Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Glencore webcast and conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the CEO's presentation, there will be a question and answer session for shareholders who have registered ahead of the event. I must advise you that this conference call is being recorded today, the 22nd of April 2021. I would now like to hand over to Tony Hayward, Chairman of Glencore. To start today's meeting, please go ahead. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. Thank you for joining us today. I'm Tony Hayward, the chairman of Glencore, and joining me on this webcast is Ivan Glasenberg, our CEO, and the rest of your board. Due to the ongoing restrictions relating to COVID, we're unfortunately unable to hold an AGM with unrestricted access for shareholders. As shareholder participation is crucial, we encourage all shareholders to vote by proxy. An annual general meeting is the most important engagement event for shareholders as a whole. It's the opportunity for the board to talk to and hear from all shareholders. We therefore organize this webcast to replicate those aspects of an AGM, with voting taking place a week from today. I'm now going to talk briefly about COVID, safety, climate, and management succession. Ivan will then update us on the performance of the group. After that, we'll open up the call to your questions. COVID remains an unprecedented challenge for the world. Last year, we moved quickly to adapt our business and protect and support our people and the communities in which we operate. This involved a range of measures across our businesses, depending on the incidence of COVID and the regulations and expectations of governments, employees, and communities that host our operations. We continue to be vigilant in protecting our employees with comprehensive protocols in place across the business as the risk from COVID remains high. Regarding health and safety more widely, while some of our operations have particular HSE challenges, we believe they're all surmountable and are targeting continued improvement, not only to the crucial and humbling number of fatalities, but also across all measures of sustainability. On climate, in December, we announced our ambition to be a leader in enabling the decarbonization of the energy sector. Unique amongst our peers, we've announced the commitment to reduce our total carbon footprint, that is Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, by 40% by 2035 on a 2019 baseline, and an ambition to achieve a net zero total emissions footprint by 2050, putting us on a trajectory aligned with the Paris Agreement. Ivan's retirement in two months' time will complete the succession plan for the business leadership team. To have your CEO and principal senior business leaders retire within a period of two and a half years would normally be considered a material risk for business continuity. It is a testament to Ivan and his former partners that they've managed a seamless succession to the next generation of leaders, whom the board and I are confident to have the abilities to lead the company into the future. The board and I thank all those working at Glencore for their efforts and commitment to the ongoing success of your company, particularly at this most challenging time. Let me now hand over to Ivan. Thank you, Tony. Good evening, morning, afternoon. I'll take you to the first slide we have in the presentation, which is the 2020 scorecard, how the company performed. As you'll note, we had a very healthy cash generation during 2020, and our adaptable business model adjusted quickly to the challenges of COVID-19. Most of our operations functioned extremely well during this period, and we ensured that we kept our staff safe at all our operations. As you'll note, we had $11.6 billion of EBITDA, which is flat year-over-year, even under these difficult times, and it was helped with a stronger marketing, which will offset some of the weakness in some of the metals and the coal prices. Net income, pre-significant items, was $2.5 billion. That's up 2% on the previous year, and CapEx was reduced a little down to $3.9 billion. Our equity free cash flow was $4.3 billion, which is 65% up on the previous year. Based on the strong cash flow and based on our dividend policy, we have proposed a $0.12 per share dividend, which is $1.6 billion, which will be distributed during this year. As I said earlier, we had a resilient industrial asset performance and the assets generated $7.8 billion EBITDA, which is 13% lower than the year before. Strong metals performance was outweighed by weaker coal prices. The metals generated $7.3 billion, which is up 31% on the previous year, whilst energy generated $1 billion, which is down 73% on the previous year, mainly affected by the coal price. Early COVID-19 impacts followed by multi-year metal price highs for key commodities helped this and as I said, energy was affected mainly with the reduction in demand due to COVID-19 in these importing countries. Our cost margin performance has been very good. As you will see on most of our commodities, we have reduced the cost of production and what stands out, copper, $0.94 per pound, which is $0.50 lower than the previous year. If you have a look at zinc, minus $0.07 per pound, post credits, which is $0.35 lower than the previous year. Marketing. We had an outstanding marketing result. As you will see, we generated EBIT, $3.3 billion, which is $1 billion up on the previous year. That's an increase of 41%. There's been a strong performance from our major commodity trading units across the board. Energy was $1.8 billion, which is up $137 million from