Morning. I'm Andrew Mackenzie, and I'm delighted to welcome each of you to the 2023 Annual General Meeting of Shell plc. It's a real pleasure to chair this year's AGM, and a real honor to do so at our first AGM with our new CEO. To the Shell AGM, where shareholders can pat themselves on the back for earning billions from climate collapse. Where you can congratulate yourselves for record-breaking profits which lead to record-breaking floods, droughts, and heat waves. Welcome to Shell, where you are complicit in the destruction of people's homes, livelihoods, and lives. Welcome to hell. I, ladies and gentlemen, I refuse to accept your hell on Earth. Board members, directors, shareholders, I am here to demand that you shut down Shell. If you don't, Shell will be shut down for you in the biggest wave of resistance against your company that you have ever seen. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. When I say Shell, you say hell. Shell. Hell. Shell. Hell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Shell's AGM. Yes, welcome. Welcome to people who are complicit in the destruction of people's homes, livelihoods, and lives. As I said before, you can congratulate yourselves on earning billions from climate collapse. You can congratulate yourselves for record-breaking profits which create record-breaking floods, droughts, and heat waves. Welcome to hell. I refuse to accept your hell on Earth. I will not stand by and watch while Shell destroys this beautiful planet. Do you like nature? Do you like wildlife? Do you want to see it destroyed? That is what you are doing. Do you like David Attenborough, the most popular man in this country? He said, "It is crazy that our banks and our pension funds are investing in fossil fuels when those are the very things that are jeopardizing the future that we are saving for." It is outrageous. You probably think, "Oh, you'll be fine," because you've got lots of money. Let me tell you, in a future where everything is destroyed, you will have no infrastructure, you'll have no support, you'll have no transport. Your wealth will mean nothing because there'll be nothing to buy. There'll be nobody to sell to. You haven't thought things through, have you? Um- You think you can probably go to Mars. Wi- Well, to you, Mars is uninhabitable. I, I- You're going to spend- Excuse me. I think we've heard your point. You've made it several times over. Welcome to hell. If, if- Welcome to hell. I would ask you to sit down, and so we can listen to the views... Shut down Shell. of other members of Shut down Shell. of our shareholder community We say shut down- who would like to listen to their views. We say hell. Shell. Hell. When I say hell, you say Shell. Hell. Shell. Come on, say it with me. Shell. Hell. Shell. Hell. Nobody agrees with me. Is that right? No. I have a loud voice in this room. That's right. Yeah, why are you letting me stand here and rant on? Uh, uh, uh- I can do this all day, and I will- But- It is outrageous that you are sitting there smugly, complacently with your sense of entitlement while you are overseeing the destruction of our planet. You are talking up your greenwash as if it made any difference. You made GBP 10 billion profit in the first quarter of this year. You are outrageous. You are drilling. You carry on exploiting. You carry on exploiting the Global South. You carry on extracting... I have asked you to sit down. I will not sit down. That we can hear from other people. Yeah. If you're not prepared to sit down. I'm not prepared to sit down. I would ask you to leave the meeting, please, we can carry on and hear the views of others. I'm not going to leave the meeting because I want you to listen to me. I am here as a Shell shareholder. I have been listening to you for five minutes. I- Everybody else has been listening to you for five minutes. Yes. I ask you once more to sit down, or we'll have to- I am- I will have to have you removed from the meeting. I'm not gonna shut up. I am gonna say my piece. You have said your piece many times. We would now like you to sit down and listen to the views of others, please. We have a proper annual general meeting. You have been able to come here and express your views. Would you please sit down and listen to the views of others? You want to hear the views of others? I do indeed. I want to hear the views... I think many of our shareholders have come here to listen to myself and the CEO. Very well. Also to also to ask their own questions and hear our responses to them. People with similar perspectives to you perhaps, and people with different perspectives to you. We live in a democracy, and we like to have civilized debate. The sea levels are rising. Excuse me. So are the people. Will you sit down, please? Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more. Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more. Now listen, now listen, don't you say we're not green. New operations in the old North Sea. They got permission from the NSTA, so don't you put the blame on me. Sit down! Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, don't you come back no more. Wait just a second, don't you hear what I say? We'll become neutral one day. Maybe in 1,000 years when life on Earth has disappeared. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Our hearts go out to those poor men trapped underground. It's part of the plan, right? The blood on your hands will surely show one and all tonight. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Come on, guys. We know that you knew about climate change. Now you're making money off the war in Ukraine. We can't afford to heat our homes. You're still getting big tax breaks. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more Again. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Don't you come back no more. Don't you come back no more- Okay, okay. You call yourself an oil company. We've. The seas aren't above your shores. We have heard you loud and clear. Can I ask you to sit down. Don't you come back no more. That we can have the discussion and the debate that is important to the other members of our shareholder community? Don't you come back no more. Don't you come back no more. One more time. Don't you come back no more. Don't you come back no more. Go to Hell, Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Please will you sit down? What do we think of Shell? Down! If Down! If you are not prepared to sit down... What do we think of Shell? Down! I will have no option but to ask you to be removed from our meeting. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate you. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. We hate Jackdaw. Jackdaw, we hate you. As you have not sat down and let other people speak, can I ask security now to remove you from the meetings so we can conduct our affairs? On the highway to hell. On the highway to hell. On the highway to hell. On the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. Take us through to see. Take us through till you help. Highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. Whoo! We're on the highway to hell. We're on the highway to hell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. ShutShut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! What do we think of Shell? Hell! What do we think of hell? Shell! What do we think of Shell? Hell! What do we think of...? Shell! We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! Just pump that oil. We're on our high way to Hell. We're on our high way to Hell. We're on our high way to Hell. We're on our high way to Hell. We're on our high way to Hell. We're on our high way to Hell. Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Go to Hell, Shell, and don't you come back no more. Hate Jack Torrance. HateJackTorrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! We will, we will Stalk you. We hate Jack Torrance. Jack Torrance, we hate you! Go to hell, Shell, don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. We will stalk you. In their clean drinking water. They can no longer drink their fresh water. They have not been given any compensation for their loss of fresh drinking water. They told Shell that it was a leak from their pipeline. Shell lied to them and said it was sabotage. It was not sabotage. The family then found a record on the Shell website that there had been a leak from the oil well at that time due to corrosion. This man is currently in a health tribunal in Africa and they are currently complaining about breathing in hydrotoxins. There are mysterious deaths. There are increases in cancer, kidney disease. This is not responsible. There have been no environmental impact assessments. How dare you poison somebody's fresh water? How dare you stop them farming and leading a sustainable life? You are giving their kids no future. They cannot pass their farm on to their children. They cannot sustain themselves in a happy and friendly way. How dare Shell poison their water? How dare Shell pollute their drinking water and make it cancer-causing? Shell have got to change. Stop Shell from poisoning the Nigerian Delta. Welcome to hell. Shell, while you drill, people die. Oil fields, new gas fields. While you continue to ignore the science, people die. madam, we have heard this point many times now. We would like to have a civil debate about this and about the issues that other people have made, but you're preventing us from conducting a proper annual general meeting. Please sit down and ask your question later, or I'm afraid I have to ask the security people to remove you from the room. We will not allow this to happen. We are calling you out. We're shutting you down. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Yeah. We. Shut down Shell. We've heard your message. Shut down Shell. You're killing millions. Because of your actions, millions will die. Because of your actions, millions will die. You are killing the planet. You're killing our children. No. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Your profits are not your certainty- Madam, if I could say to you and to everybody else who still wants to stand up, you're simply repeating messages we've already heard. There will be a time for questions. If you're prepared to sit down, you can ask your question then. If not, I'm afraid you'll have to be removed from the meeting, and so will everyone else who chooses these tactics. 7 billion families in the United Kingdom have been forced into fuel poverty by your fervent greed and profit generating values for shareholders. This is not acceptable. Children are freezing. Parents are going without food. All that is shown. That's me. Shell- Excuse me, this is not the time for questions. If you could sit down, you can stay in the meeting. If you continue, you'll have to leave. I'm here again with another message. It's pretty much the same. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. You've got quite a soft voice. If you wait till question time, you can ask me the question then. Why don't you wait till question time, and then you can ask the question then. Then we'll give you a microphone. You don't care anything. Madam, we want to have a civilized debate. I can't hear what you're saying, nor can a lot of other people. If you were prepared to. I'm sorry if you insist on disrupting the meeting, I'm going to have to ask security to remove you, please. Those billions are washing yourselves with no money back against the lives you have ruined. Millions of people globally who are defenseless, vulnerable, are suffering and will suffer... Madam, I've asked you to wait till questions. If you're not prepared to wait till questions, I'm afraid you'll have to be removed from the meeting. Sit down. I'm afraid you'll have to be removed from the meeting. Well, are you prepared to wait till questions? Sir. Are you prepared to wait till questions? I think that means that we have to remove you from the meeting please, security. Of addressing the climate crisis. This climate crisis is something that can be dealt with instantly. We can have this debate over questions when we can hear you, but if you're not prepared to do so, I'm afraid you have to leave the meeting now. Please, security. Each picture. Welcome to hell! We're almost on board, Shell is pouring oil on the blaze. I'm afraid this is- You are burning us alive. Something we've heard many times. You better leave now. I'm afraid you'll have to be removed from the meeting. Your intention is clear. Refuse to comply with the Paris Agreement. Pakistan is flooded, you came to drill new oil and gas. People around the world are fighting for their lives in the face of climate breakdown that you are responsible for, as you are all complicit in. We will not let you be the arsonist to our home. We will not let you do it any longer. Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! You are all complicit. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut Down Shell. Complicit. In crimes against... Shut down Shell. Right there. Welcome to hell. Now, this is going on an awful lot. I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to be removed from the meeting. Anybody else who insists on standing up and disrupting the meeting will have to leave the meeting. Across the world cannot put food on the table. Van Ingen walks into The Sunday with a GBP 10 billion bonus while climate victims have to rebuild their homes in these supercharged storms. Money, money. Please sit down and wait till questions, or I'm afraid we have to remove you from the meeting. When the last drops of drinking water are tainted with oil, then will you realize that you cannot eat money. Rather than nothing being manhandled by ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Get out of Shell. Get out of hell. Hey, little one. You are a failing criminal. Future will look back at you as someone who should have been sent to The Hague. You know the damage that you are doing. You know the science. You have known since the 80s. You think we are hysterical. We fight for life. We all want to live. You are destructing our opportunity for billions, for billions of people. Please remember one, do not buy wrong. Can I just comment that if there's anybody else in the room who intends to make this kind of protest, I would rather you waited til questions. If not, and you continue this form of protest, then security will remove you. Oil and gas. You own the market right now. It's making you and them sick. We know quite enough field called [audio distortion]Sable East South that you continue to drill. We know, Prime Minister, deep increases pressures disease. You continue to drill. We owe our faithful admiration. You continue to drill. 10 days, heat shows, toxic air. Climate crisis is a health crisis. Shell makes us sick. Time to shut down toxic dumping. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. You are all complicit. Shut down Shell. Welcome to hell. While you chill, people die. With every new well, every new gas field, every minute that you ignore the warnings of science, people die. You will only be remembered when you're gone, bones are dust for the violence that you committed in this world. People die every day that you're complicit. Every day. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. I would like to continue with our meeting. I do apologize to everybody about this disruption. You are lying. I do expect that other people will try to disrupt in this way. Anybody who stands up and continues this form of protest will be quickly removed. If you stay seated, you'll have a time to ask questions. You've known about this for years and years. Instead of telling the truth, you cover that up, didn't you? You all covered it up. You could have transitioned to clean energy. You bankroll, don't you? You bankroll dodgy journalists and junk science. You bankroll dodgy journalists, don't you? Junk science. Deception. That's what you're good at, Andrew Mackenzie, isn't it? Deception, yeah. That's what you do, all of you. You're deceiving the world. You're deceiving us for a whole lot of... Deception, equivocation. That's what you're doing. Deception, equivocation. That's what you're doing. No more lies, Shell. No more lies. The world is going to hell. No more lies. You gotta wake up. Wake up. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Once again, shareholders, I do thank you for your patience. you know, it's good to see so many of you here and so many of you who want to continue the very important debates that we have to have. I would like to thank you, of course, for your understanding for the heightened security- Shut it down! Our house is on fire, and you are complicit in the crimes of making that happen. You are pouring fuel on the flames. We can have a discussion about this if you wait till questions. If not, you have to be removed. You begin to fuel your obscene profits. There are families living small here. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. could you please remove that gentleman? I'm afraid this tactic is continuing to disrupt our meeting, and it's not about asking us a question. What's that? You just asking us to start the meeting. Oh, sorry. Are you asking us to start the meeting? Yes, yes. I apologize. Please stay. I think you can understand my confusion. Shut down Shell. I. Yeah. Shut down Shell. I'm asking you to stop drilling oil. Yeah. Well, we've heard that request. We can talk about that in questions. Go, go. Yeah. I'm afraid- Get out of our lives. Stop causing global damage. Stop profiting from human misery. Stop it. You are responsible. You and your profits. You and your dividends. You and your remuneration. You are responsible. Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion. We will not lie down. We will not lie down. We will come back. We will come back, and we will haunt you. Extinction Rebellion. We will come back. Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion. Extinction Rebellion. Sir Andrew, this means you. Please, why don't you wait till questions? If not, I'm afraid you also have to be removed. You are killing us. Your oil industry is destroying the planet. People across the planet are dying. We have children, and you are not listening to them. You are not listening to the IPCC. You are not listening to the International Energy Agency. You don't listen to anyone. You will stop at nothing 'cause your profits come first. You shareholders are also responsible. You need to do something because every part of this planet is going to get impacted. Shut down Shell Just have to wait for that. I'm sorry it's taken so long for us to get going, and I do appreciate your patience. To the gentleman over there, I apologize for my misunderstanding, but thank you for saying what you said. Look, I would like to thank you for everybody in the room for their understanding of the heightened security and the checks obviously we had for today's event. Please remove this individual, security. The International Energy Agency, they say, "No new oil and gas. No expansion." What are you doing? You're spending more than $40 million a day on new oil and gas fields. That is a denial of the science. You are denying climate science. I am 22 years old. Do you have children? Do you care about the future of life on Earth? Do you care about the people in the global south whose lives you devastate, the communities you've destroyed? Shell destroys communities. They disregard climate science. They lobby government. You're lying to me, sir, you're lying to me. They disregard the science. They lobby to stop private legislation, including Biden's latest climate package. You are a disgrace. This disruption is nothing compared to what you are causing for millions of people around the world. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. I'll just make a general comment, before hopefully we now get going, is that, I mean, clearly this is a coordinated attempt to disrupt this meeting rather than to involve us in debate. I'm happy to involve them in this debate, If anybody chooses to carry on this way rather than wait till questions and have a debate so all opinions can be heard, then I will actually, in the interests of other shareholders, ask for them to be removed immediately. As example. Please, could we remove this individual? The truth does- Please, would you wait till questions or you have to be removed. I'm sorry, you have to go. The truth of Shell's record profit is the 10,000 British lives, people that die from fuel poverty each year. Countless more worldwide from poverty and environmental destruction. Well, I will try and continue. Really wanting to express my concern for all of you and your safety. That's partly why we had all the checks and restrictions because based on our intelligence, we did think there was going to be kind of threats to our shareholder meeting and others. Continue to say that if people continue to use this tactic, then we will ask security for you to be removed. I'd prefer you to wait till questions. Just back to the meeting. I mean, this, as last year, is going to be a fully hybrid shareholder meeting, and it provides a platform for shareholders to vote and ask questions both in the room and virtually. The board and I extend a special welcome for all of you virtually attending or simply following the webcast. I'll pause there while this individual is removed. While 7 million people were born into fuel poverty. This is not acceptable that you, corporate, you force people into poverty. You're not going to be about that profit if you're young lady wearing more than 400 quid jacket from Florida. Oil money is a paper tiger. Shell, go to Hell! Go to Hell! Shell, go to Hell! Go to Hell! Shell, go to Hell! Go to Hell! Shell, go to Hell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Go to Hell! Shut down Shell! I apologize if my preambles have been a bit broken up. I just wanted to let you know as well that not only is this meeting open to shareholders, we're also webcasting this meeting, so we're opening it to the general public and any other interested stakeholders because we want the debate. Therefore, we also warmly welcome those of you who are watching the meeting in this way. I'll take a pause there while we have this individual removed. Expect to believe a single world future. Please just remove this individual, security. Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! I'll keep trying to move on to our proceedings. Maybe I'll start with just a brief description of the process of today's meeting. When I'm finally able to formally open the meeting, we'll move to your questions. Following that, we'll conclude to a voting outcome. For those shareholders wanting to ask questions, if you're participating online, could you refer to the guide on the Lumi platform, please? Look, if you're in the room and have not already registered the question you'd like to ask, please, if you would go to the registration desk at the back of the room. One of our team will help you. I'll pause again. Madam, I'm afraid you'll have to leave the meeting. We're trying to have a proper debate, including some of your reviews, and you and other people seem to be against us having this discussion. In the interest of good order, as chair, I suggest you leave the meeting, please. You claim your new contract, but you line your pockets. We'll have those discussions later if you would wait for questions, but meanwhile, I think you must leave. Crush that plan. Care Act money is out the room. Stretch all the social care packages that you can reach. Oil. That money you bleed. More than a king's fortune, and it must end now. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. I know you're probably really struggling to follow me, and I'm trying to keep up myself, but when you are asking questions or making any comment, please state your name and the name of any organization you represent. madam, I'd like to open the meeting properly. I'm afraid. It's very sad because I would like us to have the debate with you in the right way, but I'm afraid you're going to have to leave the meeting. Please remove her. No, I'm not. At any point, nobody had a question. I will have my say. I haven't finished speaking yet. I've got a lot to say. Well, wait, I am outlining the process of the meeting that you're choosing to ignore... Ah. You've disrupted this meeting, and therefore you have to leave. Please remove her. How will all of you sleep at night? How dare you? How? I've got lots of votes today. I'll make them till I die. You won't be very long after me. There'll be no one left you to save. There's not many zero carbon on this planet. It's all deep red. You have oil. Do you realize that? Are you aware? Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! As I was saying, Tjerk Huizinga is our Executive Vice President of Investor Relations, and he's going to support the question portion of our meeting, and also he'll read out any questions that are submitted on the Lumi platform. We may moderate some questions to avoid unnecessary repetition and to make sure it's an orderly meeting. I'll do my best. Tjeerd will balance the online questions with those on the phone or those here in the room. Please understand as we kind of handle both, all of those together. This meeting will focus solely, though, on the formal business that we set out in our notice of meeting. I think with that introduction, I confirm that we now have a quorum present. Shut up! People are dying! People are struggling! People are struggling to survive because of your greed! We're not doing this for fun! We're doing it because we are scared! We don't have a future! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! As I was saying, we have a quorum present, and so I now declare the annual general meeting formally open and suggest with your permission, the notice convening the meeting is taken as read. In accordance with the company's articles of association, and as stated in the notice of meeting, the meeting's gonna be held in English, and I respectfully request that you ask your questions in English, please. For those watching via the Lumi platform, voting will be open throughout the meeting and will remain open- Shell must shut down because you are causing a climate crisis, which is a health crisis. You are causing air pollution that is deadly. Shell must fall. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Might it be an idea just to reiterate that anyone that tries to rush the stage will immediately be removed? Yeah. Could clear we are still trying to have the debate and discussion that I think is appropriate for an AGM. Obviously that last incident went a further stage than we experienced in the first part of today. I would only say that if anybody attempts to move towards the stage again in the manner that was chosen, we will remove you right away for everyone else's safety. Madam, I'm afraid you're continuing this protest. Please would you leave the meeting? We can have these discussions and questions if you had chosen to wait for that. Please remove that individual. Everybody interrupting will be immediately removed, as you have seen, because we have to get to the business of the meeting, which most people have come to have a civilized debate about. Okay, I'll attempt to continue. Those of you who are watching via the Lumi platform. I would like to have a discussion. You clearly don't, so I'm afraid you must leave the meeting. Please remove this woman. I'm sorry. If you had waited till questions, we could have had this discussion. Please, I'm afraid this is not an acceptable way to conduct the annual general meeting of Shell. You know about 2030. It's now 33. Alberta is burning. What are you waiting for? You, listen to me. What are you waiting for? Is it greed? Shut down this institution! You are killing us. Well, we were about to get started. I didn't complete some of my comments. Please. When will this violence end? When will you start to listen? I am not leaving until you start listening to us. We are pleading with you. Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Shut down Shell! Back to those on the Lumi platform. Just to let you know, your voting will be open throughout the meeting, and it will remain open for 15 minutes following the conclusion. Once you've voted, by the way, you can change your vote. When the voting closes, your last choice will be submitted. I have to take another pause. Wouldn't it be nice if you could wait, and we could have this debate rather than saying the same thing again and again? Shut down- I'm afraid you have to leave the meeting. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shame on Shell. Shut down Shell. Shame on Shell. I am getting there. I just, in accordance with the company's articles of association, and as we outlined in the notice of meeting, I now call for a poll to be taken on each resolution. Excuse me. I would love to listen to your views in the right way that this annual general meeting is expected to be conducted. This. You've chosen not to, so you have to leave the meeting. Please, you must leave the meeting. Please, you must leave. Care more about profits. We would- Than human survival. Your greed is killing people. You make profits while people struggle around the world to put food on the table. I was saying that I call for a poll to be taken on each resolution, and that will appoint the company's registrars Equiniti to act as our scrutineers. I would like, therefore, to start by proposing each of the resolutions numbered one to 26, which are set out in full in the notice of the meeting. Resolutions numbered one to 18, 22, 24, and 25 are proposed as ordinary resolutions. I'll pause there. Again, wouldn't it be great if you could wait for questions, and then we could discuss this? As I was saying, resolutions numbered one to 18, 22, 24, and 25 are all proposed as ordinary resolutions, and therefore each requires a simple majority of votes cast to be in favor in order for them to be passed. With resolutions 19- 21, 23, and 26, they're proposed as special resolutions. Therefore each of these resolutions requires at least a 75% majority of the votes cast to be in favor to, in order for them to be passed. With that, the poll is now open. Voting may begin. Many of you- Shut down Shell. Well, I have some comments to make on that in my speech, if you were prepared to wait and conduct the proceedings as we outlined. Many of you will have already sent in your proxy cards and therefore don't need to vote again. I'd just to let you know that proxy votes submitted in advance of today's meeting amounted to 4.16 billion votes, and that represents approximately 61% of the company's issued share capital. I'm now going to take a break and ask Caroline, our Company Secretary, to explain the voting procedure. Thank you, Chair, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning. Please cast your vote. Maybe Caroline might. She would like to talk about how we're going to run the meeting. If you sat down, you could remain, but you've chosen to stand up, so I'm afraid you have to leave. I have grandchildren. What are you doing for my grandchildren's future? People are dying right now. People are suffering right now. You're earning money off it, people. Okay. I'll resume explaining how to cast your votes today. Please cast your vote by completing your white paper poll card handed to you at registration. If you agree with the resolution, place an X in the box marked "For." If you do not agree, place an X in the box marked against. If you wish to abstain, place an X in the box marked Vote Withheld. However, please note that the Vote Withheld option is not a vote in law and will not be counted in the votes for and against the resolution. The scrutineer will establish from the register how many shares you hold and will assume you wish to vote all your shares in the way you have indicated. If you wish to split your vote, please speak to a member of staff at the registration desk. If you have lodged a proxy form, you do not need to complete a poll card unless your proxy is not present or you wish to change the way your shares are voted. Please remember to sign your card and add today's date, May 23rd, 2023. Please note, if you do not sign your card, your votes will not be counted. Please deposit your card in one of the ballot boxes, which you will see clearly marked as you leave the auditorium. These boxes will be removed 15 minutes after the conclusion of the meeting or earlier if I'm satisfied that the voting process has been completed. The final result of the poll votes, including the tally of votes cast by shareholders attending online today, will be sent to the Amsterdam, London, and New York Stock Exchanges and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and shown- Sorry. Caroline was about to get to her end of remarks, that was inappropriate for you to interrupt. I'm afraid you have to leave the meeting. As I was saying- Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut- As I was saying, the final result of the poll votes will be sent to the Amsterdam, London, and New York Stock Exchanges and filed with the U.S. SEC and shown on the Shell website tomorrow morning or later today if time permits. Thank you for your times and thank you for your votes. Back to you, Chair. Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Caroline. Look, before I introduce the other directors, please remember that for shareholders wanting to ask questions, if you're participating online, refer to the guide on the Lumi platform. If you're here in the room, please see one of the ushers at the question points. To allow sufficient time for other shareholders wanting to ask questions, please keep your questions and comments short, to the point and relevant to the business of today's meeting. As with those here in the room, for those that chose to ask their question via the teleconference facility, if I believe your question or statement is excessively long, please understand that I may ask you to bring it to a close. I do intend that, where possible, all questions or comments of a similar nature are grouped together, because grouping questions and comments in this way will help avoid repetition and make sure we address as many issues as possible. I also request your patience if there's a lot of interest on any one particular issue, and we may take longer on that. As you've seen, as a chair, as the chair of the meeting, I have a duty to make sure today's proceedings are conducted in a proper and orderly manner. Not done so well so far. We have tried to negotiate. Yeah. We have tried to negotiate. We have tried to make this work for ourselves. We have really, really tried. We are desperate. We are desperate. We are desperate. We are trying to communicate. This is why we are disrupting you. This is why we won't shut up. We are trying. Welcome to hell. You are creating hell. You are putting your profits above us all. Welcome to hell. We are trying so hard to communicate. You won't listen. We are dying. Welcome to. I will continue to do my best to make sure all shades of opinion are given a fair hearing. To help me fulfill this, I'd ask you that you respect our procedures and the order of the meeting. For those watching the meeting via the Lumi platform, a copy of the notice of the meeting can be found on the Documents tab, which is on your screen. Those of you on the webcast, you'll have to look it up in the general meeting section of our website. Let me start by introducing your directors who are seeking election and re-election today. Their biographies are provided within the notice of meeting, which was duly circulated to shareholders on April the 18th and added to our website on the same date. Starting on my right, Wael Sawan, who is succeeding Ben van Beurden. Although he's not present today, I would like to thank Ben for his years at the head of Shell. He led us through the pandemic and the global financial turmoil that followed, and he led the historic move of our headquarters to here in London. In addition, in the face of the human-humanitarian disaster which was created by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he took the swift decision, along with the board, to start the process of pulling Shell out of Russia. We're very grateful to Ben for his leadership through some of the most difficult challenges that any CEO could face. With Wael, Shell is in excellent hands. Wael has been at Shell for more than 25 years. He has held roles across all of Shell's businesses and has worked in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. We have Sinead. Sinead Gorman, who's our chief financial officer. As you've already heard, on my left is our company secretary, Caroline Omloo. If I proceed with our directors, one more, on Caroline's left, we Dick Boer, who's our Deputy Chair and Senior Independent Non-executive Dick Boer is a member of the Nomination and Succession Committee and the Remuneration Dick Boer will step down from the board at the end of this meeting, having reached a tenure of almost nine Dick Boer, on behalf of the board and all shareholders, we would like to thank you for your distinguished service to Shell. Now behind me, on the right, my far right is Catherine Hughes. Catherine is Chair of the Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee, and she's also a member of the Remuneration Committee. Subject to her reappointment at the end of this meeting, Catherine will become a member of the Audit Committee and stand down from the Remuneration Committee. Next to Catherine is Cyrus Taraporevala, who is one of our three new non-executive directors, and he's been appointed as a member of our Audit Committee. Cyrus will bring a deep understanding of global financial markets and sharp insights into the needs of shareholders. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. One moment, please. Help me. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Look, what you're doing here is damaging the future generations. No. If you can't see that, what is happening here is so wrong. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. Shell must fall. Shell must fall. Please think about what you're doing. It's not worth it. Well, we'd love to have that debate with you. I would have that debate with you happily if you waited your questions, but unfortunately, you have chosen to disrupt the proceedings, and you must leave. As I was saying, Cyrus will bring a deep understanding of global financial markets, sharp insights into the needs of shareholders, all thanks to a very successful international career in asset management which spanned over 30 years. Alongside Cyrus, we have Leena. Leena Srivastava is also one of our new non-executive directors, and Leena's a leading global authority on climate science and has decades of experience on energy, environment and climate change policy and expertise in sustainable development. Leena has been appointed as a member of the Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee. Right behind me is Neil Carson. Neil's the Chair of our Remuneration Committee and a member of our Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee. Next to Neil, Jane. Jane Holl Lute is a member of the Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee, subject to her reappointment at the end of this meeting, Jane will become a member of the Remuneration Committee. Moving on, next to Jane is Bram Schot, a member of the Safety, Environment and Sustainability Committee and the Remuneration Committee. We have Ann Godbehere, Chair of our Audit Committee and a member of our Nomination and Succession Committee. Finally, we have Sir Charles Roxburgh, the last of our new non-executive directors here today. Sir Charles brings a wealth of experience in economics, financial market and government. I know he will make a great contribution to the Shell Board. Dick Boer, who is a member of our Audit Committee and our Nomination and Succession Committee, is sadly not able to attend today for personal reasons. Subject to his reappointment at the end of this meeting, Dick will become deputy chair and senior independent director, taking over from Euleen, as well as a member of the Remuneration Committee. Also not present today is Martina Hund-Mejean, who is watching our proceedings online. As we announced in February, Martina is not seeking re-election here today. Martina, we would like to express our gratitude for your sound advice as a board member. Your expertise has been invaluable. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your board. I'd like to move on to the business of the meeting, starting with some remarks from myself, which I'm going to do from the lectern. First of all, a bit more about Wael. In a moment, you'll hear from him. We are delighted to have such strong leadership at Shell, I have no doubt that Wael will build on Ben's great work before him. Strong leadership is important. Strong financial results are important too. Since last year's AGM, we have delivered strong results. In 2022, we returned around $26 billion to shareholders through share buybacks and dividends. That was more than 35% of our cash flow from operations. We delivered strong results again in the first quarter of 2023. During our last AGM, I said that affordable, secure and reliable energy cannot be taken for granted. One year on, economic conditions are still challenging. Oil prices are volatile. The war in Ukraine continues to disrupt global trade. How to obtain a secure supply of energy is still a concern to many. Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 80% in the run-up to winter. As it turned out, milder temperatures, lower demand from China, and a lot of hard work meant that further problems were avoided. Shell's contribution was to supply 194 cargos of liquified natural gas, or LNG, to Europe in 2022. This was almost five times our usual average. Yes, at Shell, we have done our best over the past year to keep energy supplies flowing. At the same time, we've continued to make significant investments in solar and wind power, biofuels and hydrogen. You still invested 94% in oil and gas. Where is this greenwash that your company has all the time? There you are standing there telling us that you're trying to save this planet with your- I'm afraid your numbers are not quite correct. Anyway, I would still prefer that you leave the meeting rather than, if you're not prepared to have this debate in question time. I do not want to leave. Don't make it easier than coming by your company investing in oil and gas. You don't listen to the IPCC. You don't care. You only care about profit. Not people, not me, not me. It will not fall apart. You have to listen. Order. Go to hell. look, I was about to in some way address these issues, but I'm afraid you choose to do it in a different way. I'm afraid you have to leave the meeting. Shell disgusts us! Stop Shell! You profit from the war in Ukraine. They can carry out their oil business. You also profit. You're not helping. You're not helping. You're causing the situation. Go to hell, Shell! Um- Go to hell, Shell! I might beg to differ. I think Shell has made good progress on its climate change climate targets. We have met our carbon emissions targets for the second year running, in line with the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which is to limit the increase in the average global temperature to one and a half degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. We reduced carbon emissions from our own operations by 30% by the end of 2022. That's compared with 2016, which is our reference year, and it's more than halfway towards our target of a 50% reduction by 2030, the end of the decade. By the end of 2022, the net carbon intensity of the energy products sold by Shell had fallen by 3.8%. This is also compared with 2016, this 3.8% fall is within the 3%-4% target that we set ourselves for 2022, which is itself consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Over the same time, the carbon intensity of the global energy system fell by slightly more than half, 2% at that time that we achieved at Shell. We want to continue to make progress and show leadership when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, but also when it comes to capital disciplines to further strengthen our business. Wael and his team are going to go into that in a lot more detail at our Capital Markets Day next month in New York. For more than 100 years, we have built up large scale businesses in oil and gas that deliver the energy the world requires and create great shareholder value. Now we want our low carbon businesses also to create value, great value for shareholders, which means they must also achieve a large enough scale. That's why we invest in low carbon businesses that we believe have the potential to grow quickly and profitably. Businesses like the Danish firm Nature Energy, which we acquired this year for $2 billion, making us Europe's largest producer of biogas, a low carbon fuel made from organic waste. Biogas can be used in the same way as natural gas, either as a complete replacement or as a blend to reduce our carbon impact. We see much potential for growth in the biogas market, especially in regions that have favorable policies and strong demand, like here in Europe and the United States. Nature Energy has around 30 projects planned to do just that in these places. To get to net zero emissions by 2050, the world, including Shell's customers, requires many more low carbon businesses like this that can grow in scale. This demands great innovation. As a fellow of the Royal Society and Chair of U.K. Research and Innovation, I'm very fortunate to spend a lot of time around brilliant scientists with clever ideas. You know, it can be difficult to get a clever idea in the laboratory to the marketplace. That's partly why at Shell we've built technology hubs where ideas can become easier to scale so that we can help our transition and our transition of our customers to lower carbon faster. Over the past year, I visited three of these hubs in Houston, Amsterdam and in Bangalore. We have some very bright people here, and they take ideas from concept to customer, particularly in decarbonization. One excellent longer term example, I would say, is a commercial flight powered partially by sustainable synthetic kerosene or jet fuel, which a team from Shell created in our laboratory in Amsterdam. They produced this synthetic kerosene from hydrogen, water, and captured recycled carbon. Shell worked with KLM, Schiphol Airport, and Rolls-Royce, among others, to make sure this type of e-fuel works in practice. In 2021, in a world first, a passenger aircraft successfully flew from Amsterdam to Madrid with 500 liters of this same synthetic jet fuel or e-fuel blended with traditional kerosene. I know 500 liters is not a lot considering an average passenger plane needs thousands of liters of fuel, but it shows two things. First, scaling a new technology does take time. Synthetic kerosene still has a long way to go. Second, had we not worked together with scientists and other business partners, that flight would not have been able to take off. That brings me to collaboration. We have seen time and time again that collaboration helps scale a good idea into a good business and speeds up innovation. We must collaborate with governments, with other businesses, and we must attract more customers who want low carbon products. Whether it's the millions of people who drive their cars every day, or business customers that own airlines, or those that run huge industrial processes, at Shell we work with all our customers to help them reduce their emissions. We collaborate with companies like Microsoft and C3 AI to pioneer new ways of working. For example, we use artificial intelligence. Why are you building new oil fields? Why, why do you pivot against all the evidence that you've had for tens of years? No. I would like to answer that question in the question section, but not at this moment. If you can't wait till then, I'm afraid you must leave. No. Why, why are you building? You talk about all this- I can handle that in questions if you chose to wait. You can't do this. You can't. Shut down Shell. Shut down Shell. I was talking about artificial intelligence and how we use that to monitor valves around the clock to improve our operational efficiency, save money, and prevent accidents and cut carbon. This is useful in our many large upstream integrated gas facilities and manufacturing facilities, which have thousands of valves. Over time, they suffer wear and tear, but using on-site sensors, AI can detect problems and raise the alarm often before anything actually goes wrong. Maybe wait a wee bit. As I said, we want to build scale through innovation and collaboration to strengthen our businesses for today and for the future. Our shareholders, many of whom have held our shares for a long time and plan to keep them, I certainly hope, for even longer, are a very important part of that future. That brings me to Follow This. Our climate change give us direction. As you've heard, we've made good progress. Progress against our climate targets may not look the same every year, just as the energy transition itself is not a neat process. We'll make breakthroughs and pause, and we'll make breakthroughs. Getting to net zero emissions is more likely to come in an uneven way or what I would call progress that is more lumpy than linear. This means that while, as you've heard, we continue to pile innovation and welcome more demand for low carbon solutions and the factors that will create that demand, the speed of change will vary. We have to allow for this variation, and the Follow This resolution does not. It asks us for absolute Scope 3 targets, which we believe would weaken our business. It would force us to reduce the numbers of customers we serve, most important, who we hope to decarbonize. It would reduce our ability to help the world through our decarbonized products to cut carbon emissions. With strong businesses that can scale up using innovation and collaboration, we feel we're on the right path to deliver our Powering Progress strategy while we work to become a net zero emissions energy business and seek to grow shareholder returns. I urge you to support the progress that we've made in the last 12 months and not to vote for the damaging change to our strategy which Follow This have called for. I hope again, we can count on your support. Thank you. I should say it's now Will's time, I'll welcome Will to the lectern. It'd be good if you could hear the chief executive's speech, and then we'll have time for questions. No. I'm afraid you'll have to leave the meeting. We can handle all these in questions if you chose to ask them in the right way, but I'm afraid you're not, so you must leave the meeting. I'm sorry about this. Obviously, I'm sure many of you are keen to hear, I think we all are, what Wael has to say. I'm certain it will address many of those points, but Do continue. Thank you very much, Sir Andrew. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, all of you, our shareholders, for joining us today. This is my first AGM as Shell's CEO. Allow me a moment just to introduce myself. I'm Lebanese Canadian. I started my career at Shell more than 25 years ago as an engineer. Now, truth be told, I wasn't the best engineer in the history of Shell. My first job was to lay pipes in the Omani desert. I tried my hardest. I just couldn't get the pipeline to work. Still, I was a stubborn young man with a simple strategy: work hard and try to become better. Thankfully, my managers kept believing in me. In fact, they convinced me I could go further than I thought possible. Today, I try to do the same. I try to find my team members' strengths and encourage them to accomplish more than they think is possible. I've learned that with the right strategy, the willingness to improve, and by focusing on your strengths, there are no limits to what people can achieve. I believe this is true for me, for my team members, for Shell, and for the world at large. That brings me to today, because there is a lot the world needs to achieve. The world needs a secure supply of affordable energy so economies can develop, businesses can function, and people can continue to live their lives. The world also needs to make the transition to a net zero emissions energy system to tackle climate change. It cannot be one or the other. The world needs to cut emissions, and it needs enough reliable energy that people can afford. Since we need both, the transition to a low carbon energy system needs to be balanced. The last year has shown us what can happen if that balance is upset. The war in Ukraine disrupted the flow of energy. Gas became harder to get hold of. Prices went up. Countries turned back to coal for energy, especially in South Asia and Europe. This is the opposite of what the world needs because on average, coal emits around 50% more carbon emissions than gas when used to produce electricity, and a third more when providing heat. To give just one example, in 2022, the growth of Chinese domestic coal mining was more than Shell's total oil and gas production in the world. The disruption was the consequence of less than a 1% drop of globally available energy since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Achieving a net zero emissions energy system requires the world to replace not just 1% of energy, but most of its current supply of energy. For me, it's clear what energy companies such as Shell need to do in today's world. We must deliver a secure supply of energy that is affordable and increasingly lower carbon. Shell can achieve this by following the right strategy, by always allowing ourselves to work harder to become better, and by focusing on our strengths. Let me start with our strategy. As we have seen over the past highly volatile year, Powering Progress is still the right strategy to become a net zero emissions energy business by 2050, purposefully and profitably. Our current operating plans will have to change to achieve this target. This change will have to be balanced with investments in low carbon energy and in oil and gas. You see, across the world, oil and gas fields decline by some 4%-5% every year on average. This means significant investments in oil and gas are needed just to keep production at a constant level, let alone to meet the growing demand. Not investing enough in oil and gas could create supply shortages for the future. We have seen how that can lead to higher, not lower emissions. It is also clear that the world is underinvesting in low and zero carbon energy. We need some $3 trillion-$4 trillion of investment a year in this part of the energy system. The world is far away from that amount. This is a risk for the world and for us because if society does not achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, Shell also runs significant risk not to meet this target. Again, I think our role is clear. At Shell, we are investing both in low carbon energy and oil and gas, all in a disciplined way. To make the most impact in helping the world achieve a net-zero emissions energy system, Shell needs business models that are profitable and scalable. Put simply, we invest where we see a clear path towards commercial success. Even with this disciplined approach, we are one of the biggest investors in the world in low carbon energy. In 2022, we invested $8.2 billion in low carbon energy and non-energy products. Around a third of our total cash expenditure of $25 billion. Of that, $3.9 billion was invested in non-energy products. These are products like chemicals and lubricants. Since these products are not burnt in an engine like petrol or diesel, they don't produce carbon emissions when used. We invested $4.3 billion into low carbon energy solutions. This includes big investments in solar and wind power, biofuels, hydrogen, and charging for electric vehicles. The remaining two-thirds of our capital investment in 2022 went to maintaining supplies of oil and gas that the world needs today. Production at our Vito floating facility in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico started in February, for example. Vito combines everything we want from an oil and gas platform. It has the potential to add 100,000 bbl of oil equivalent per day, producing amongst the lowest greenhouse gas intensity barrels in the world. It was built 70% cheaper than originally planned. We plan to use this project as an example for future projects. That brings me, besides having the right strategy, to the second thing we need to succeed in the energy transition, the determination to become better. We aim to improve our performance in every part of Shell. We aim to demonstrate progress, not through words, but through actions and results. We will also continue to simplify our organization. One example of this simplification is our more focused senior leadership. Since this year, we have fewer leaders, including on the Executive Committee. This brings greater accountabilities and faster, more decisive actions. Doing better also means being more disciplined about the capital investments I just mentioned, also about cutting emissions. Sir Andrew already talked about the progress we made last year against the carbon targets that we set in 2021. I'll repeat the key details here because they are important. We reduced our emissions from our operations and the energy we use to run them by 30% by the end of 2022 compared with 2016 on a net basis. That's more than halfway towards our reduction target of 50% by 2030. By the end of 2022, the net carbon intensity of the global energy system had fallen by 2% compared with 2016. Over that same period, the net carbon intensity of the energy products sold by Shell had fallen by 3.8%. That's almost double. We have set short, mid, and long-term net carbon intensity targets covering all Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. This means all emissions from our operations, from the energy we use for these operations, as well as from our customers when they use the products we sell. Yes, I think we are making good progress, and we will continue to play our part in the energy transition while we supply the world with the energy it needs. That brings me after having the right strategy and the determination to become better to the 3rd reason why I believe Shell will be successful in a balanced energy transition. We focus on our strengths. Strengths like our deep water oil and gas assets, such as Vito, where we always try to find ways to produce barrels with higher value and lower carbon emissions. Strengths like our world-class liquified natural gas business that is both profitable and helps deliver energy to places where it is needed most. Strengths in low carbon energy that Sir Andrew already mentioned, like scaling of new businesses, using innovation to work more safely, efficiently, and profitably, and our ability to collaborate with governments, other businesses, and our customers. I just mentioned Scope 3 emissions. As I said, these emissions, which we don't control, are dependent on our customers and how they use the energy products we sell them. One way to bring down Scope 3 emissions is if our customers increasingly buy energy products with low emissions. Our decades long experience in working with our customers means we understand the obstacles they face, so we can help find solutions to overcome them. We have the infrastructure such as terminals, carriers, and pipelines to make these solutions work in real life. We are focusing on those low carbon energy products that play into our strengths, products that we think will have commercial success, like sustainable aviation fuels for planes, electric charging for cars and trucks, and a bit further in the future, hydrogen for heavy industry. By focusing on our strengths, both in conventional and low carbon energy, we will have a path to achieve our target to become a net zero emissions energy business by 2050, and equally, a path to do this in a profitable way. This helps our customers, the planet, and our shareholders. That brings me to Follow This. Let me start by saying where we see common ground with Follow This. They want us to achieve net zero emissions. We share the same goal. I don't believe their resolution is the right way to achieve it. In Lebanon, there is a proverb that says, and I quote, "Some men will build a wine cellar when they have found just one grape." I end quote. It seems to me this is what Follow This is doing. They have one idea, and that idea is that the world can quickly and easily replace all oil and gas by targeting companies like Shell. This is simply wrong. Quickly reducing oil and gas from international energy businesses like Shell creates more volatility and drives higher production from coal producers and national oil and gas companies. Those are two very large groups of energy suppliers that Follow This does not target. A quick global oil and gas reduction also prevents the energy transition from happening at a pace that allows for the right balance. As we have seen only too well over the past year, cutting supply while demand remains unchanged does not work. It adds shocks to the system and drives up prices. For a balanced transition, the type of energy people use needs to change. Supply and demand of energy both need to change. Changing energy demand can only happen with the help of governmental policies and shifts in society. It would help if Follow This would contribute to this change, they continue to focus on the supply of energy. In doing so, the Follow This resolution fails to provide a clear course of action for our business. It does not allow us to help our customers. It is against the interest of our shareholders. It does not help to mitigate climate change. You see, the resolution calls for an absolute Scope 3 emissions reduction target. To meet such a target, Shell would have to stop selling our oil and gas products to our customers. I already told you we want to bring Scope 3 emissions down by working with our customers, helping them find low carbon energy solutions. This resolution would not allow us to help our customers, especially in sectors that cannot easily switch from oil and gas to renewable electricity like aviation, shipping, and heavy industry. What's more, if we stop selling our oil and gas products to our customers while there's no reduction in demand or readily available and affordable alternatives for oil and gas, our customers will not switch to low carbon energy. They will just buy oil and gas products from our competitors, and total worldwide emissions would not go down at all. Handing over customers to our competitors would damage Shell's financial strength and limit our ability to generate value for our shareholders. Adopting the Follow This resolution will not help reduce total worldwide carbon emissions. It will not help our customers. It will not help you, our shareholders. I propose instead to do something else. Let us support the world in achieving a net zero emissions energy system. Let us help our customers. Let us grow our business and let Shell continue to create value for our shareholders. Our Powering Progress strategy lets us do all these things and more. We are more than two years into the strategy that is comprehensive, flexible, and now tested through tough circumstances. With determination and focus, I am sure we can make Powering Progress work even better. Today, we ask you to vote in support of the progress we have made in the last 12 months and not to vote for the highly unhelpful change in our strategy that Follow This have called for. I hope we can again count on your support. I thank you. Thanks, Wael. Thank you, Wael. We've now come to that part of the meeting where we have the opportunity to ask questions, or you have. You may have seen in the notes of the meeting that most of the resolutions are of a mainly routine nature for a listed PLC, with the exception of the two climate-related resolutions which both myself and Wael have made reference to. The first of those is resolution 25, which is proposed by the Board and presents an advisory vote on Shell's progress against its energy transition strategy. Your directors strongly believe that Shell's energy transition strategy is in the best interest of our shareholders as a whole and wider society, as both of us have just explained. Equally, the board and management also believe it's important for all shareholders to have a vehicle to express their views on whether our strategy and progress against it is reasonable in the current environment. The advisory vote resolution is designed to be that vehicle, and for clarity, doesn't shield or abdicate the board's or management's legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006. Nor does it ask shareholders to take responsibility for formally approving or objecting to Shell's energy transition strategy. That legal responsibility continues to remain with the board and the executive committee. The other climate-related resolution is resolution 26. Now, as a reminder, we've talked a lot about it, this is a special resolution which has been requisitioned by a group of shareholders represented by the organization Follow This. For reasons that we've both expressed and previously expressed and outlined in detail in the notice of meeting, your directors have unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against this resolution. We're going to shortly hear from Mr. Mark van Baal who will tell you more about his resolution or this resolution, I should say. To make sure of an order discussions, I'm gonna take questions in this order. For all questions or comments of a general or operational nature, including those about climate change or the energy transition, and all questions or comments about our strategy, including those about resolution 25 and our energy transition strategy, we'll go first with them. We'll then take all questions regarding the remaining resolutions. If I could remind you, do keep your questions to the point, short, preferably about one to two minutes, so we can get through as many as possible here today. For those asking questions on the teleconference facility, I've seen some of them coming through, but I would ask you that you give your name, and if you represent an organization, the name of that organization when you're making a question or a comment. Let's now start with questions and answers. May I start with Mr. van Baal. Mr. van Baal, maybe you have a short statement that you would like to make about your resolution. Yes, I have. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah, good morning. Good to see you again. Good morning to you all. Mr. Chairman, directors, fellow shareholders, and of course, a warm welcome to center stage, Wael Sawan. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Let me start by saying science is very clear. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as agreed by 140, 194 countries in Paris in 2015, the world must almost halve emissions by 2030. That's what science tells us. Our company, one of the largest emitters in the world, according to its own Carbon Disclosure Project reporting, has no targets that will lead to substantial absolute emissions reductions by 2030. No targets that lead to that, what we need to achieve Paris. Our board, dear fellow shareholders, is determined to cling to fossil fuels, to their carbon-based business model as long as possible, with the excuse that the profits in renewables are not as handsome. Your board ignores that the excessive profits in turning harder carbons into petrodollars will be over soon, as soon as possible for your companies will pay for climate damage. Your board refuses to use the current windfall profits to explore new business models at scale. As PGGM, one of the Climate Action 100+ lead investors points out, there's no independent third-party source that shows that Shell is Paris-aligned by 2030. Let's face it, if Shell had Paris-aligned targets for 2030, the board would not urge their shareholders to vote against shareholder resolution 26. Shareholder resolution 26, let me remind everybody of that, requests no more and no less than a Paris-aligned Scope 3 targets for 2030. Therefore, I will not waste any more time, I will not waste anyone's time today in trying to convince the board. Instead, I will address our fellow shareholders. Dear shareholders. Let me try to address the shareholders in a better way then. Dear shareholders, your board is only determined to cling to higher carbons because you, shareholders, allow them to do so. Because you, shareholders, continue to vote against change. They do that because they think. They only cling to fossil fuels because they think that that's what their shareholders want. Your board will only choose a different direction if you vote for change. You could do so by voting for shareholder resolution 26, requesting 2030 Scope 3 emission reduction targets in line with the Paris Agreement. Today, when the votes of this AGM are shown, we will show how many shareholders are real stewards of the global economy and how many shareholders enable Shell to continue to cause climate breakdown and jeopardize the long-term future of your company. Ultimately, it is in the boards and the shareholders' best interest to pursue the opportunities the energy transition presents. This will also preempt risks of losing access to capital markets, job markets, policy interventions, litigation, liability for the costs of climate change, disruptive innovation and stranded assets. As long as shareholders enable big oil to cause climate breakdown with their votes against Paris alignment, all majors will hang on to their fossil fuel business model as long as possible. Investing in fossil fuel extraction far outside the boundaries of the Paris Agreement, lobby against climate legislation. No, that's not enough. I'm just getting started. Refrain from investing in alternatives at scale and even ignore court rulings. Let's face it, Shell is largely ignoring the court ruling in the Netherlands. The court ruling asked them to reduce all emissions this decade. An important effect of the Follow This climate resolution is to provide clarity. First, clarity that your board does not want to drive down emissions this decade. They want to only make promises for 2050. Second, clarity which investors are determined to drive down emissions this decade by voting in favor, and which investors enable Shell to postpone emission reductions by voting against. Today, we thank all investors who voted for change. For example, Dutch investors MN and PGGM, the lead investors in the Climate Action 100+. Almost all large Dutch investors, if they haven't divested. We thank them for their leadership, and we hope other investors will follow their leadership in the future. The only decision, dear shareholders, you have to make is decouple short-term profits from long-term risk. For your clarity, I will ask the chairman 1 question. Mr. Chairman, the question of course is, you are well prepared, can Shell be Paris-aligned without large-scale emission reductions? Let me rephrase it. Can Shell be Paris-aligned without large-scale absolute Scope 3 emissions reductions by 2030? I'm going to pass over to Wael for a more detailed response to your remarks, but you did ask me a direct question. I think we can be Paris-aligned. We are. I mean, you glossed over in many ways the tremendous progress we've made with our Scope 1 and 2 absolute emissions. I would make the same points about the progress that we've made on cutting methane emissions. You know, that's a very important greenhouse gas as well that often doesn't get mentioned in all of this. The other part of being Paris-aligned is to enable the whole of society to change. We enable the whole of society to change towards a lower carbon way of being by owning customers and by working with them in the way I mentioned in my speech, to offer them lower and lower carbon alternatives to the fuel that they require to go about their lives or to do their business. By blending in new materials like biogas, like sustainable aviation fuel, potentially in the future, hydrogen that will allow us to move our customers to a much lower carbon base over time. I think we also enable Paris by advocacy. Not just our marketing, with our customers, of course, backed up on the technology and innovation we do, which is also enabling, but also the way in which we talk with governments as to how they can provide a much greater move towards lower carbon alternatives to society at large. 