it comes to production, at 290 ± some million tons, and consumption has been really stable, always in the field of 260 million tons ± some million tons. That means over the last years, and I believe this is to continue. Europe will be a surplus producer. That's also why biofuels are important. Not all of these grains have nutritional quality for human nutrition, so there are also minor qualities, and those minor qualities, they need to have a market outlet. For the farmers, it's really important to have the biofuel sector to take part of the surplus production and really part of the minor qualities. I do not see. I mean, it's always debated from the NGOs, but I do not really follow this argumentation. I think it's from a raw material production side, it's a stable framework where biofuels can continue to play an important role. If biofuel production is not used on this low quality grain quantities, where to ship the low quality quantities? How to get rid of them? Will they be burned? What? Sorry, Thomas. Once more, I didn't fully get the question. Can you say it once more? Sorry. If the bioethanol production doesn't use the low quality grains. Yeah. How do the farmers get rid of those quantities? You mean if there are no biofuels? Yeah. It would be difficult for them. Mm-hmm. Even, I mean, the farmers, they know very well their farming, so they know the quality of the soil they have in different parcels of their fields. Typically, they know in which fields they can produce first wheat quality, B-Weizen, we call it in German, Brotweizen, bread wheat. But given the uncertainties on climate and rain and sun and so on, even if you plan and if to take the right amounts of fertilizers, even in those regions where you typically plan or can have B quality wheat, you can turn out with C quality wheat, which is the minor qualities. It's not easy for the farmers, and that's why they need this outlet. It's not every year is different, and it's not an easy task. Also, even if you wish to produce bread wheat at the end of the year, you might come out with minor qualities or the other way around. It's nature is different year by year. It's an essential question to the farmers how to sell the lower qualities? Yeah. Without biofuels, it would be an issue for them. That's why we also in all those political discussions, we have strong support from all the farmers associations saying clearly, we need the biofuels industries as one market to our products. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time, and I would like to hand back to Dr. Stephan Meeder for closing comments. Please go ahead. Okay. I do thank you, all of you, for participating, for your questions, for your interest in CropEnergies. Next step is our AGM, virtually, July 12th. I hope that you participate. For the time being, I wish you all the best. Hope to see you soon, and please stay healthy. All the best, and then we close. Thank you very much.