the previous year, driven by exceptional price movements, dislocations, and logistics storage demand around the world. Metals was $1.7 billion, which is $578 million up on the previous year. Viterra Agriculture has performed well. It generated $211 million, as opposed to $58 million of the proportionate share of earnings, which we bring into our books from Viterra, and that a big increase to the previous year. Naturally, with this cash flow, we have an extremely strong balance sheet. Our net debt is $15.8 billion, successfully repositioned within the range which Steve has set for the company, between $10 billion-$16 billion of net debt of the company. We are targeting below the middle of the range by the end of this year. Available committed liquidity is $10.3 billion. Bond maturities are capped at $3 billion in any given year. The spot illustrative free cash flow based on spot prices should generate round about $7.2 billion from EBITDA of $16 billion at the time of our 2020 results. Naturally, with commodity prices having increased since February 2020, the generation of cash and EBITDA should increase from these levels. Turning over to sustainability performance, unfortunately, we've had eight fatalities at our operations around the world. This is naturally unacceptable to the group, and Peter and his industrial leads are working very hard to ensure that we have zero fatalities across our industrial and overall assets of the companies. However, it should be noted, we do have a lot of employees around the group, and we employ 145,000 people. However, you will note that total recordable injury frequency rates is decreasing, as is lost time injury frequency rates also decreasing, and hopefully, this should lead to zero fatalities as we develop this part of our business. Glencore is uniquely positioned because we believe we have the right commodities in the environment of the goal of 2050 net zero emissions will shape our future. As the world is decarbonizing energy demand and the forecast for fossil fuel demand under the rapid transition 1.5% pathway leads to far less fossil fuels being utilized in the world today. You'll see on the graph set we have there, large reductions of oil, coal, and gas utilization. However, as we reduce these fossil fuels, the world needs significant metal supply growth. These graphs on the side give you an idea the vast amount of metals that are going to be needed to meet these zero emissions targets. Just to give you an idea, if you have a look at copper. Today, the world consumes 29.6 million tons of copper. By 2050, we will consume 60 million tons of copper. That is twice today's annual requirement. The world will have to increase copper production round about 1 million tons growth per year. If you look between 2010 and 2019, we have only increased half a million tons per year. A large amount of new mines will have to be developed in the world in order to meet the world's copper demand. The same applies to nickel. Similar type figures where we have to increase from 2.5 million tons of consumption today to 9.2 million tons by the year 2050. That's 3.7 times amount of today's annual consumption. Once again, we will have to increase nickel production 225,000 tons per annum as opposed to historically between 2010 to 2019, we've only increased to 111,000 tons. Looking further at extremely important commodity in the electric vehicle growth and battery supply. Cobalt, we will have to go from 129,000 tons annually with the world really consuming 507,000 tons annually. That's 3.9 times as much as we produce today. Therefore, we will have to increase annual supply of cobalt 13,000 tons per annum, while we've only been increasing 7,000 tons per annum between 2010 and 2019. We believe Glencore is well set up to supply these commodities that the world needs in this new net zero emissions future. As you can see looking at the next slide, the world is not ready to feed this demand that is required, and new pipeline projects are not readily available. The amount of investment, as you can see from the slide on the left, has decreased considerably and new pipeline projects are not readily available. There's limited inventory of shovel-ready projects, lower head grades around the world, and generally smaller scale, more difficult mining projects compared to what's been available in the past. We now have to go to the more difficult regions of the world to develop these projects. We believe it's going to be very difficult to meet this demand. However, access to future resources in more challenging locations, we will have to go there. They're often lacking key infrastructure and building and maintaining a social license to operate is more difficult there. The industry will also have to increase its technology to lower mining costs and increase recoveries, and there Glencore is already a leading supplier of these technologies through Glencore Technology and XPS in Canada. Thrifting of demand through technology and efficiency improvements will also have to take place to ensure that the world has enough of these commodities available. Turning to the next slide. We, Glencore, are a leading supplier of these important metals for the future. If you look at copper, we produce 1.26 million tons of copper per year. The second/third biggest producer of copper in the world, and we have a large reserve life of 23 years and a massive resource base of 69 million tons. Cobalt, we are the largest producer of cobalt in the world, producing around about 27,000 tons, and we have a reserve life of 50 years and a large resource base. Same applies for nickel, 110,000 tons, 26-year life, and once again, an extremely