'Cause then there will be the demand, and with that demand, we will find ourselves with this in a need to meet that demand with a very profitable, and I have to come back to that word, yes, and good return investments in those areas. I think we are strongly aligned with Paris, and we're also strongly enabling. There's some other things you said in your speech, and I'm sure that Wael would like to come back to you on. Thank you, Chair. Mr. van Baal, thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the warm introduction. Let me say a few words and maybe just start with correcting some statements you made, starting with your statement around us not having targets before 2050, which is incorrect. We indeed, as Sir Andrew said, have a very clear Scope 1 and 2 target of a 50% reduction by 2030, of which we are 30% reduced compared to 2016 already. We have very clear plans to achieve that. From a Scope 3 perspective, which is the emissions from our customers, we have short, medium, and long-term car targets. For example, last year, our target was 3%-4%. We achieved a 3.8% reduction. Next year, we can grow to 4%-6%, and so on and so forth. We do have targets. Your other statement around us ignoring the court ruling is also a misleading statement because as you know well, the court gives Shell and its management broad discretion to be able to achieve the requirements of the court by 2030. Of course, we are appealing that judgment and look forward to engaging in that discussion going forward. At the heart of it, I think your statement that we are not in line with Paris is flawed because what we are trying to do is trying to follow the IPCC 1.5-degree scenario that sees us continue to reduce our emissions in line with the targets we have set for ourselves. Once again, what I will say is we do not disagree with you on the destination. We have a different view as to how we get there. The idea that we should sacrifice our customers in the hope of achieving our pathway towards net zero is a flawed concept. We believe that actually spending time understanding our customers, offering them multiple energy options, lower carbon options, such as wind, which we are investing in, solar, which we are investing in, hydrogen, green hydrogen, which we are investing in, biofuels, EV charging, all to the tune of north of $4 billion just last year, I think speaks testament to this board's commitment to the energy transition. Therefore, I continue to be convinced, as I think Sir Andrew said, unanimously, the board is also convinced that this is the wrong resolution for our shareholders. It's not in their best interest, it's not in the interest of our customers, and it's not in the interest of the planet. Okay. thank you, Wael. You maintain that you can be Paris-aligned without large-scale emission reductions by 2030. That's a clear answer, thank you for that. Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Sawan, you know this is not true. The world must almost halve emissions by 2030. You maintain that Shell, one of the highest emitters in the world, doesn't have to cut emissions. You are not only misleading your shareholders, you're really insulting their intelligence. As PGGM said, no independent third-party source shows that Shell is Paris-aligned by 2030. Dear shareholders, I hope you take this answer, you remember this answer when you cast your vote next time. Fellow shareholders, your company will only change if you vote for change. Thank you. Okay. I think we need to open it up to more questions now. Over to you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I've just checked. We have no questions on the telephone line. We will go first into the room, and I will invite Mr. Gerben Everts from the VEB to ask his first question. Gerben, you can go to the telephone, or to the microphone there and ask your question. Please keep it short and one or two questions max. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gerben Everts, executive director of European Investors-VEB, the Dutch Shareholder Association. We represent shareholders, including retail investors, Dutch and European, with 30,000 members. For the majority of our members, Shell is one of the largest funds in their investment portfolio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for leading the AGM in such a calm and considerate way. I do understand the concerns expressed this morning regarding the methodology used. The questions on effectiveness can and need to be raised. Shell, with all its technical, human, and financial assets, will play a crucial role in the transition to net zero. No one ignores the need and challenge to stop further climate change. At the same time, the world is energy-dependent, committed to be less dependent on dubious regimes. The global reality cannot be ignored either. I have four crisp questions on the future strategy, I think especially addressed to Mr. Sawan. Mr. Sawan, you were very clear in your presentation and the opening remarks in the annual report, I quote, "In my first annual report as CEO, I want to be clear. Shell is a great company, and we are changing to ensure we become a great investment too." At his appointment in 2014, former CEO Ben van Beurden used almost the exact same words, I quote, he phrased, "Our strategy is to deliver a world-class investment case. My first question, please could you elaborate on this statement and share the reasons why Shell was apparently not a great investment over the past years, and what you will do differently compared to your predecessor, and which areas provide the most room for improvement? That's the first question. The second question, the investments in renewable and energy solutions increased substantially over the past years. However, for outsiders, it's very difficult to assess how green this business reality is. Retail gas sales are, for example, part of the renewables and energy solution business. Could Shell commit to further improve the level of segment disclosures? Overall, how does Shell reflect on these investments? Shell guides for $2 billion-$4 billion CapEx in 2023, which is in line with the CapEx spend of three and a half billion U.S. dollars last year. Given Shell's transition plan, we expected a step up in investments. Why is Shell guiding stable CapEx for its renewable business? A third question, Shell mentioned in reviewing its decision to reduce oil production by 1% or 2% annually until 2030. In various meetings, you also mentioned the importance of longevity. For instance, in the fourth quarter call. "Longevity is a core part of our focus," you then mentioned. Our question, due to divestments, especially in the Permian, with a decline of over 10%, the 2030 target is essentially already realized. What does this mean for upstream production going forward? My fourth and last question, on our math, even at substantially lower energy prices, Shell will generate substantial excess cash flow. Given the already strong balance sheet, should shareholders expect high dividends and buybacks or higher investments? In your annual report, you remarked R&D expenditure on projects that contribute to the decarbonization stood at around $440 million, representing about 41% of total R&D spend, compared with around 40% in 2021. On the face of it, the absolute R&D budget for low carbon seems remarkably low for a company the size of Shell. Also taking into account the technical challenges related to the decarbonization of our energy system you and Mr. Mackenzie referred to earlier this morning. Why doesn't Shell raise its green R&D budget? Those were my questions. Let me come back on the resolution 20 and 25 and 26 in a second round when others have the opportunity to speak as well. Do you want me to chip in on that right now? No, let's pause, we've got a lot of questions in the room, and if everybody takes as long as you, we'll be here till 5:00. That's not a model question, if I may say, about a tenth of the length. You made some very interesting points. I'm gonna hand them to Wael, I would answer you very strongly. Of course, we're gonna play a crucial role, a very crucial role in the energy transition through decarbonizing our customers, also in the way in which we balance finance with carbon. We are one of the few companies, if any fact, one of the only companies, I think, which actually allocates carbon and dollars at the same time in trying to actually steer ourselves through this in a way that cuts carbon and actually grows returns. Now, Wael and the team are going to do a big exposé on all of this stuff in less than a month in New York, so he may not be able to be fully candid with his answers because we want to save it for them, but I'm sure there's some things he can address now. Wael. Thank you, Sir Andrew. Mr. Everts, thank you very much for those questions. Starting with the first one, around Shell, becoming a great investment case. I think firstly, to recognize how far we have come over the past few years under Ben's leadership. We have sharpened our focus as a company. We have embraced the Powering Progress strategy that I think is one of the leading strategies in our sector, towards the energy transition. When I talk about becoming an even better investment case, it is also about making sure that we are competitive with our peers, where we have lagged against others. There are three key areas I focus on. Number one is performance, irrespective of whether that comes in conventional energy or new energy. For us to be able to continue to earn the right to steward your capital, we need to make sure that we are spending that capital wisely and delivering the outcomes that you expect. Secondly is discipline. We just need to continue to be disciplined in the way we approach opportunities, in the way we deploy capital, and in the way we deploy the allotted carbon budget that we share with our teams. Thirdly, I would say simplification. We are a large company. We have over 90,000 people. We are in over 70 countries. The size means we can become sometimes slow, and therefore we are very much focused on how we can become more agile in a world that is going to require us to be more agile if we are to succeed in the energy transition. To your second point around renewable spend. I think for avoidance of doubt, let me clarify. We spent last year $4.3 billion in low-carbon energy. Our spend in low-carbon energy does not simply sit in the renewable energy solutions segment. It sits also in areas like marketing. It also sits actually in upstream, where we invest, for example, in carbon capture and sequestration. We also spend $3.9 billion in non-energy products, so a third of our total investment was in non-hydrocarbon spend. The other two-thirds indeed goes into hydrocarbon spend because, as I mentioned earlier, you need to invest just to stay still in a lot of this because of the 4%-5% decline rates. People compare the spend in new energies versus the spend in hydrocarbons. I think the hydrocarbon spend is just very capital intensive, and actually in the new energies we find is very OpEx intensive as well. In terms of disclosure, we will continue to create transparency in all of our disclosures to help you, our shareholders, appreciate where we are putting our money and to be able to hold us to account on the performance that we make. On your question around the decline, you're absolutely spot on. We have indeed achieved what was our 2030 target on production already. I have talked about longevity of the cash flows to be able to continue to pay our dividends and to distribute to our shareholders, to deleverage and to have the opportunities to invest in low-carbon energy. The specifics of forward-looking production, I will save for Capital Markets Day in June. Your last question around R&D and in general, the substantial cash generation by Shell and how we are deploying it. We are being very thoughtful in the way we deploy those funds. With the board, there are discussions around the right balance of deleveraging shareholder distributions and reinvesting in the business. We reinvest in our businesses in a way that is clear on the returns we need to deliver to you, our shareholders. There are challenges. There are inflationary pressures we see in certain markets. We see supply chains being challenged, in particular in some of the lower carbon energy space. You would not want us to spend that capital and realize low returns, which will remove the right to be able to continue to spend that capital in future. We will be thoughtful, and we will be careful with your money, and we will pivot into the energy transition in a way that allows you to achieve some of those gains, including in how we spend in R&D. We spend in R&D, not just in our own labs, but we also spend significantly with multiple academic institutions to make sure that our money is having a multiplier effect in the discovery of new opportunities for the energy transition, and we will continue to find that right balance. Thank you. Thanks, Wael. I mean, just to... Look, I really appreciate those questions which ask us to just be even more transparent and disciplined about how we disclose things. We don't wanna hide. We want to be available to be held to account. We talk a lot about targets, but also let's talk about delivery, and we'll also talk about that with Scope 3 as well. You know, we... Count on us as being as transparent as we can. If we don't get it right, push back and we'll improve. Okay. Gerben. May I make one remark? Um- To thank you for the response. There are different types of shareholders, and I think whether the investments in green might not be the, let's say, most welcome allocation of our funds. I think the CapEx investments on being really net zero in 2030, 2050, you really need to invest. Whether, you know, the return in the first years will be a bit lower, for us as shareholders, not so much an issue. Thanks for your commitment to make things more transparent, especially the segment information. We try to compare businesses, and if Shell is doing better than Chevron and the others, Totals, et cetera, also in the green transition, of course that will make a meeting like this far more easy. Many thanks for that, and we look forward for Capital Markets Day. Yeah. All points taken. Thank you. Thanks, Gerben. I'd like to go for a next question here in the room. It's invite Christian Schubert from PFA to come to the microphone. Then we go for an online question. Christian. Thank you. All right. My name is Christian Schubert. I'm representing PFA Pension, the largest commercial pension fund in Denmark, with around 1.3 million customers and EUR 80 billion under management. We acknowledge Shell's commitment to a Paris-aligned energy transition, as well as the complexities around this, as we value our ongoing dialogue with you as a company, tackling the dilemmas and all these matters. We also understand you're currently reviewing your climate transition strategy. In that regard, we would recommend and hear the board's perspectives on Shell becoming more transparent towards 2030 targets and the reduction target in 2040, both when it comes to forward-looking CapEx investments into renewables, but also what types of minimum climate, minimum criteria to set for investing in new oil and gas exploration and production. Thank you. That's great input. As you know, this year we're voting simply on whether or not we're following the strategy we cut two years ago. Next year we have to have a new strategy, and you can be sure that this board and this executive team will be working very hard on that between now and the beginning of next year when we publish it. That input was very worthwhile. Thank you. Okay, I'll go with a question online now. It's from Denis Anokhov from DWS. First he has a statement. Shell has been involved in a project of building an LNG terminal in Batangas in Philippines, which is very close to a highly sensitive biodiversity area, Verde Island Passage. That's his statement. His first question is, can you provide information on the current plans for CapEx for the renewables and energy solutions division in 2023 and possibly a projection into up to 2030? His second question is, when can we expect Shell to align its capital expenditure plans with the Paris Agreement objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 C? I'm not quite sure how... I'm reading this again. I would just answer the question. Yeah. No, no, but, I mean, there's no obvious question on what we're doing in the Philippines in that. In that. No. Okay. Well, in which case, I think we just have to provide information on the current plans for CapEx for the renewables and energy solutions in 2023 and projections up to 2030. I think Wael has answered the 2022 question. I'm not sure there's much more we can add to that. I'll turn to Wael in a moment. On question two, I think we can go round this circle a lot. We do believe that our plans are aligned. There is no objective measure out there where we can all subscribe to as to what is fully aligned with the Paris Agreement. We think as much as we can determine if the world is going to hit 2050 with a temperature rise by 2100 of less than 1.5 degrees above what it was in the pre-industrial era, then some of the things, and all the things that we've laid out in our report are necessary, and we are pursuing them, and they can be measured. I don't think there's more to add to that. I don't know, Wael, if there's anything you want to add on projections beyond to the this year and into next. Very little other than to say, indeed, as I mentioned earlier, just north of $8 billion on low carbon and non-energy products in 2022. We expect a similar amount to be spent in that category in 2023. Thanks, Wael. Next question. Yeah, next question in the room. I'd like to invite Laura Hillis of the Church of England Pensions Board to come to the phone. Laura. Hi. Thank you. My name is Laura Hillis, and I'm a representative of the Church of England Pensions Board. We are part of Climate Action 100+, and were until 2021 the designated co-lead investor for the Climate Action 100+ engagement with Shell. In 2021, the pensions board attended this AGM and stated our support for Shell's climate transition plan, which was put to a shareholder vote for the first time at that AGM. We noted at the time that Shell was a first mover on a number of fronts, including on Scope 3 emissions, climate lobbying, and was one of the first companies to offer a shareholder vote on a transition plan. While the plan was not perfect, it was positioning Shell as a constructive actor in shaping the long-term transition. Today, I'm sorry to say we see a different path being taken. Despite Shell posting record profits in 2022 and having the highest capital expenditure among its peers, its CapEx into renewables and low-carbon energy is far lower than would be expected by a company seeking to shape a future in the transition. These investments are lower than your most comparable peer, BP. You are also investing the most of your European peers in upstream oil and gas production. While acknowledging the importance of your 2050 target, your short and medium-term targets are misaligned with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, according to all independent analysis. It has been widely reported and confirmed today that you're reviewing your plan to reduce oil output during this decade. Just this week, the chair of Shell Australia has spoken out against the more ambitious climate policy in that jurisdiction. Taken together, this is all deeply concerning. As a long-term institutional investor, our duty as a pension fund is to our members and their long-term interests, as well as to the world they will retire into. These interests are not being served by the short-term approach the company appears to be taking. Although we were willing to support you in the past, today, we cannot, it is with great regret that we have voted against the re-election of your chairman and all Shell directors and have also voted in support of the Follow This resolution. Today, we have used our vote, but as we indicated in 2021, we are also prepared to restrict investment in the company if we do not see a change in direction. We believe this company has a choice. We would encourage the board to reflect upon the future that society is demanding, as set out in the Paris Agreement, and what role Shell is truly playing in shaping it. Therefore, my question to the board of directors and chair is, will you return to the path you were on, prioritize the long term and commit to phase out CapEx in oil and gas production, increase your short and medium-term targets, and double down on being a constructive actor in shaping an orderly energy transition? Okay. Look, frankly, thank you for your input, and of course, we regret the decision you took quite publicly so in coming up to this AGM. I mean, just as a matter of process, I mean, the vote on our energy transition strategy this year was simply a vote on the strategy we agreed, and we thought we had alignment with you in 2021. The new strategy that will take account of all the changes since then is not due till next year. All we were asking shareholders this year was approval for the continuing strategy, and I think in all cases we've met or exceeded the targets that we set out in that strategy. That's why the board recommended very strongly that people should vote. Yes, we're on track to deliver the 2021 strategy. Yes, you are right, with the 2024 strategy, we need to take full account of the changing circumstances we find ourselves in. As I said in answer to eight other questions, that will be a big, deep concern for the board going forward. We appreciate your input and obviously we'll be in touch with our next strategy. I think the only comment I would make is that it's quite. Wael reflected on that a bit. It's a little bit frustrating for us if everything is always compared on capital because we have, on the one hand, an upstream oil and gas business that's quite capital-intensive and a downstream business which is likely to be a low carbon downstream business, which is likely to be a lot capital-intensive. We have absolutely said that we don't want to invest in the upstream of that business in a big way. We don't want the capital-intensive part. We want the downstream part, where we decarbonize our customers, where more of the expenditure is going to happen in OpEx. As you look at what we do in the future, I'd ask that you become a bit more nuanced and don't just do capital ratios between the old way of doing business and the new way of doing business, and also don't compare capital ratios with other companies who have a strategy which is more biased to the upstream of lower carbon, which in itself is less capital-intensive, where ours is biased more to the downstream. Look, we look forward to the debate. We'd love to be collaborating with you again. We're really sorry we lost you this year. We felt we were on target with the strategy that we agreed with you in 2021. I think our numbers show that, but let's see what we come out with in 2024. Thank you. If I may, just to be clear, in 2021, when we did support the plan, we said that our support was contingent upon an increase in ambition in your short and medium-term targets, and that has not come through. Okay, fair dues. Well, let's see what we do next year. Thank you, Laura. I'd like now to invite Paul Ratcliffe for his question. Paul, are you still here or have you left us? If you go to there and you keep it short, you can definitely... If you don't sing or dance. Definitely no singing or dancing. Okay. Thank you very much. This is a question in two parts. Excuse me, I'm not an economist, but I have some grip on what's going on. It's clear to me that the wealth of any civilization is and always has been dependent on two things: natural capital, which is the stuff that the earth gives us, trees, rivers, oil, whatever we extract from the natural environment which supports our life. Secondly, human capital, which are the farmers, the doctors, the teachers, all these people that do stuff for us. It appears to me that for at least four decades, oil companies, including yourselves, have known very clearly that your actions are destroying both those forms of capital. Right? The second part of my question, bearing that in mind, is that a recent Guardian article states that oil companies, amongst which you are the foremost, will be demanded under international law to pay reparations not only to us all globally for the damage done to the global environment, but specifically to people in countries where extraction takes place. We've had people standing up in the meeting this morning talking about different parts of the world where your extractive