large resource base. The other important commodity is zinc. We produce 1.7 million tons, and we have 15-year life, a reserve life, but a enormous resource base over there. We believe we have very good assets to feed this demand that's required in the world, and these are all low-cost producing assets. We support the transition by decarbonizing our emissions footprint. As Tony said earlier, we have a pathway to net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050 and a medium-term target of 40% reduction of CO2 emissions by year 2035. This includes Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and we do not only talk about Scope 1 and 2, but Scope 3 emissions, the utilization of our product in our consumers' plants. We are able to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 to achieve net zero by 2050. A large part of this is the depletion of our coal reserves across the board. By 2050, we'll be producing very little coal in the Glencore portfolio. Turning to the next slide. Our approach is unique in the sector, where we talk about Scope 3 and not only Scope 1 and 2, whilst a lot of our peers are only focusing on Scope 1 and 2. As you can see on the slide on the left, a large part of the CO2 emissions from our operations come from Scope 3, the consumption of our product at our consumers. However, as we reduce our coal production portfolio, we reduce the Scope 3 emissions, and as you can see on the slide, we reduce 40% by the year 2035 and to 100% by 2050. As opposed to our peers, we focus on Scope 3 and are able to reduce Scope 3, and that is the big part of our CO2 emissions. We believe we're uniquely set for the future. We have the right strategy. Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 will be challenging, but it requires rapid and far-reaching transition with deep emissions reductions in all our sectors. We recognize our responsibility to support the achievement of the goals of the Paris Agreement by decarbonizing our own emissions footprint. We have set ourselves the ambitious target of becoming net zero total emissions of the company by 2050. As I've said in most of this presentation, we believe we've got the right business model. We are a leading producer, marketer, and recycler of transition commodities. Our high-quality portfolio is populated with large-scale, long life, and high-margin assets, and we believe we are responsible stewardship of declining coal business over time as the industry decarbonizes. Rather have the coal assets under our stewardship to reduce them and bring them down to zero rather than putting them in the hands of another producer. We are unique amongst our peers with Paris alignment and net zero ambitions for total emissions. Finally, as Tony said, the company is well set up for the future. The management team has been changed. The older generation, as I always said, we've moved into the new generation of managers. The new generation is already performing exceptionally well, and I'm very proud, as Tony said, to ensure that we've set up what part of my job was to ensure the new generation is hopefully going to be better than the last. I believe Gary and the team that we put in place will take this company to a new great level. As a shareholder of this company, I'm looking forward to performing extremely well going forward. Thank you. Thanks very much, Ivan. I'd now like to hand the call over to the operator who will manage the questions and answer process for shareholders. In the interest of time, if I can ask shareholders to participate by asking one question per shareholder. If we have time, we can open up for people to ask further questions later. Operator, please, if you can take over the process. Of course. Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to ask a question, you need to press star and one on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. Again, that's star and one for any questions. Our first question for today is from Julia Kochetygova from Northern Trust Asset. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you very much for your presentation, Ivan and Tony. I want to start with the statement that on behalf of Climate Action 100+ investor group which we represent, Northern Trust and two other co-leads on this group, who welcome the developments that Glencore made in the recent years, and particularly in the last months, including your commitment to net zero carbon by 2050 and your target to reduce your absolute emissions by 40% by 2035. We also know that you have more than twice exceeded your short-term target between 2016 and 2020. That is the introduction of Scope 1 and 2 carbon intensity by 5%. The question is, are you currently working on the new short-term target? Because this carbon reduction is not a linear process, it would be good to benchmark it on a short-term basis, not only on a medium and a long-term basis. The question is if you are expecting to disclose this target anytime soon, and when. Thank you. Thank you very much, Julia. It's good to hear your voice again. Look forward to having the opportunity to meeting in person again at some point. Thank you very much for the constructive dialogue we've had with you and your colleagues. As Ivan and I have outlined, and you've acknowledged, we've made a very significant commitment to reduce our total carbon footprint by 40% by 2035 and to get to net zero by 2050. That does align us with the Paris one and a half degree scenario. We believe the timeframe we've set out is realistic for us to deliver the targets given the scale and complexity of technological and operational transformation that's required. We look forward to continuing the dialogue with you as we move forward on an annual basis. I look forward to a further update with you and your colleagues in the not too distant future. Thank you. Our next question is from Apologies, Frank Wagemans from Achmea Investment Management. Please go ahead. Hello. Well, thank you. First of all, many thanks for the presentation. Also for organizing this webcast. I have a question in relation to labor rights, and I ask this question on behalf of Achmea Investment Management, APG, Dutch Pension Plans for the Retail Sector, PGGM, and Robeco. My question is specifically on labor rights for subcontractors and are the current policies, implementation, and evaluation on labor rights for subcontractors, has that been on the agenda, the Health and Safety, Environmental and Communities Committee in the last year? If so, could you inform us how this has been discussed and what the outcomes of these discussions have been? If not, could you commit to evaluate your policies and practices in regards to labor rights subcontractors in the HSEC Committee in the upcoming year? I ask this question specifically because we see sector wide that we see an attention on labor rights, but that's often quite focused on direct employees and subcontracting is important and it's often overlooked. We would be very interested to hear if and how this board committee has discussed this topic. Great. Thanks very much, Frank. Thank you for your question. I think if you look at Glencore's code of conduct, it is very clear in setting out expectations of its suppliers, including its contractors, to maintain safe, healthy, and fair workplaces and to demonstrate zero tolerance for any form of human rights violation in relation to people. Our code of conduct also commits Glencore to treat its contractors fairly and to apply its safety processes to our entire workforce. I start from, we don't treat our contractors any different from our workforce. Our contractors have access to our internal reporting mechanisms in case they have concerns. Safety performance, including with regard to contractors, is regularly reviewed by the Board Health, Safety, and Environmental Committee. I think it's fair to say that this is something that we are focused on and reviewing on an ongoing basis. I think the important point is that in our minds, there's no difference between our contractors and our employees. Thanks very much, Frank. Yeah. Maybe one follow-up question because, well, first of all, that's very clear and helpful. Specifically, has it been discussed in the last year? Yes, it has. Yes. It's discussed on a regular basis more than once a year. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one. Our next question is from Jennifer Anderson. Please go ahead. Thank you, Ivan and Tony, for your continued leadership, especially during COVID, and wishing Ivan the best for the future. My question is about climate and Glencore's critical metals, the copper, nickel, cobalt, zinc that are used to build renewable technologies. It seems most days there is another government or large corporate or community committing to net zero emissions. These metals are clearly critical to achieving that collective low carbon objective, and as per Ivan's presentation, supplying them is a contribution Glencore can make to that objective. I'm curious whether the critical nature of these metals and this collective low carbon objective could result in increased risk of government intervention to mining and supplying these critical metals that is not market-based. Essentially, the governments direct how much to mine and how to supply these metals, even with the mining challenges outlined in Ivan's presentation. My question is, do you see increased risk of government intervention that is not market-based for these metals? If you do, is this a business as usual risk to manage, or is it a potential future concern for the Glencore business? I'm interested in your view. Thank you. Thanks very much, Jennifer. It's great to hear from you, and I look forward to the day when we can meet in person again. It was always a great pleasure to see you at the AGM. I think in terms of direct government intervention, we don't see a risk of that. I think the days of widespread, effectively nationalization are behind us. I don't think we see that as a risk. What we will clearly see, and it's a challenge always in the resource space, is as commodity price rises, then governments seek to take more of the rent by way of increased taxes. That is certainly a risk that we're seeing and we will continue to see, I'm certain, over the next decade as the challenge of satisfying this increasing demand for these commodities almost inevitably leads to higher prices. In terms of direct intervention, I don't think that's very likely. Yeah, I think I agree with Tony there. You just see your ex-prime minister came out with a statement today where he wants to put a super profits tax on the iron ore producers because of the high $180 iron ore price today. I think, yeah, you could see more of people trying that. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is from Valborg Lie from LGPS Central. Please go ahead. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, and thank you to Glencore for hosting this pre-AGM session with shareholders. It's very much appreciated. I am a co-lead for the Climate Action 100+ group, together with Julia, who just spoke earlier. I'd like to echo her sentiment that we very much welcome and appreciate the important steps that Glencore has taken recently, the key milestones, the net zero ambition and the medium-term targets that have been discussed just now, and your overall transparency on how you will deliver against that ambition has increased, and that is very much appreciated. I have a two-part question on climate policy lobbying, which we have discussed with you many times, and I just wanted to caveat it before posing the questions that we do acknowledge the fact that industry associations that Glencore is a member of often serve multiple purposes and in many cases have a diverse group of members. We're cognizant of this multiple purpose, multi-member aspect, but it doesn't lessen our expectation that Glencore conducts positive and Paris-aligned direct and indirect lobbying. As you say in your last industry association review, there is a need for coordinated government policies on climate. On to the question. What do you do within relevant trade associations that you're a member of to make sure that they do not undermine, but rather promote Glencore's decarbonization ambition and support for Paris? Then, linked to that, in cases of misalignment, you have signaled in the latest industry review report that you will engage constructively in these cases, but you may also consider resigning as a last resort. There are perhaps also other measures to consider, such as publicly distancing yourself from an association's position, collaboration with other industry association members to advocate change, measures such as withholding of additional funds or specifying how funds should be spent, and also resigning from committees or boards of trade associations. Would you consider such escalation techniques in engagement with industry associations going forward? Would you be willing to provide granular reporting on the same? Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Valborg. Good to hear from you again, and thank you also for your continued leadership of the Climate Action Group. As we discussed, I think many times, we have a strongly held view that remaining engaged with industry groups and helping them to evolve their position to a Paris-aligned world is by far the best strategy. I can draw the analogy with the approach that you and your colleagues have taken in that regard, and that will continue to be our approach. We, of course, reserve the right to escalate if we think we're not getting traction with respect to how industry groups are positioning themselves. We have done that in the past. I think our principal bias is to remain engaged and to shift the way in which industry groups are thinking and aligning themselves with the Paris Agreement. That's clearly something that this company believes in very strongly, and we think we can have an important role to play in getting others to align with this position. Of course, we will, as you know, report on our efforts and our positions on an annual basis. Thanks very much, Valborg. Our next question for today is from Robert Lewenson from Old Mutual Investment. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon, Tony and Ivan, and thank you for your time and taking this call today. From our side, we represent both our listed equity clients as well as our third-party stewardship clients in this question. The first sort of comment I would like to make regarding the AGM is, again, also a positive one in the sense that we do really appreciate the company taking a clear stance and a leadership position in the market around climate and putting forward a binding advisory vote on climate policy. I think that's very innovative, and we appreciate that. My next question, really comment, goes around remuneration, and you will have noted that two of the quite influential proxy advisory firms have recommended a vote against the thing called new remuneration policy of this year, for various reasons. My question is in two parts. The one question is, given the recommendation, will the board consider retracting, and is the board able to retract the remuneration policy from this year's AGM agenda notice prior to the AGM? That's the first question. The second question is, if not, and the policy is put to shareholder vote, and the shareholders indicate a significant opposition to the remuneration policy, will the RemCom decide to introduce performance criteria into the restricted share plan going forward? Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Robert, and thanks for your acknowledgment of our efforts with respect to climate. I think on remuneration, obviously, we're disappointed that ISS and Glass Lewis have come out against it. We've spent an enormous amount of time over the last six months or so engaging with shareholders, and we feel like we came up with an overall package which was fair, balanced, and equitable with respect to our new CEO and with respect to shareholders. It clearly has some very market-leading components to it, which I think everyone has acknowledged. The holding period, and particularly the fact that 40% of the annual comp is basically going to be in shares that Gary will be required to hold for the tenure of his appointment and for two years beyond. So it has a lot of good things in it. We're obviously not going to withdraw it from the AGM. It will go to the AGM. It'll be interesting to see what the response is. Certainly, based on the conversations that I've held with majority of our major shareholders, they seem to be very supportive. Obviously, we will take a view when we have the vote. What I said to everyone is that this is a policy. We think it's actually a pretty good policy. You should judge us by how we implement the policy. You have the opportunity to do that on an annual basis. If you don't like how we're implementing the policy, you can vote against it every year. I think that argument has resonated