activities have caused grievous damage, not only to the natural capital, but to the human capital in those places. Could you please explain to the shareholders how these actions, which are based on 40 years of denial and active hiding the truth from shareholders and from the world in general, and actively skewing the media representation of your activities, how this is going to support shareholders in the future when you have destroyed the very basis of our prosperity, both as a business and as a global population? Thank you. Okay. Let me think about this a bit. I mean, first off, it's very hard me to deal with something as broad as that. We need to talk about specifics, area by area to understand where the grievance might be. For shareholders, I would commend them, our Powering Progress strategy, which is in, which you can get off our website, is reported on us in our sustainability report, where we address all the issues you talk about. You know we have... In addition, obviously, to the big issue of any meeting of Shell at the moment about how we're dealing with climate emissions, we also have two sections on powering lives, which is all about the whole issues of, you know, of local populations as well. Actually, as well the people who work for Shell. Then we have protecting nature, which deals with clean water, it deals with clean air, it deals with the very important issues of biodiversity, which I think have come up the agenda more recently. I think we're on this stuff, and we have been thinking quite deeply about it. It does tend to get pushed to the back by the concerns about climate emissions. I think then we have to come and look at the local examples where we can, where we can do something about it. But I don't accept everything that you say. If I may just come back to you on both of those points. One is we've had a lot of fair words this morning, and I think if you really take a good look at the areas in the world where this damage has happened. Well, give me an example. Niger Delta. Well, we can talk about that. There are specific examples. I think that you've also put a lot of the responsibility onto your customers for driving change. You are big enough as a company to be a game changer. No, I'm sorry. We're not putting the responsibility on our customers. That's not fair. What we're saying is that we will develop with our customers low carbon alternatives, and we hope that they will be encouraged to buy them through the work we do with R&D, with marketing and with governments to make them affordable and to make them investable. We're not putting responsibility on our customers. We own, we own that responsibility as much as anyone. Well, I think your lobbying is being so politically motivated that you actually have skewed government's decisions on climate change. I think that you're one of the main drivers, actually. I think you need to take a really good look at where your power actually lies and how you're going to use it. What. You're welcome to your opinion. I obviously we disagree slightly with that. Again, if we could get to specifics, it would be easier. Specifically, specifically, you need to take your responsibility for the destruction of human lives and the destruction of our life support system seriously and decide that it is your responsibility to make a huge change. You have the opportunity, you have the power, you have the opportunity. Uh-uh. You could own the motivation to do that, and you could go down in history as somebody who did the right thing instead of a dissembling greenwasher sitting there making excuses just to make more money while the world burns. Well- Thank you. I. Okay. I, yeah, I, look, I. You're entitled to your opinion. I think if you read our Powering Progress strategy, you see the examples from our sustainability report. You will see where we have taken action and taken responsibility, and of course we can always do better. Next question. Thank you. I would like to invite Xander Urbach to come to question point. Xander. It's a little bit higher. It's okay. Thank you. Dear Mr. Chairman, dear fellow shareholders. My name is Xander Urbach, I'm here on behalf of MN&BT, Dutch Pension Fund. I'm making this statement as part of the Climate Action 100+ lead investor group, also including PGGM Investments and the Phoenix Group. We aim to provide Shell with long-term support and critical feedback throughout its energy transition journey. I want to start by thanking Shell for the productive engagements that we've had over the past few years. We have especially appreciated the recent discussions with your chair and CEO, with whom we've had an open and honest conversation. We also would like to publicly congratulate Mr. Sawan for his appointment as CEO of Shell. I would like to start with some acknowledgments before outlining areas for further improvements by your company. Shell is a leader among oil and gas companies in the energy transition. For example, it has set multiple intensity targets, including Scope 3 emissions, has acquired Europe's largest renewable and natural gas company, and is building Europe's largest green hydrogen plant. The current energy crisis shows that decarbonization journey does not follow a straight line, and this journey is not Shell's alone either. The energy transition will only happen through joint efforts of investors, policymakers, and energy consuming companies alike. We believe Shell can take further and bolder steps to enable the world's energy transition. We currently do not have sufficient evidence that your company's climate strategy is aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement. We acknowledge the energy trilemma, this should not become a Bermuda Triangle where the climate ambitions of energy companies vanish. This leads us to three strong recommendations and questions for Shell in order to safeguard the long-term interest of our underlying pension beneficiaries we represent. Firstly, we encourage your management and board to remain committed to the yearly announced expected reduction in oil production of around 1%-2%. Shell has the flexibility to meet current energy demands without changing its course, and we trust you agree that maintaining these goals will strongly signal to the world that your company takes its commitment seriously. Secondly, we request that you are more explicit about your low carbon strategy. Shell has the capital and the know-how to supply and shape the demand for low carbon alternatives to its customers and to help the transition as well. It's critical that you disclose concrete 2030 targets for your chosen low carbon areas, the relevant CapEx plan to support them, a projection of related sales energy mix, and a commitment that your company will accelerate these targets over time. Lastly and thirdly, we encourage you to show to your shareholders how your transition strategy contributes to a decline in absolute emissions in line with the goals of the Paris Agreements. Specifically, we request that you explain how the individual components of your current carbon intensity targets are contributing to reducing your company's overall absolute emissions, including upstream and downstream emissions. We kindly ask you to respond to these three recommendations. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Urbach. I think on points two and three, I'm gonna suggest that these have and partly been covered by questions that Will and I have answered previously and will fully be, fully, will be attempted by us with our best foot forward to be addressed in our energy transition plan for 2024. I take your input and the whole board are here, we're listening to your input, and as we craft that, we will certainly have that in mind. I think leaves just with your question, or I don't know if it's a statement, on the 1%-2% oil production reduction. I mean, first of all, I hope you acknowledge that we've well way exceeded that target from when we first met. In fact, we've effectively delivered more than we were expecting to deliver by way of a reduction by 2030. That's an important frame as we look forward and, we look forward perhaps to what Wael Sawan may want to say more of in the Capital Markets Day. I don't know if you want to add to anything at this point. Nothing. No. I think capital markets state next month for question one. Question two and three, I think we'll deal with all your input when we actually form and publish our energy transition strategy next year. Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. Thanks, Andrew. I'd like to invite now Naomi Hogan. Okay. Naomi is not there. I'd like to invite Kush Naker. Oh, Naomi, you're there? Sorry. That's okay. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Chair, I represent the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, ACCR. We work with asset owners and managers seeking to understand and manage investment risks relating to the energy transition over coming decades. I have two questions with respect to your recent Energy Security Scenarios report. In the scenario designed to explore how the world meets the goals of the Paris Agreement, you chart oil supply dropping steeply from the early 2030s, with low-cost OPEC producers gaining significant market share. This is also a view shared by IEA scenarios. Your report says for the Sky 2050 scenario, having been burnt in the past by overinvesting, only to lose out when prices fall, companies prefer to generate cash for their investors rather than invest in additional production capacity. At what point would Shell, as a higher cost producer, consider what your own energy securities report suggests and return cash to shareholders and investors over investing in additional oil production capacity? My second question, your Energy Security Scenarios report demonstrates a clear understanding of climate science, the diminishing carbon budget, and the impacts of global warming, including low-lying nations going underwater. Your report also notes that the climate-related events witnessed as the planet warms will lead to increasing societal activism. In this context, do you see Shell's recent statements alongside significant ongoing oil and gas exploration outlays leading to growing backlash directed to Shell? How are you actively managing risks associated with further societal activism targeting Shell, including new calls for financial reparations? Well, with that, thank you, Naomi. I mean, I think the first thing I would point out is that our production has been falling and our returns to shareholders have been rising. You know, quite generously so. I mean, 35% of our cash from operations was returned to shareholders last year. I think in some respects, we're already meeting what you're asking us to do going forward. I think some of the other comments you make are related to obviously looking at some of the Shell scenarios, where we do expect that without greater change on the customer side to pull through a lot of the things that Shell are ready to provide on the. of a lower carbon future, that inevitably there will be a sudden backlash on some of the things that you've heard about and read in our scenarios will therefore give us the possibility for, you know, not nice way, but of actually selling more low carbon activities. That's what I meant in my speech about things being lumpy. It can either be a technology development or it can be a social development. Of course, we're ready for that. That's why we're doing the work, we're doing research, we're working so hard, you know, in investing in many of the alternatives and have done. I mean, and I think as Wael said, I mean, our investment last year was almost double what it was the previous year in some of those low carbon alternatives. I wasn't able to take notes on all your questions, but I'm gonna sort of call it for reinforcements now and ask if Will would like to add anything to some of the things you've said. Thank you, Sir Andrew. Naomi, thank you for the question. Specifically maybe the angle to touch on is your question around risk and how we manage risk and how we see it going forward. I think firstly to your point around activism, indeed we mentioned that in the scenarios, I think today is a demonstration of that earlier in the meeting. As society gets more and more frustrated by inaction, I think you're going to see more of this. What we are heavily focused on at the moment is what we can do to support governments, to support our customers and of course ourselves invest in lower carbon solutions with the recognition that we alone will not be able to make the transition happen, but we can be a great catalyst for the transition. As that frustration boils over, we hope that we will be able to see the right policies, the right measures. We are starting to see that, by the way. If I compare to where we were five years ago, elements like the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. is encouraging a significant amount of capital to move to the States. Similarly, we're seeing moves in Europe. There is a lot of positive momentum that is happening that will allow companies like ourselves to invest your capital in a sustainable and in a profitable way as well. As we think about the broader risk profile, of course, we look at it from a global perspective. It is fair to say that the same AGM sitting in a place like Asia or in South America would have a very different focus, which is let's make sure that we provide energy to those who need it today who have been starved of energy, including oil and gas for a long, long time to come. We're finding that balance that satisfies the wide range of demands on energy and hopefully through our strategy, supply the oil and gas the world needs today, as well as the low carbon solutions that the world needs urgently. Thank you. Sorry, just to follow up, Wael. Your reference there to other countries globally, does that mean that you're hoping to grow market share in those economies in order to make up for lowering demand elsewhere, or? No, it doesn't. We are looking at how we can meet the demand that multiple countries, including here, for example, take the U.K., where if there is less development in the North Sea, we will need to make sure that we are delivering energy to the U.K. as we did in the most difficult period last year, where we delivered record LNG. We processed 20% of the gas that kept the lights on in the U.K. We supported the businesses as they were trying to keep running through these difficult times. We've just invested in another project called Pierce that'll deliver around 10% of the UK's gas needs. We will continue to invest where the opportunities are available, and we will continue to look at making sure the flows of electrons and molecules get to those who need it around the world without necessarily choosing one location versus the next. I think we need to cut it there. We, I mean, we've got lots of questions. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your comments and your input. Thanks, Naomi. We've got another question in the room from Kush Naker. Just like to check when he's here. Kush, is he... Okay. Okay, we have another question in the room from Nawaz Haq. Nawaz, you there? All right, go for it. Thank you very much. Sorry, just a moment. My name is Nawaz Haq. I'm an executive director of London-listed SulNOx Group plc. We're a scientific company specializing in reducing the environmental impact of fossil fuels and beyond. Setting Paris-aligned targets covering Scope 3 is paramount because they account for over 90% of Shell's total emissions. You stated you have short, medium, and long-term targets in this respect. I can present an immediate, proven, unique, simple, globally scalable, cost-effective solution that will lead to large scale reductions in emissions and pollution. If Shell use this, it will reduce the equivalent of 20 million cars impact annually, and that's a conservative figure. Will Shell's senior boards talk to me and engage moving forward? This is a great positive opportunity deserving of senior board's direct involvement. Surely such potential impact cannot be ignored. Shell can control Scope 3 emissions. I can share this with you, with shareholders, and with the media. Well, you're welcome to share it with us, of course. I mean, I don't even know what you're talking about. Just to know whether it's something that we're already working on. For sure, I mean, if there's some of our investor relations people we'll connect you with our ventures guys, and we'll see if there's something we can do. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thanks, Nawaz. Next question in the room is from Dr. Lynn Jones. I'm slightly shorter than the other speakers. Good morning, thank you very much for letting me make my question. My name is Dr. Lynn Jones, I'm a consultant psychiatrist. I do recognize it's been a slightly stressful morning. I'm also an honorary associate professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, I've spent my professional life establishing mental health programs in areas of conflict and disaster, for which I've been given an OBE. I have actually spent my life representing my patients. I don't speak for any company or organization, just for the people I try to help. People like mothers who are mad with grief because they cannot stop their children dying of starvation in Chad or on the Somali border because of famine, which is caused by drought, by desertification, caused by the climate emergency which you acknowledge, which is caused by digging up fossil fuels. Now, these mothers are not going to benefit from a fast transition or the oil that you might sell or the gas. They are being killed by it. The children I see who are weeping over buried parents because of a storm surge from Typhoon Haiyan or who are afraid to go sleep at night because of the crying of the wind, whether they're in Mozambique or any other part of the world suffering from increasing weather events, they are not benefiting from your energy transition. What I want to know, when I come here, by the way, in this country, I'm dealing with increasing numbers of neurodevelopmental disorders. We're seeing rising cases of dementia. These are associated with fossil fuel pollution, which leads directly to my question. Are you aware of the University College London study that says one in five deaths across the globe are due to fossil fuel air pollution? That's 8 million people a year or 15 people a minute. Just think how many have died from fossil fuel-related air pollution while we've been sitting here this morning. Does Shell recognize these impacts? What is it doing now to address pollution? That is a medical question. I do have a political one as well, if you just. It's my last question. We need to keep questions a lot shorter. Yeah, it's very short. I'm going to end. Just allow me to speak, 'cause I'm very curious. I work internationally for WHO, UNICEF, UNHCR, and of course, the U.N. Secretary General is a hero of mine. He's an extraordinary man. He says- What's your question? He says. I want to know your response to his comments. "Fossil fuels are a global addiction. You have humanity by the throat. You have peddled a big lie. Fossil fuels are a dead end." These are his words, not mine. How do you reply to him? I would like to know. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Sir Andrew. I appreciate it. Okay. I'm not sure there was much of a question in there, but I'll talk- It's a question about fossil fuel air pollution, please. Well, I Look, first of all, we take mental health very seriously in Shell, and we have a very effective program. Certainly as a chair looking in at what the executives do, I'm incredibly impressed by it. I think you would be too. I think you're right that sometimes because everything is about climate change, we forget the issues of the quality of our air, the quality of our water, and the quality of our biosphere. I think in an earlier answer, I mentioned that we do have programs for these things. I, I do, and I don't recognize the study you spoke about there, but I recognize. It's new. Well, I recognize similar studies that talk about it. They're not always uncontroversial, shall we say. Certainly, I think we could all enjoy cleaner air and cleaner water and so on and so forth, and that's part of what we have in our Shell Powering Progress strategy. I think in my answer to the question of the individual, of course, we understand there are sort of, there are effects of fossil fuels we'd rather we didn't have. There were amazing benefits in terms of people's quality of life, that's something that we now have to find other ways of achieving without the carbon and without the pollution. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. Thank you. We've just checked there's no one on the phone at this moment. I'd like to go back into the room. Like to urge you to keep your questions short, as Sir Andrew has just said. Can I invite Norman Edwards to come to the microphone, please? Right. You'll be pleased to hear I've got two very short questions. The first thing, I think we're sort of encouraged by the transition by majors such as BP and Shell to energy companies. It strikes me as unfortunate that the government doesn't allow investment in renewables to be allowable against windfall tax. I think that would encourage Shell to actually spend more on renewables. I think these people protesting should be asking the government to give more incentives to companies in the transition. My two simple questions is, one, would the board consider going back into Russia if there's a regime change in the future? The second one is, what is the board's current strategy in relation to Kazakhstan for present and future investments? I'm gonna get Wael to answer the Kazakhstan question. I would acknowledge your comment on windfall tax and capital allowances around that. I think we're in the same place as you. I think it's just too early to say anything about Russia at this stage. I mean, we obviously took a very quick decision to pull out and have quite rapidly thereafter extricated ourselves from almost all our connections with it. Obviously it's gonna be a very deep thought as to whether we ever return. I'm just gonna look to Sinead if there's anything she wants to add on Russia. I think you said well, Andrew. We took quick action to exit. We have exited our upstream business. We have exited our gas business, and we have exited our downstream business, and we reserve our rights on gas as you're aware. Nothing further, Andrew. Okay. Wael, on Kazakhstan. Yeah, very briefly. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Edwards. Kazakhstan, we have two major ventures there, one called Karachaganak and the second one called Kashagan. Both of them are producing... Well, each is producing around 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. We have significant investment to support the sustenance of that production profile. We have projects in both ventures, actually, with multiple international shareholders. These are to extract more barrels out of the existing field. We continue to look at opportunities in Kazakhstan, including, for example, in gas, because there's significant gas production there as well. At this stage, nothing firm in our plans. Thank you for the questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. We've now got a question from Jenny Edwards. Oops. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Jenny Edwards, I'm an individual shareholder, and I inherited my shares and decided to stick with the company and to engage with the company's strategies. I think it's my job as a shareholder to challenge you on the strategies that are there. The many things that I've heard today, officially and unofficially here, that I'd like to pick up, but I'm gonna focus my question on one particular area, following on from the reference to Russia. It was good to hear that Shell decided quickly to pull out of Russia, but there have been reports that last month the Russian government announced it had approved a $1.1 billion bid from Novatek for Shell's stake in Sakhalin-II project. So given that that's been approved, is Shell going to accept that bid and receive the proceeds? If it is, the Ukrainian government has understandably said that proceeds from Russia should be redirected to reconstructing that country that, as we see every day in our headlines, is being appallingly treated. I don't know if people saw today's photos of Bakhmut, is it? Which looks like the Hiroshima bomb has landed on it. It's certainly going to need funds and as well as the humanitarian aid that it needs now. I'd like to know what the intention is, and are those reports correct? Just to finish, I want to say that I will be supporting the shareholder resolution. We've heard a lot of information from investors, but for me, as an individual, I simply heard the figure that two-thirds of our capital investment, accepting that's not all the investment, goes still to fossil fuels. We know that the situation that we were aware of and our scientists were aware of at the time of the Paris Agreement has only got much worse. Every few months, we have another report from scientists saying we are on the brink. Some say we have already tipped over the brink, and we're already seeing catastrophic change. Those two points together mean that I will support Shareholder Resolution 26. Thank you. Well, I'm sorry to hear about your second decision. I would just repeat that last year we invested over $8 billion in non... in lower carbon solutions. You know, we're a big company. Hydrocarbons are likely to be around for a while, and it's about security of supply of energy. You've made your decision. We do feel the same way with you about Russia and Ukraine. Our actions have shown that. We've already transferred over $70 million to Ukraine as part of our help for them there. On the specific question on the Sakhalin-II transaction, I'm going to ask Sinead, as our CFO, to comment. Certainly. Thank you, Mrs. Edwards. Not only have we continued to invest more than $70 million in terms of humanitarian donations in Ukraine, we've also continued to focus on keeping our staff safe there, including the continued operation of the fuel network, which allows the country to continue to operate, which is very key at the moment, as you say. With respect to Russia, I confirm we have exited, as you're aware. With respect to Sakhalin, which is the one you specifically referred to, we have seen the reports. We have not entered into any agreement, and we cannot comment any further at this point in time. We have reserved our rights, Mrs. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. We've got another question in the room here. Benjamin van Sterkenburg. Thank you. There we go. Yes. Thank you. My name is Benjamin van Sterkenburg, I'm here on behalf of Justiça Ambiental, Friends of the Earth Mozambique. Our concerns regarding new fossil fuel projects and their detrimental impact on climate change cannot be ignored. The consequence of climate change are already being felt globally with rising sea levels, intensified hurricanes and droughts, also experienced in Mozambique specifically. Besides the environmental repercussions, people from Mozambique are also troubled by the conflicts arising in the region. Around 1 million people already had to live somewhere else. Shell recently made the decision to cancel its plans for the gas to liquid plant in Afungi. We seek clarity on the status of Shell 29 contract with Anadarko to purchase 2 million cubical meters LNG. With Total now leading the project, we would like to know the implications for Shell contractual obligations. Could you clarify that, please? Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Mr. van Sterkenburg. Will, do you have sight on that? Yeah. Thank you very much, sir. Just to keep it brief, indeed, as you say, we have an offtake agreement. We don't have any presence on the ground to build facilities or the like. That offtake agreement, of course, is dependent on the project being built, which is questionable at this stage. We continue to observe, there's all sorts of commercial rights that we have within that agreement, which we can choose to exercise or not, at in due course. At this stage, we don't really have much to share. Thank you for the question. Thanks, Mr. Van Sterkenburg. Got now a question from Anthony Collins. Can you come to the question point? Thank you. Hiya. Sorry, I just want to apologize first. Apologize to the people behind me. I just ripped my trousers when I've got up then. Apologies for the view. We enjoy light-hearted moments in this AGM. Okay. My question is specifically about your Western Australian interests. Obviously you sold your share of Browse a few weeks ago. I'm interested to know how you came to that conclusion, what drove that decision, whether it was a matter of pre-FID funds being spent a little bit too quickly, or whether it's that Browse just would've made climate targets impossible. Secondly, I'm here today partly on behalf of traditional owners who live close to the North West Shelf project, Karratha gas plant, and sulfur and nitrogen oxide pollution from this facility is eroding sacred and ancient rock art, which is 40,000 years old in the local area of Murujuga. Before a decision is made to extend the life of the North West Shelf, which I know is coming and is attached to the Browse project, as Shell is a joint venture partner in the North West Shelf, can I ask that Well, will you commit to allowing the North West Shelf or the Karratha gas plant to wind down at the end of its current lifetime when the current fields dry up, rather than allowing the pollution that comes from the Karratha gas plant to continue to destroy the cultural heritage of the local people? Again, sorry about the view, everyone behind me. Well, thank you, Mr. Collins. I think I'm gonna turn to Wael for that. Obviously, I know this area quite well, from my past role. I think it's worth pointing out that, of course, Shell are not the operator of this field. Sure. A side of the operator, and so some of the decisions more rightly belong with them than with Shell. With that constraint, I wonder if, Wael, there's anything you want to add. No, I think on the North West Shelf, thank you for making the point. We are indeed a joint venture partner, a minority partner, but take all inputs into consideration, thank you for that. There's no specific decision anytime soon, but when that comes, we'll take that into account. I think your first question around Browse, I talked earlier around performance, discipline and simplification. We've been looking at our portfolio more broadly and saying, what are the key projects that fit squarely into our strategic focus going forward, and that fit into our carbon budget going forward? When we looked at Browse, in comparison to some of the other opportunities we have to be able to bring LNG to customers around the world, it did not rank from a returns perspective. It was also disadvantaged from a carbon perspective, so therefore, it did not fit into our strategic direction, and we chose to exit the project early on, rather than than prolong it. Thank you for the question. Thank you. Is there any indication on how much you got for it? Can't share that. Maybe you can ask BP, though. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Collins. Good luck with the trousers. Like to ask a question you on behalf of a shareholder, can the chair ensure aviation fuel is not provided to questionable and/or illegitimate regimes like Burma? Well, I mean, I may just handle this one, if Wael or Sinead would like to add to, please do so. Really, it's very hard for a company like us to refuse to supply a product to any individual customer. You get in very quickly, and particularly with something like this, into issues of antitrust. I don't know how it applies in this particular case. It's regimes more broadly, like Burma. You've heard how careful we've been about, you know, our relationship with Russia. You know, where there is an appropriate moral cause, sure. In general, this is quite a risky area from antitrust. Yep. Okay. Let's next question. Thanks. Like to invite Paul Rosenberger to come to the question point. Thank you. private shareholder whose family have held shares for over 125 years of the company. Sadly, I felt a need to heavily reduce my holding. I'm sorry about that. Was I. Mm. According to Deutsche Welle, the German news channel, the Director General of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, has stated that existing oil fields, gas wells and coal mines are more than enough if the world is serious about its climate goals. Shell continues to explore for more oil and expand its production. If the board agrees with that statement from the International Energy Agency, why is Shell doing so? Alternatively, if the board does not agree with the IEA, could you explain why the board considers the IEA to be wrong? Okay. I wouldn't say they were wrong. We maybe think about it a bit, I think about it a bit differently. I think explore for oil, we've said that after 2025, we will not explore for oil in new frontiers. That's our existing strategy. Therefore, the production that we're expanding is not expanding production, as you've heard. We've more than met our targets for 1-2% fall in by 2030, we've beat that target ahead of schedule. We're not expanding production, we're not continuing to explore for oil. I guess there's not a lot for us to talk about that. One thing I would sort of take small issue, if I may, with the IEA, is that the not oil is different. Gases. Not all is the same, they're different. They occur in different geographies- They are of different compositions, and they have different carbon footprints when they're produced. Given geopolitics and the possibility that certain supplies that may be required in the future may not be obtainable from existing areas forever, there is a certain insurance in making sure you have a portfolio of possible production. That's something that Shell can speak to. And also that portfolio should include options to produce oil and gas with potentially a lower carbon footprint than existing production. That's another choice that we could give the consumer in the future. We think it's just a bit more nuanced than that, you know, we want to think about geopolitics, and we want to think about the variation in carbon content of individual production. Our track record is that we're stopping to explore, and our production has been falling. Is, you've stopped exploring? In frontier areas, yeah. In other areas? We will stop by 2025, just to be correct. Right. Not being a chemical engineer, I can't actually comment on the different effects of different materials, but thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Mr. Rosenberger. I'd like to invite Reverend Sue Parfitt now. Thank you. Given the new information three weeks ago that we should be reaching 1.5 degrees, not continuously, but we shall reach 1.5 degrees by 2027, will Shell agree to change its targets to move out of all fossil fuels by 2030 for the sake of its shareholders, the well-being of humanity and all life on Earth? We don't have the time that you require for your strategy. 2050 is much too late. We're facing an immediate catastrophic emergency. I don't hear those words from you. I don't think you've taken it in. I don't have children, but I expect you do, and grandchildren. For their sake, I beg you to move entirely to renewables immediately and to close down all your fossil fuel enterprises. Otherwise, your children and grandchildren have no future. They have no future. My question again, will Shell agree to change its targets to move out of all fossil fuels by 2030? I think the reports that have been written recently about us, if you like, reaching the 1.5 degrees by 2027 are mainly based on, well, obviously, climate change is playing a role, but also topped up by the impact and return of El Niño. Therefore, as you hint in your point, it may be short-lived before it falls back a bit, but I take your point. I think the other thing I would say to you is that many of the world's energy supplies cannot be or needs that are currently performed by fossil fuels cannot be substituted purely by renewables. You do need other alternatives, often of a molecular nature. That's why we're doing things in bio and things like hydrogen and the possibility of carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage may be a way by which we can provide zero to low carbon energy in the future and zero to low carbon impacts of fossil fuels being used in other industries, which would absolutely address the seriousness of climate change, which we agree with you on. As it comes to our detailed targets, I think I've already indicated early in next year, we will report our next energy transition review, and we'll address all of these things. I'm bound to say, and even the, the IEA agrees with us, that fossil fuels as seen by the world right now and as seen by the way that most of the society is performing, and particularly oil and gas, are gonna be required in some form for some time. Maybe in a reduced form as we provide for some of the alternatives. There, and there may be a role that Shell could play in that. We understand the seriousness of it. Thank you for the way in which you asked the question, which recognized it wasn't just down to climate change. I just point out that we need to work much harder than just replacing fossil fuels with renewables. We need a lot of, a lot of solutions, some of which may work in tandem with the continued use of fossil fuels and still reduce the carbon load onto the atmosphere. Thank you. Good. I'd like to invite now Sjoukje van Oosterhout from Milieudefensie to the question point. Good afternoon. My name is Sjoukje van Oosterhout, and I work at Milieudefensie, Friends of the Earth Netherlands, as their lead researcher on our climate court case against Shell. In your annual report, you claim that your targets are aligned with the IPCC's 1.5 degrees pathway. I happen to know the IPCC reports very well, and we see a clear disconnect. You nowhere specify which exact scenarios you use, which makes it impossible for us to check. Moreover, you will rely heavily on compensation technologies which have not yet been proven to work on the scale needed for your massive emissions. They will also take up a lot of physical space, and a lot of space in the energy system. My question is, which specific scenarios from the latest IPCC report do you use in order to prove that your targets are 1.5 degrees aligned? Also, how can you be sure that your negative emission technologies will work? Thank you. I think there's a lot of technologies that we still haven't proven at scale, but we're working very hard to do that. As I mentioned in my speech, in some of the, in some of our work in our technology labs, I'd put hydrogen in that category. I'd certainly put all e-fuels in that. Clearly, carbon capture and storage should be able to work because we're running the oil industry in reverse, but we do need to do more work at scale to prove that, and we're doing all of that. In that sense, trying to find the exact route through is still to be determined, but we're trying as hard as any as a company, and we'll be ready to move when we get the technical breakthrough and we get the market breakthrough that would support things. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your scenario question, I'm gonna see if Wael has some more insights there. Thanks, Sir Andrew. Thank you very much for the. Mm-hmm. opportunity to ask. The scenario we use is the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degree Celcius that in essence goes for the more ambitious 1.5-degree reduction of global average temperature by through time. It's a scenario which of course has multiple pathways, as you know very well. Those multiple pathways, in essence, what we have done is taken the core of those pathways, tracked the range which that core allows us to sort of be within, and then we have actually mapped all of that out within those pathways and made that visible in our annual report. The problem, as you know very well, is there are no established standards for energy providers today as to what Paris compliance means. Rather than using an internal scenario, which of course we can easily do, but which will raise questions around legitimacy, we have used the IPCC scenario. You can use any scenario, and we have tried to focus on what we can do to be able to be within that band that the IPCC talks about. Thank you. Yeah, as you said, there are many different scenarios and pathways. It'd be really helpful if you give a bit more transparency on which ones you've exactly used. As I said, right now it's impossible for us to check whether your targets are. Sure. 1.5 degrees aligned. That's good input. Thank you. We take it for our next energy transition report. Thank you. Useful. Thank you. I'd like to invite Mr. Anthony Albright now to come to the question point. It looks like he actually has... Yeah. He's not there. You have already asked questions. Yeah. I didn't actually get a, an answer to the second- Well- -part of my question. Seeing as Anthony seems to have passed. I'm sorry, somebody else is... No, no. No, somebody else has been asking questions. We're moving on. You're not Anthony Albright or... I'm not, no. You also didn't answer my question about restorations. Well, oh, okay. You haven't answered a lot of people's questions. Well, I've tried my best. I've tried my best. Okay. I thought I did. I'll go now on an online question. It's a question from Mr. Peter Vonk: The long-term success of Shell plc depends on its ability to conduct its role in society as a leading and innovative company. Don't you agree that today's annual meeting shows that the company urgently requires a new strategy for a more constructive and effective engagement with the general public? Okay. Well, I mean, democracy and freedom of speech weaves a very interesting fabric at times. We've done our best to handle the circumstances that we find ourselves in today. We're more than happy to have the debates in the right way with all people who want to talk to us about things. We'll continually look at better ways to run the annual meeting and to improve that dialogue with all stakeholders and all shareholders. You know, we take your encouragement to do so seriously. We have another question in the room from Monica Gripaios. Thank you for letting me ask my question. I've listened carefully to everything that's been said, and I don't get any sense of urgency. Mike, Governments and oil companies are complicit in deceiving the public that we, the public, can carry on business as usual. Isn't it time that we were told that these resources are finite and that we cannot continue to go on digging them out of the ground? My father worked for Shell all his life, so I'm a Shell baby. I grew up on money earned from Shell. He was an economist writing reports on future planning. He died despairing about the future. I have four grandchildren, two of whom are half Nigerian. Shell is poisoning the lives of millions of people in the Niger Delta. I am so sad and angry that there'll be no future worth living for my children and grandchildren unless we leave all unexplored oil and gas in the ground. When will the oil companies and Shell take the climate threat seriously enough and stop developing oil and gas fields? This is a sick mass extermination. Come on. It's not an extinction. It's an extermination thanks to Shell and other fossil fuel companies. You are literally killing people. Come on. You need to take it seriously. look, there's a number of things in your question. I do think we take climate change seriously. You know, a company that, you know, invested nearly over $8 billion last year in low carbon alternatives, has, you know, and Wael has described that, has been prepared to accept lower returns on some... a lot of those low carbon projects relative to hydrocarbons, is a company that takes it seriously. A company that invests enormous amounts of research and development in the breakthroughs that would allow us to enjoy lower and lower carbon energy, but at a... and at a cost that will be affordable and continue to secure our way of life, is a company that takes it seriously. I, I do. I think I've answered the question about new oil and gas fields because I think that there's a probability that blended in with ever-increasing use of lower carbon energies, they will be part of the mix in the future. If we handle that well, we can actually solve the twin problems which we have to balance, of the affordability energy with its environmental impact. I think Shell is core to our Shell's mission, and we take it very seriously. Thank you. Mm. Okay. We've got a question online from David Haslam. How long under its present plans will it take Shell to enable more energy to produce from renewable sources than from its production of fossil fuels? I think that's a specific planning question I think. I've got to ask Wael to answer that, if you will. Like I said in the speech, while we are very committed to the net-zero pathway to 2050, our plans will continue to evolve to be able to achieve such a pathway. You know, to the question of when exactly that happens, it is when those opportunities are there so that we can invest significant capital to be able to allow that pendulum to swing. That pendulum is heavily right now in oil and gas. I mean, let's not forget, I think in the previous discussions we've had, over the last year, the number of countries that have suffered from lack of gas because we in Northwest Europe have been importing gas which otherwise would be directed to those countries, and therefore they are suffering blackouts while we can keep the lights on. Those are the realities of today. As the IEA has also said, we need to continue to invest in the tune of $400 billion-$500 billion, potentially up to $600 billion every year in oil and gas. We're trying to find that balance. The pace at which all that evolves will depend on the pace at which we can innovate to be able to bring lower cost energy supply options for our customers, both individuals and businesses. I'm not going to speculate on when that will happen, but I hope sooner rather than later. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'd like to ask, Nicolas Holton to come to question point. Hello, I hope you can all hear me clearly. Good. We had a lot of protests for the first hour, not liking the tactics, I hope you nevertheless felt the anger that lay behind them, the extreme anger. There is a lot of anger out there, that applies to the board and shareholders, it's something I just think one needs to think about. I've got two specific questions linked to what we've been talking about that I hope are slightly different. The first is you say that if you stop pumping oil, somebody else will pump it in your place. From a moral, not a legal, but from a moral point of view, I can't see any difference between that and somebody saying, "Well, if you take out that supplier of cocaine, other people will come and sell the cocaine instead of me." In other words, when you're doing something that's morally wrong, it's no excuse to say somebody else will take the place. You have to stand up and be counted. That would be my first question. Will you do that? The second question is, I, you know, I find it really hard to get into the heads, into your heads and what you're actually thinking. You know, to me, you know, you talk about 2030, 2050 as the politicians do. The people... When you talk to scientists, they say we really are just about, we're right on this precipice, to use another metaphor or, you know. To me, change metaphors again, we're all of us, you too, you know, it's me, you, all of us, we're all in a boat. It's made of wood, it's steaming ahead, it's got a steam engine, and we're cutting up this wooden boat all the time to make it go forward. We're cutting it out and we're at the, now we're right at sea level. We're about to go below sea level. The sea's already starting to come out. My question is, when it goes down, do you have a way of staying alive in the sea that I won't have, and our children won't have, and your grandchildren won't have? Will they have a way of staying alive in the sea? You know, because 2030, 2050 just doesn't wash it. It has to be now. I know, you know, you can say, "Well, we can go on and on." You know, I know what happened in the war. The economy changed just like that. It can change. You know, suddenly, my mother was doing it, going to saucepan factories and saying, "You've got to now produce, parts for jet engine", not jet engine, prop engines, but for planes, you know, that sort of thing. Okay Of course, I hear the anger of the protesters earlier. I'm not sure I agree with the comparison with cocaine. The challenge with oil and fossil fuels is that they've been fundamental to the development of humanity and to the quality of life we enjoy today. We have to find ways of providing that without some of the things that you've been talking about. We are working very hard. When there is strong customer, government, and technology supply and demand for that, we're ready to move. Yes. We don't have the time, do we? Well, well. That's the problem. Well, that's, I-. That's why there's the anger. Yeah, We cannot. That's why it's called an emergency. We cannot solve it on our own. No. -customers. No. We need regulators. We need technology breakthroughs. No. We are doing that collaboration and trying our best. No, but you can... You're one of them, so you could do something. Well. And- You've heard my previous answer. Okay, all right. ...of allowing other people to produce. They may have a higher carbon footprint than our production. Anyway, I think we've done this one to death. Next question. Thanks, Mr. Houghton. I'd like to ask David Gillingham to ask his questions in the room, then we'll go to a few questions who are brought online. Hello. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to ask questions, but all my questions, I've already heard the answers. We've got a lot of questions still to come. I'm happy with that. would you... What? Have you got a fresh question? I feel I'm answering the same question many times. No, I'm not. Have you got a new question that hasn't been asked before? I don't intend. All I'm asking is. Well, I've still got... I'm not finished... All these questions, all these questions promote conversation within the company. Sure they do. Thank you. Sure they do. That's why we're all here listening. Okay. Thanks. We now have a statement and partly a question from Mr. Albright. I asked earlier, but he is not in the room. He is online. Why is Shell not doing more to explain the following: The miraculous benefits for, to humanity of fossil fuels in terms of health, wealth, longevity and happiness. How they have helped cut deaths caused by climate disasters by an astonishing 98% of the past 100 years. That they provide over 80% of global energy versus only 3% for wind and solar, and how the world needs more fossil fuels, not less, because there are still 2 billion people who have access to less energy than a domestic refrigerator. Please stop apologizing for fossil fuels. Be proud of what Shell has done and is doing to make the world a better place through making available the affordable, reliable, abundant, storable, portable energy that fossil fuels uniquely provide to the world, to the people of the world. End of his statement. Okay. I don't think that requires a response. I might get into hot water if I did, so. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to invite Nine de Pater for her question. In the room. Nine, go ahead. Thank you. I'm Nine de Pater, and two years ago, I was one of the few people in the courtroom when the judge decided that Shell has to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030. I am working with Milieudefensie. I'm the lead campaigner on this project. This ruling showed that fossil fuel companies can no longer continue business as usual. It should have been a wake-up call for Shell, for the board, and for the shareholders. Shell should have taken this opportunity, but unfortunately decided to do the opposite. Shell appealed and continued to invest heavily in fossil fuels, and since the verdict, the board approved 13 new big oil and gas fields to be developed. The climate ambitions are lacking. Concrete actions and through reductions are not there to be seen. I can already predict the answer, Mr. Sawan to my question. A lot of green talking, but the numbers don't lie. I really hope that this time it will be different, and that's why I'm asking for a very simple yes or no. Are you planning to reduce your CO2 emissions with at least 45% in absolute reductions in 2030 compared to 2019? Along the entire supply chain, which means Scope 1, 2, and most importantly, Scope 3 emissions. Okay. I'm not gonna answer yes or no. I'm simply going to say that we of course will try extremely hard to make progress on that. I mean, we are talking a 45% reduction in our net emissions in our current target by 2035. Sorry, that's our net carbon intensity. I mean, the reason though that we appealed the decision was quite simply, this is a target that is not on anybody else's back. It's not on any of our competitors. It's purely direct towards Shell. I think you've heard some of the problems that that gives us in terms of having to give away customers to make the target, and therefore it's extremely bad for us in the sense of trying to run a proper business. I'd also point out that that target is twice the target that is what's expected across Europe. Where we're already feeling quite a lot of social backlash, not just and not just here, but also I think in many other countries in Europe, including in the Netherlands. There's a lot of things that all have to come together for us to be able to meet that target. I think you've heard enough of what we are doing and the investments that we're making, that we're trying our hardest to get there. We don't think it's right that we should be the only company without a target on our backs when we're having to compete for capital with lots of other companies who are able to perform at a much lower level of emission reduction. That's why we've appealed. Well, I take that answer as a no, because I didn't hear a yes. I think it makes very clear why all of these questions are asked today, and why we heard from so many people this morning at the beginning of the meeting. Shell chooses to continue to cause dangerous climate change, and that's a threat to human lives right now and in the future. Thank you for your answer. I don't want to thank you for your no, but it makes it very clear that our climate case is the most important case that we are doing right now. Well, I didn't say no, I said we wouldn't stop trying. Okay. I'd like to go online now. Thanks, Nine. I'd like to go online now. Steven van der Tak has a statement and a question. U.K. government's Powering Up Britain: Net Zero Growth Plan revealed, "We have committed to having at least five U.K. Sustainable Aviation Fuel, SAF, plans under construction by 2025." What plans, current and future, for involvement and investment in those plans and others worldwide do, will Shell have? Why do Shell consider that aviation should receive special treatment to continue to expand and increase emissions when such fuels are any, as anything but sustainable, particularly when, for an example, Shell's Brazilian Raízen joint venture has nine sugarcane ethanol facilities? It processes some of that biofuel feedstock for aircraft when the land could be ethically and sustainably used to grow fuel for humans. Okay. I mean, I think Wael has to comment on some of the of the detail there, if there's anything. I would just that we're not favoring aviation. The only solution for aviation that we see at the moment, and there's article after article that says that, is some form of Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Things like hydrogen or batteries just don't work for long distance air transport, of which there is ever-increasing demand. That's why we're strongly entering into this business sector. I don't know if you want to... Little tad. Thank you, Sir Andrew, and thank you for the question, Mr. Pullum. As Sir Andrew said, there is not a specific preference that we have for the aviation sector. People to continue to choose to fly. Actually, we're beginning to see trends now where aviation and the demand for jet fuel is back to pre-2019 levels, so pre-pandemic levels. What we are trying to do is to find the lowest carbon way to be able to support that sector in the way it goes forward. Sustainable Aviation Fuel is the answer. We are investing in a significant plant in Rotterdam, at our facility there, in hydrogenated esters and fatty acids, which in essence, allows us to achieve lower carbon emissions from that. We also, and to Mr. Pullum's question, have a joint venture in Brazil, one of the largest producing biofuels ventures in the world. We are the only company that has second-generation biofuels production, where we have made commitments to a number of plants in Brazil around second-generation production, which will be, which will require raw feedstock that is going to be available for us to be able to deliver on a larger number of customer demands that we see at the moment. We look forward to seeing that play out, and we look forward to the contribution we can make to the aviation sector in that regard. Thank you for the question. Thanks, Wael. Thank you. I'll go to another question online here. It's, "My name is Kathy Mulvey, and I'm representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. My question relates to Shell's messaging around net-zero emissions. Documents made public as part of the U.S. Oversight Committee investigation into Big Oil's climate disinformation reveals Shell's lofty climate ambitions as PR spin. Internal Shell net-zero, NZE, messaging guidance from January 2020 warns PR spokesmen that it will require a careful and continuous balancing act that conveys credible optimism while setting realistic expectations of how fast both Shell and the energy system can change. The guidance is explicit about what's at stake in this balancing act. Finally, we must ensure Shell provides a fair, balanced, complete and accurate content message to avoid litigation risks." The question here is from Kathy Mulvey: What specific litigation risk is Shell most concerned about in relation to this messaging around net zero? Okay, of course, we'd find it hard to accept that it's PR spin. I mean, we try, and we should try harder, of course, to explain everything we're doing, to balance the requirement of security of supply with the need to reduce the carbon content of our energy and do this in a very affordable way. We try and do this in the most fair, balanced, complete and accurate way we can to avoid litigation risks. Of course, they're out there. People have different interpretations of things. People have, as we've seen, different views as to how we can get this balance between affordability and security of supply and at the same time lowering carbon. These are, in many cases, healthy debates. Sometimes they will be talked about in the courts. We will take that as Advice and help. We'll continue to ensure that we are as clear and transparent, as I've said, as we are about our intentions, which are much more, I would say, than PR spin. They're very real. There's a very strong commitment throughout the company to managing that progress in the way I've described. Thank you, Chair. Can I invite Caroline Dennett to the question point? Thank you. It's not terribly short, but it is very interesting, I hope, and Sir Andrew, you'll be pleased to know it's very specific as well. Okay. I like specific. My name is Caroline Dennett, and a year ago today, I resigned my contract with Shell. I was working as a safety consultant. I could no longer tolerate your failure to address the harms you knowingly cause to our planet and to local environments, ecosystems, and people, whilst publicly claiming you have green policies and high ambitions for safety. I worked with you for over 10 years, trying to keep people safe, trying to prevent oil and gas leaks, major incidents, injuries, and fatalities. For those who don't know, your stated safety ambition is to do no harm to people and to have no leaks. You call it Goal Zero. It sounds honorable, and I was proud to work with that ambition for many years, but you are completely failing on it. You know that continued oil and gas extraction causes extreme harms to our climate, to our environments, and to people. Andrew, I wrote to you and the executive committee and directors on the 23rd of May last year with my concerns, and to date, I have received no response. My letter was a serious professional assessment of safety concerns, which you have ignored. I come here today to talk to you about your process safety record, particularly your catastrophic record in the Niger Delta, and ask you to directly listen to these concerns and answer my questions. For anyone not familiar with the term process safety, it basically means doing all that you can to keep the hydrocarbons, oil, gas, and their derivatives in the pipe and prevent leaks, spills, fires, and explosions. You do not need me to tell you that the Niger Delta and the communities who live there have been sacrificed and continue to experience extreme hardships because of your careless operations. They have no choice but to eat, drink, and breathe the poisons from your circa 60 years of oil and gas extraction there. I have heard you blame, or maybe not you directly, but Shell managers, blame sabotage from locals for these leaks and spills. How convenient, transferring the responsibilities. However, the results of the process safety culture surveys I have conducted in Shell Nigeria since 2012 have told a different truth. A catalog of production pressures, shortcuts, budget constraints, unsafe manpower levels, poor maintenance regimes, including overdue maintenance on safety-critical equipment, lack of training, and second-class treatment of contractors who go unpaid for months, unable to feed themselves and their families. In the last round of process safety culture measurements I did before I left, which was across Shell companies in Nigeria, management were informed in January last year that 40% of the workforce said you did not have adequate personnel to conduct operations safety, safely. 35% said they believed you are putting production first and process safety second in the pursuit of profits. 35% also said that corrective maintenance on safety-critical equipment, so that's critical repairs, was not done in a timely manner, and a staggering 80% said that spare parts were not available when needed. Not surprisingly, therefore, 30% said they don't trust management to address process safety issues promptly. Setting aside the statistics, here are direct concerns expressed by personnel, your personnel, and shared with management. Organizational restructuring has led to reduced manpower with increased workloads to people, a system-induced error-enforcing condition for people to attempt to take shortcuts or neglect critical aspects when executing jobs, and this is a recipe for process safety incidents." Another said, "I have heard of at least two individuals in the organization who have died as a result of overbearing workload, having to work through the day and the night." Another said, "A lot of work and focus needs to be given to maintenance to ensure sustenance of equipment integrity, as there are presently too many broken down or compromised equipment, that you cannot assure that the plant, a plant with high failure and high breakdown rates and the lack of training for staff in the frontline. Not being able to operate a plant as designed effectively increases our vulnerability and exposure to process safety incidents. As for sabotage, one worker actually indicated that Shell should improve making your wellhead safe and secure because there have been too many thefts. The pollution of the Niger Delta isn't simply down to sabotage, is it? It is caused by willful neglect of your own equipment and assets in the pursuit of profits, huge profits. I have two questions really, and one is addressed to investors, and one is addressed to the committee. Dear investors here and those watching remotely, given this catalog of process safety failures, can you say with your hand on your heart that the funds that you represent, the ordinary pension fund members, the savers, the ISA holders, just anyone whose financial assets you manage, that they want to dabble in what is effectively blood money? Do they want their hands stained? Is it time to hold Shell to account and use your power to clean them up or disengage entirely? To the CEO, the chair, the executive committee, the board of directors, and particularly those on the Safety Environment Committee, why do you withhold funding to your own assets that would enable them to be operated more safely and maintained properly? Will you now commit the necessary finances and resources to prevent harm to workers and the communities, to prevent extensive leaks and spills, the likes of which we have seen in the Niger Delta for decades and continue to see with loss of life and health, loss of livelihoods, loss of nature, and loss of ecosystems? Okay. Obviously, I'm going to pass some of the details over to Wael. I would start with a bit of better news story for across the whole of Shell, because we actually had made very significant progress on our safety performance in 2022. We saw a 75% reduction in serious injury and fatality frequency, and a 35% reduction in process safety events. Some of the things that maybe you helped set up in Shell are starting to bear fruit. The situation in the Niger Delta does remain challenging. SPDC continues to face, you acknowledge that, the twin challenges of sabotage and crude oil theft, which clearly, even though, you know, you have a different view as how, by how much does endanger people's lives, and sadly deprives Nigeria of the kinda tax revenues that might allow the kind of investment that might deal with some of the issues you're talking about. If I may leave that there to the sort of high level view, maybe, Wael, you might deal with some of the detail. Thanks. Thank you, Sir Andrew. Thank you for Ms. Dennett for the question, and thank you for your service to Shell for 10 years. If I reflect on Nigeria a bit, a place I've had the opportunity and the privilege to visit many times and to see our operations in person. Firstly, let me take off my hat to the many who are serving us in Nigeria day in and day out, to be able to go under very difficult circumstances, where often their lives are at threat from the smugglers and from different threats that come in. We never said, by the way, that it was all due to sabotage and theft. We said that over 90%, often 95% of the leaks that are occurring in SPDC, which is the joint venture that manages the Nigerian assets, is coming from sabotage and theft. There is, of course, also SPDC experiences its own leaks, which it attends to very quickly. Even the leaks that are occurring because of sabotage and theft, SPDC has one of the world's best response units to be able to go out there and clean up those to protect the environment that they operate in. We have pioneered some of the, I think the best process safety responses. You talked earlier about, for example, well head safety and security. We actually build cages to be able to protect it from the theft, because what has typically happened is when thieves have come in to take parts of the wellhead, it has put them at risk and has put others around them at risk. We are creating new ways to be able to defend against those threats. We also support SPDC as one of its joint venture partners in providing the capital it needs for its maintenance. Again, there is much complexity. For example, the permission to be able to source equipment and services is not one for the joint venture to make by itself. It's one that is determined by multiple agencies in Nigeria, some of which insist on certain timelines and the like, which unfortunately means SPDC doesn't always have access to the resources they need. On balance, what I would say is there is a lot of effort going in, and actually Nigeria has had one of its best years, actually best two years in terms of safety performance. I regret the mischaracterization that you have placed on a lot of it, but at the same time, we take every single concern seriously, and we continue to look at the opportunities to support that joint venture as it looks to improve its record. I think the final thing I would say is it's a location that we have recognized a few years ago that the risk-reward to operate in a place like Nigeria is no longer tolerable when it comes to onshore oil. That is why we have announced a couple of years ago the intent to exit onshore oil in Nigeria and focus on the gas value chain, the LNG value chain, more specifically, as well as the porter. Which I deeply regret because I think Nigeria deserves the capabilities that a company like Shell is able to bring, both in terms of the returns they get, the tax returns and the proceeds, but also the many who we employ in Nigeria, many of whom are amongst our best staff and represent the largest expatriate community in the Shell Group. Those will be opportunities that over time, unfortunately, we will not be able to offer because of some of the moves we're having to make. It is with a heavy heart that we got to that conclusion. Thank you for expressing your concerns. Yeah. Can I just say, that's not my mischaracterization. The statistics that I quoted came directly from employee and contractor surveys. It is them who is saying, it is them, 40% of them who said that they don't feel they have adequate manpower to operate safely. It is 35% of them who says that management are putting production before safety. It's great to hear how much you love the people there in Nigeria, but you can best express that by ensuring that they have all the resources that are required by regulation and by your own safety, ambition, and standards to be able to prevent these leaks and spills from their operation and to prevent loss of life and injury, and also to ensure that contractors are paid and don't go for six months without any pay. That is completely in your gift to do that. It does concern me that as you transition out of Nigeria, that those resources will actually be depleted, and that you risk actually neglecting them even further than they do. I would just ask, while you do transition out, please ensure that those workers and those communities stay safe. Because currently, they are not safe, they are afraid, and they use that survey in order to express that. I just hope that the Safety Committee in particular will take that seriously and go back to the management of SPDC and SNG and SNEPCO and say, "We've heard this. Why did we not know about this before? And let's do something about this together." Thank you. Thank you. Look, it's not just a matter for the safety committee, it's a matter for the whole board. I can't emphasize enough the importance that Shell places on safety. Of course, I've come from other companies, and certainly what I've seen, I know it's all about tone from the top. The safety culture is very strong and this is something that we do review regularly as a board, but as a whole board thing. It's not just something that we ask a committee to do. Thank you for your input. Thank you. We now have two questions online, and then we go back into the room. The first one is a statement. While I, Maureen Brydson, Bry as in sky between brackets, am the shareholder, my husband, also a small private shareholder over many decades, joins me in this question, which is: does the Shell Board agree with me that oil will continue to be essential, substantial resource for many years to come, and it would be most unwise for Shell to be deflected from its planned strategic future by a small number of institutional shareholders with well-known names who are so unconcerned in Shell's future's profitability that they are, it is believed, reducing their shareholder holding? It's a long sentence, sorry. Sorry, that's a bit long, but we trust you see, where our sympathies lie. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mrs Brydson. I've... It's always nice to have that kind of support, but also, I think it illustrates the challenge that we as a board face in balancing a number of competing demands so that we can navigate effectively through the energy transition in a way that cuts carbon, but also looks after shareholder returns and the secure supply and affordable supply of energy. Thank you, Chair. The next statement is, and is a question from Richard Trevithick. I'm concerned at the apparent lack of investment in renewable energy. We're just not going fast enough. When will Shell stop putting surplus cash into share buybacks and using that cash to organically grow the renewable asset base, not by buying up existing renewable companies? I think I've answered this question earlier. I mean, I, well, we have put a lot of cash into buying up renewable based companies, which we then invest in. Believe me, since the acquisitions that we've been talking about, the board have been considering a lot of investments. I come back to what I said earlier, that the core investment of renewable generation is not necessarily something that is in the crosshairs, if you like, of Shell's business. We are much more in, on the molecular side, and we're thinking about this more from a downstream perspective. Just looking at it purely from a capital side, well, misrepresents our strategy. We do believe in what we're doing with our customers. We're creating the demand. We do need to create more demand, because right now, if you read about it, a lot of that, these renewable investments are not competitive in terms of returns. Whilst we've been comfortable, if you like, for a while, with lower returns for a bit, there are limits. Quite frankly, for many of the competing companies who compete for the capital that we get, you know, we have to offer an appropriate shareholder return, including a cash component to be attractive to a wider range of investors to actually maintain a decent attractiveness for Shell and the Shell share price. Thanks, Chair. We now have, I'd like to invite Mr. John Farmer to come to the question point. John Farmer, Chairman, diversified shareholder, reader of many annual reports, attender of many AGMs, including for some decades, yours. Before a substantive question on underperformance, quick questions on both the annual report and the AGM. Chairman, having got us or called us here for 10:00 A.M., which itself is earlier than the 11:00 A.M. norm for AGMs to allow people to travel on passes, the reception was a nightmare. Confiscation of bags, searches, and the excessive regimentation was severely off-putting. Having last year- Look, I appreciate that. Having last- I hope having watched what's what happened in the first hour, you understand the reasons for us doing that. Yes. Well, let me continue on that. Having last year taken 45 minutes to eject protesters, you should this year, I suggest, have been far quicker because- We were delayed with a lot of nonsense, and you should have reacted much more quicker, got them out, and got on with the meeting. Secondly, Chairman, will you get your investor relations to pay more attention to your institutional shareholders whose questioning this morning, though entitled, have taken up substantial time to the detriment of private shareholders? I think that's a generic problem with AGMs. It's not, Chairman. I attend many- Mm. Institutional shareholders At AGMs in our sector. Well, institutional shareholders by and large get their questions answered outside the meeting. Yeah. As to your annual report, Chairman, it's some 400 pages of gray verbiage. Will you print in future across page and not in columns so that those reading online are not bedeviled with unnecessary scrolling? More substantive question on the performance, Chairman. Annual report page 196, total shareholder return graph shows that shareholder total return over 10 years has been a paltry 50%. What have you been doing for the last decade or more over your prime function of earning a positive and substantial shareholder return? In addition to any executive director response on that question, may we please hear also from the Remuneration Committee Chairman, because concurrently, the page 145 remuneration report shows you have paid the Chief Executive in last year $9.7 million and another $2.9 million to the Finance Director. This surely, Chairman, is feathering the nest of the board at the expense of the shareholders you are primarily here to serve. In answer to that question, may we hear also from the Senior Non-Executive Director, if indeed you have one, as to why the non-executives have been so torpid over these issues in the last decade or more. Over to you, Chairman. I mean, the performance question, I mean, clearly, if you've listened to Wael's speeches, he's acknowledged that we need to improve our shareholder return. He's doing a lot of work in that area to increase capital discipline, to take out some operating costs, and he's going to expand extensively on that when he talks to investors next month at the Capital Markets Day. I think on the relative pay of chief executives and senior executives, we operate in a very competitive market, where our talent is competed for. We benchmark what our executives get compared to that competition. All benchmarks, they do not appear out of line in what they earn, and if they were on the downside, then we may struggle to attract the executives we require to run, which if I might say, is an extremely complicated company, which in many ways the question and answer session has demonstrated with all the different things that we have to balance in order to satisfy the very diverse requirements of society whilst actually trying to deliver the kind of improved shareholder returns that you're asking us to do. I'm not sure there's much more that either the senior and... We do have a senior independent director. It's Euleen Guo. She's also the deputy chairman. Or the Remuneration Committee Chairman can add to that. I mean, it, you're simply asking, about the level of their spend, not any detail of their remuneration. Well, Chairman, as I said in my question, you've not actually performed in relation to this outlet, outlay on remuneration. Well, the performance, if you go back, the performance feedback is through the long-term performance plans of the company. They're marked. That performance looks at a number of measures, and they're compared with the competition. They're done objectively and agreed in advance with shareholders, and then the Remuneration Committee recommends the reward. If you look at some of those measures, which are obviously, they're about things like total shareholder return. They're also about how we're dealing with things like the energy transition. They're about things like, and they're about things to do with cash generation and the efficiency with which we actually accumulate cash, if you like, that we can return to the shareholder. And that, if you go back through previous versions of the Remuneration Report and other remuneration in other Annual Reports, you'll see how those things are reconciled. This is not something that the Board has been, as you imply, not active in. You know, these are very hard numerical targets agreed in advance with investors, benchmarked against our competition. We have to be benchmarkable with the competition, or we wouldn't retain our talent, and they're transparently reported through our Remuneration Reports. Yes, Chairman, but you've still not performed. There's one other thing- Well, no. we've not mentioned so far. On some measures. You've had two fatalities in the last year. Should you not be looking after your employees to avoid this sort of thing? Well, every fatality is regrettable, and we wish we didn't have fatalities. I think as I mentioned earlier, on the key measure that we look at in terms of employee safety, we look at the number of fatalities and serious injuries, things that might maim you and affect your life. There we saw a 75% year-on-year performance improvement. We also saw a 35% year-on-year performance improvement in process safety. In that sense, you know, of course, you know, we would like a company which had no serious incidents or certainly no fatalities. And we do from time to time apply as a board a negative sort of override to push things down if we feel some of the fatalities have been excessive. This year we had a couple. On the other hand, we had a marked reduction in other serious incidents. Those two things sort of balanced each other out. We discussed it at length. Chairman, you're proposing huge expenditure on share repurchases. Mm-hmm. The rationale for this is understood, but there is widespread feeling among private shareholders that share repurchases often do not work because they are subsumed by other factors. What evidence have you that this expenditure, at the expense of investment in the business, will actually yield whatever benefits you postulate for it? Well, clearly we as a company believe our shares are seriously undervalued at the moment, and we're working very hard on that. While they're relatively cheap, it's a relatively good purchase of shareholder funds to do that. I just point to the fact that and we've reset the dividend at the start of this year by 15%. Only 4% of that increase was down to what we had committed to do in terms of a long run improvement in the progressive dividend. The other 10%, 11% was derived by the fact that because we have a lot fewer shares now under issue, 'cause we've bought so many back, we can increase the per share dividend flowing to the individual shareholder by 10%. I think that's quite a nice benefit for everybody in this room who's continued to hold their shares. Well, your performance over the last decade has been miserable, Chairman. I'm frankly skeptical that the tweaking you've just described will make any material difference. I think having kept us here for so long, you ought in future to provide a decent lunch and not some bun in a bag. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. We've now got a question in the room from Mr. John Dawson. Could you just take this. Right. I acquired my Shell shares when BG Group was taken over. I used to work for British Gas PLC, in fact was British Gas PLC. It's now Centrica, National Grid and BG Group. I'm hoping to keep my Shell shares because I always thought they'd be paying great dividends. Given that you made the huge profits just in the last year, record profits, I was hoping you'd maybe reward us longstanding shareholders by giving us, say, a one-off lump sum dividend, say maybe GBP 1 a share or something like that. Going forward, I'm really wanting to hold on to these shares to supplement my pension. Now, we're talking about ordinary working folk here. I'm 69. I'll be 70 on the 25th of August. I'm hoping that these dividends will supplement my pension. Tens of thousands of people who work for British Gas are in the same situation as me. They're just earning kind wee incomes, 30,000 or less. You've been talking a lot about this share buyback. Well, ordinary working folk, we're more concerned about cash dividends to supplement our pensions rather than this share buyback. I would like to see. I heard what you said two or three minutes ago. What I would like to see us getting a big bumper dividend, 'cause other companies have done that, and also to see the cash dividends substantially improved. Also, I want to know if you're gonna continue with the DRIP program so that folk can get more shares instead of just the cash. Bear in mind the ordinary working folk, 'cause I know Sir Keir Starmer says that big dividends will reward the millionaires. If you ever get a letter from Sir Keir Starmer or any of these Labour folk, ordinary working folk like me that haven't earned much more than GBP 30,000 in all the 40 years we've been working, we're depending on the dividends. It's not just the wealthy and the millionaires. I would like to see ordinary working folk getting that better cash dividends. Can you just reply to that? There's another question I'm gonna ask you too, but it's totally unrelated. Just if you can answer that question. Okay. I mean, look, I mean, we always have this debate, clearly when we have excess cash, as to whether we return it through the dividend stream or whether we do the buyback. The two are related, and that was why I explained the reason that you got a 15% increase in your dividend at the start of this year was partly enabled because of the buyback program. It does come through to help you. We know that some people prefer more dividends, some people prefer buybacks. We've got different types of shares. We understand the position you're in, and certainly, you know, I'm certain that Wael Sawan will say more about that at Capital Markets Day. This is a regular discussion that we have as a board, and when we revisit the whole strategy, as we would normally do at the start of next year, then we'll take your comments on board. Is there any chance of a one-off bumper dividend and are you gonna continue...? Well, I... Listen, are you gonna continue with the DRIP program as well? You never answered that. Well, I'm not gonna answer your first question because that's a board decision and we'd have to have a board meeting... take it into consideration. I'm not gonna do that right now. 'Cause I'm sure you could afford to do it if you wanted. Well- Where there's a will, there's a way. Right. Are you gonna carry on with this DRIP program as well? Yeah. I thought I need to. Maybe Caroline knows the situation of the DRIP program. Do you? If you have questions on the DRIP program, I would recommend you to contact our Equiniti registrar, outside of the room. They will be able to help you on that. Can you not tell me if you're going to continue with it? Uh, I, I- Yeah. At the moment we are not continuing with the DRIP program at this point in time. Pardon? Appreciate the- We're not. We're not continuing at this point in time. Appreciate the input, and we'll take it on board as we consider the next steps in the coming years. Right. Thank you. The other thing is, somebody touched on that there, but this is very important, and don't take it light-heartedly, it's serious. I've got a Freedom Pass, 'cause I told you earlier I was 69. Mm-hmm. Now I live in southwest London, and it took me over an hour to get here, 'cause I had to wait till after 9:00 A.M. to get on the buses and underground, so it meant I was late. If you keep this time at 10:00 A.M. and you come back to this place, which isn't really ideal, loads of folk. If you really care about ordinary working folk, and many of them are your wee shareholders, you will move this time, 'cause you could do it if you wanted to. Mm-hmm. This time should be moved to 11:00 A.M. You should go back to the Methodist Church or use the Queen Elizabeth's Conference Centre. That's more central. Even at that, no matter where you have this, you should move it to 11:00 A.M. 'Cause a lot of the folk who come here, they've got Freedom Passes, a lot of elderly folk. If you do care for ordinary working folk and for the elderly and all your shareholders, you will make the time 11:00 A.M., and I think you should go back to central London and to the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre. I'll tell you another thing. When I come in here, I went to the toilet, and I had to climb down three flights of stairs just to go to the toilet and then come back up. The Methodist Church was a much better venue, and if you go to the Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, that'd be a more friendly place to have this thing as well. I mean, I'm not gonna make decisions on the hoof on that. Your input is well heard, and we'll take it on board and think about what we want to do next year. Obviously a number of other things we're managing, perhaps not all of it you saw because you weren't here at 10 o'clock, but thank you for your input. I'm speaking behalf of loads of folk who live in London who've got. Yeah. Freedom Pass. I have heard that before. Yeah. Well do something about it. Okay. You said yourself nine and a half months. Okay. We've still got a lot of questions to get through. Thanks, Mr. Dawson. We'll move to the next question in the room, which is Steven King, and then we'll have one more last question. Steven, Mr. King. Two questions. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board and fellow shareholders. Does Shell have any plans to help elderly shareholders facilitate the transfer of Shell shares to their children or in their wills? You've mentioned your work with aviation fuels. However, I would ask what Shell's plans for the development of new fuels for the maritime industry, which is the main effects of trade. Most of the world trade goes by ships, and it's really important, and it's not really talked about very much. 10 o'clock works for me. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll, we'll put that in the other column. Right. Look, I think the registrar's Equiniti, a bit like the last question, can help you with that, and they're just outside the auditorium. A member of your team can probably help, can help you how you transfer your Shell shares to your children and make it as easy as possible. Look, on the maritime side... Are you coming back? No, I just was. Okay. On the maritime side. We don't talk about it much, but we do a lot of work there. Shell and I was on the receiving end when I was a customer of Shell's in the past. They're extremely effective at marketing LNG as a fuel for ships, as an alternative to bunker fuel, and also the use of marine lubricants to actually improve the carbon impact of ships. The nice thing about that is if we get people onto gas, we can then start thinking about lower carbon versions of gas. It's a big improvement to go from bunker fuel to LNG, from LNG to maybe biogas or start some of the more futuristic things we're talking about to do with things like methanol and ammonia. Yeah, we're on it. We just didn't talk about it today. Yeah, just 'cause you have a fleet of ships. Sure. Which has done very well. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. It'd be really nice to see that technology developed in there. Could you actually be active in working with the community to engage with its older shareholders? I'm a SID, weirdly enough, so you know, there are people out there. Yeah, no, but look, I'm sure we're engaging with them. It's one of our key sectors. Great, thank you. We will continue here, then we'll have one more question in the room, which is from Gloria Brown. We will follow the process. Thank you. Ms. Brown? Yes. Yep. Ask your question. Yep. You were on the list, so it's happening. Thank you. Okay. It finally happened. As a Black person, I am a shareholder. What I'd like to say is, it's been brought up by a couple of people here. The venue is not appropriate. The timing is not appropriate. The actual documentation that I have received today is in very small type, which is inappropriate, and I have brought this up a number of times at meetings. In terms of a question about I saw something here, which I marked. It's been such a long time that I've been waiting, you see. It's about the passing on of dividends. You say that the new article it's article 22, and it says that the companies will withhold sending further dividends or other amounts payable on a share to a shareholder where previous payments to that shareholder have failed or remain uncashed. My question is: where does that money go, have you actually tried numerous times to contact that person? Because they may well have family. That's my second question. The third question is, I have brought it up. I've been coming for three years, and I found it incredibly difficult to come here. I have been to the ladies room, and I had to walk all around here. I feel like going again, I'm gonna wait till I leave because it's such a long walk. I really urge you to think about people who have struggled, who struggle to get here, who are elderly and disability issues. In terms of diversity, I have brought it up. I don't feel as though I have been included here. I'm, I understand that I'm the first Black person to speak here today, but I just think that you need to look at your diversity issues. We know about George Floyd, Lots of companies are now actually bringing him, bringing on board that they've realized that racism does exist. I feel somehow that there are some issues here when I hear about the Nigeria problem. I'm putting it to you, please. When I come back here next year, let me see some changes, some positive changes. It's particularly this document, the voting document. It's so hard to look that I've had to take out my magnifying glass because I can't see it in the lighting here. Yeah. Okay. Well, we, I mean, we can obviously provide materials in a larger font if requested, but, you know, I mean, the kind of standard one aligns with other corporates. We have to look into that. I take that point. I mean, on the uncashed dividends, I mean, most companies face problems with this, and from time to time, you know, we donate those unrealized dividends to charities. In our case, we probably use the Shell Foundation, which is an independent U.K. charity that is mainly focused on clean energy in Africa. Has that answered all your questions? I mean, the diversity thing. I mean, the diversity and inclusion is a big deal in Shell, and we work very hard on that. We look at our statistics. We're not where we want to be, but we are trying. Well, you said that the last time. Well. Okay. Chair, there are no further questions. No further. Well, thanks, Chair. I think we've covered all the questions registered. If there's no further questions, that brings us to the conclusion of the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll leave you to your voting. A breakdown of the proxy results we have received ahead of the meeting will shortly be shown on the screen behind me. Look, if you sign off by closing the Lumi platform, please rest assured that your votes cast before the voting cutoff time will still be counted. Before we all leave, I'd like to close on a few points. I apologize for the numerous breaks that we had to take as a result of the disruptions, and I appreciate your patience and understanding. As much as I may disagree with what the protesters said, and particularly their methods, I think it's crucial that they have the opportunity to say it. Clearly, I'd prefer they did it in a different manner. People should be able to air their opinions and perspectives and views. The very fact that we were the first to present our energy transition strategy as an advisory vote should be testimony to the fact that we are keen to get all our shareholders' input, whether negative or positive. We really do welcome criticism, but look, we prefer that it's done safely, and at the end it certainly wasn't, and in an orderly way, and in many cases, the protesters crossed that line. Since it's my job to make sure this meeting proceeds in a safe and orderly way, I did feel compelled to ask the security teams to take the actions to remove those who were continually disrupting the meeting. Let me reassure you, your board firmly and unreservedly thinks the world should achieve the temperature goal of the Paris Climate Agreement. It's not about the Paris Agreement, whether it should be achieved or when. It's just we think differently about how to achieve it, which is a legitimate, civilized debate that we wish to have with the world. We believe that the world, including Shell, governments, other industries and companies, and yes, our consumers and customers too, we all need to make changes because climate change is a global and a systemic problem, and resolving it requires a global and systemic solution. Your board fully intends for Shell to be part of that solution, and in many cases, take leadership roles in it. Our energy transition lays out how Shell is changing. We'll continue to change, and we'll update it, I've said it several times, next year. It includes, and we'll continue to include how we're collaborating with our customers and others to be part of the solution. We report on this progress every year now, and your advisory report tells us if progress meets your expectations. Well, if today's voting results on our energy transition resolution are taken, they do show that we're on the right track. We deeply thank you for your support, and we also realize we still have more work to do, and we'll continue to update you on our progress. With that, I wish you all a good day, and thank you for attending and your patience for being here so long. On that note, I formally declare the 2023 annual general meeting closed.