with a lot of people because the fundamental structure of the policy is deemed to be sensible and appropriate given the cyclical nature of our industry. We will obviously take note of what happens a week from today, and obviously, we will behave according to the vote. I'm optimistic that we'll see significant support for the proposal we've made. Thank you very much, Robert. As a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Our next question is from Adam McGibbon from Market Forces. Please go ahead. Good afternoon, Tony and Ivan. Thanks very much for giving us this opportunity to ask questions. The United Nations Production Gap Report shows that between 2020 and 2030, global coal, oil, and gas production is to decline annually by 11%, 4%, and 3% respectively, to be consistent with that 1.5 degree C pathway. Glencore only intends to reduce its coal production by 40% by 2035, which is around a decade later than what the Production Gap Report finds is necessary. Glencore also seems to have no plans to manage down its oil and gas production, in fact is looking to actually increase oil and gas production from assets in places like Chad and Equatorial Guinea. The company's own documents point to billions of dollars in expansionary fossil fuel CapEx planned for the coming years. Of course, all of this runs the risk of exposing investors to needless transitional risk as action to meet the climate goals of the Paris Agreement accelerates over the next few years. My question is, will the boards commit to managing down its oil, gas, and coal-producing assets in a timeframe that's consistent with the Paris Agreement's goals and the CapEx on fossil fuel expansions and returning capital from existing assets to shareholders as these assets are wound up? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Adam. I'm not quite really sure where to begin on this question actually, because I think we're doing exactly what you've suggested. If I just deal with oil and gas to start with, we are exiting the upstream oil and gas business. We've been very clear about that. It's not part of our strategy, and we're exiting. In terms of our coal business, as we've described throughout this call, we are overseeing the managed decline of our coal business to the extent that by 2035 it'll be 40% smaller than it is today. By the, let me say, the middle of the 2040s, it will cease to exist. That puts us on a clearly aligned pathway consistent with Paris Agreement and one and a half degrees. I think it's really important that people remember this is a transition. It's not something that we're turning one source of energy off today and another one on tomorrow. Look, I'm not quite certain where you've got your view from, but our view is that we're exiting oil and gas, and we're managing the decline of our coal business, frankly, in a pretty aggressive way. The cash that is coming out of that business is being redeployed to build our base metal business. We are taking the cash that's coming out of the coal business and reinvesting it into the base metals that the world needs over the coming decades. Thank you very much. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand the call back to Tony. Thank you very much. As you've heard, that was the final question today. Many thanks for those of you who have participated in today's events. I hope very much that a year from now we'll be able to do this in person. Before we close, it will not be lost on any of you that today is Ivan's final annual shareholder meeting as CEO prior to retiring at the end of June. I hope we'll see him at future AGMs as a major shareholder. That is a formal invitation, Ivan. Thank you. Come and join us. Thank you. I've known Ivan for over 15 years and worked closely with him as a director for the last 10. What he has achieved is unique. His vision created two of the world's largest mining companies, Glencore and Xstrata. With the support of his partners, Ivan understood the importance of creating a long-term asset base to underpin Glencore's leading marketing franchise. The IPO in 2011 provided the catalyst to reunite Glencore with Xstrata, the mining business that Glencore had founded and financed. Each step in the evolution of the business has been informed by the needs of the customer and reflected the changing dynamics of the global environment and commodity markets. You've seen what the company has done in the last six to nine months to do exactly that. It is a great demonstration of positioning the company for the future. Underpinning all of this is Ivan's simple mantra of value over volume. One that I know his successor will continue to follow. Ivan's work ethic and dedication to the company and its employees has inspired a loyalty at Glencore that is rare in business. As Ivan hands over to Gary, he does so at a time of huge change as the world moves to recover from the impacts of COVID-19 and at the same time address the challenge of climate change. Our industry has a significant opportunity to contribute to the economic recovery by providing commodities essential to the transition to a low carbon economy. Glencore and its portfolio of future facing commodities is uniquely positioned to meet the needs of today and the demands of tomorrow. The benchmark by which any great CEO can be judged is whether he or she leaves the business in a better position than when they started. Not only has Ivan achieved this with Glencore, but his vision and drive have left a lasting impact on the industry as a whole. With that, we'll now close the webcast. As I said earlier, I very much hope we can welcome all of you to Zug a year from now. Thank you all very much.