Okay, let's get started. Maybe get seated so we can get on with today's meeting, and good morning to all of you. I'm Andrew Mackenzie, and as Chair of this year's AGM, I'm delighted to welcome all of you to the 2024 Annual General Meeting of Shell PLC. I confirm that we have a quorum present and so declare the meeting formally open, and suggest that with your permission, the notice convening the meeting is taken as read. Please sit down and wait for questions. If you don't sit down and ask for questions, I will ask you to be removed. Security, will you please remove everybody from the room who's trying to disrupt this meeting? On the upper deck we see your wealth, as that bag you sold the world and left us with the trail. Your business is despicable, you think the world is like the gong. You lie and cheat while shouting, "Shell we fail!" Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! But try to cover up reality. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! The naked truth is ever more to see. You dug and dragged your tails aside and left your oily mess behind. One day you'll pay for all the blood you've spilled. Polluted waters, our homes and land, there's countless dying by your hand. The truth cannot be covered up, Shell fail. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! But try to cover up reality. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! The naked truth is ever more to see. Shell fail! You've chosen to ignore the truth. We know you like to hide the truth, so we are in this place to drill. There's no way you can stop this slide. You'll pay the price- People using phones? People using cameras. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! But try to cover up reality. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail! The naked truth is ever more to see. Shell fail, Shell fail, Shell fail.... Okay, I'd like to continue with the meeting, but before I do so, let me be clear that I have now officiated... This is my third AGM, where I, I think I have quite patiently listened to people's opinions, then delivered in this way. I'm not going to issue any more warnings, and so all of security have my authority, given my accountability for the good order of the meeting, that if anybody starts to protest in this way before we have questions, which is where these debates should happen, then they should be removed immediately from the meeting for the sake of its good order. So in accordance with the company's articles of association, and as contemplated by the notice of the meeting, I hereby call for a poll to be taken on each resolution and declare the poll open. I'm appointing the company's registrar as Equiniti to act as scrutineers, and we will shortly explain the voting process. Before I go further, though, I would like to thank all our shareholders that are here in the room for their understanding of some of the events that have just happened, but also of the heightened security, security checks and restrictions at today's event that are in part led to us having to start late. However, in the interest of the safety of all attendees, we felt compelled to implement the checks and restrictions here today based on our intelligence regarding potential threats at other shareholder meetings and those which were directed at our own meeting here today. As with last year, this will be a fully hybrid shareholder meeting. Okay. So may I repeat, if anybody else tries to disrupt the meeting in this way, they are to be immediately taken from the meeting by security. As I was saying, as with last year, this will be a fully hybrid shareholder meeting, providing a platform for shareholders to vote and ask questions, both here in the meeting room and virtually. We'll also webcast this meeting, so we open the forum to the global public and any other interested shareholders. The board and I clearly extend a special welcome to all of you attending, but also those attending virtually. Allow me to describe now the overall process for today's meeting. Given that I have already formally opened the meeting and the poll, I'll ask Caroline Omloo, our Company Secretary, to briefly explain the voting process, and I'll then introduce my fellow board members, and we'll then turn to the business of the meeting before moving on to your questions. For those shareholders wanting to ask questions later on, if you're participating online, please refer to the guide on the Lumi platform. If you're here in the room and have not already registered a question that you want to ask, please go to the registration desk at the back of the room, where one of the team will help you. When asking questions or making any comment, please state your name and the name of any organization you represent, if any organization. Tjeerk Huizinga is our Executive Vice President of Investor Relations, and he'll support the question portion of our meeting, and he'll read out the questions as they're submitted on the Lumi platform. Now, some questions may be moderated to avoid unnecessary repetition and to achieve an orderly meeting. In this way, we hope we can address as many questions as possible, and Tjeerk will also balance the online questions with those that come through on the phone line and those from you here in the room. Please be patient, as you already have been, for which many thanks. In accordance with the company's articles of association, and as stated also in the notice of meeting, the meeting will be held in English, and so I respectfully request that you please ask your questions in English. Turning now to voting, Caroline, Caroline Omloo, the Company Secretary, will explain the procedure. Thank you, Chair, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For those watching the meeting via the Lumi platform, a copy of the notice of meeting can be found under the Documents tab on your screen. For those watching on the webcast, it can be found within the General Meeting section of our website. Resolutions numbered 1-17, 21, and 22 are proposed as ordinary resolutions, and therefore, each requires a simple majority of the votes cast to be in favor in order to be passed. Resolutions 18-20 and 23 are proposed as special resolutions, and therefore, each of these resolutions requires at least a 75% majority of the votes cast to be in favor in order to be passed. Many of you will have already sent in your proxy cards and do not need to vote again. Proxy votes submitted in advance of today's meeting amount to 4 billion votes, representing approximately 63% of the company's issued share capital. Voting will remain open throughout the meeting and for 15 minutes following the conclusion of the meeting. Once you have voted, you can change your vote, but when the voting closes, your last choice will be submitted. For those here in the room, 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 a 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 21st, 2024. 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 am satisfied that the voting process has been completed. The final results of the poll votes, including the tally of the votes cast by shareholders attending online today, will be sent to the Amsterdam, London, and New York Stock Exchanges, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and shown on the Shell website tomorrow morning or later today, if time permits. Thank you for your time and your votes. Back to you, Chair. Thank you, Caroline. Look, before I introduce the other directors, please remember, for those 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. And And to allow sufficient time for other shareholders wanting to ask questions, please keep your comments short, to the point, and relevant to the business of today's meeting. If I believe that your question or statement is excessively long, please understand that I might ask you to bring it to a close. I also request more of your patience if there's a lot of interest on any one particular issue. As I've already commented, as a chair, as chair of the meeting, I do have a duty to make sure that the proceedings today are conducted in a proper and orderly manner, and I will do my utmost to make sure all shades of opinion are given a fair hearing. If you can help me fulfill these responsibilities, I'd ask that you would respect our procedures and the order of the meeting. So now let me introduce your directors, who are all seeking re-election today. Their biographies are provided within the notice of meeting, which was duly circulated to shareholders on the seventeenth of April and added to our website on the same date. So starting with those in the room, on my right, Wael Sawan, our Chief Executive Officer, and then we have Sinead Gorman, our Chief Financial Officer. On my left is Caroline Omloo, who you've already met, our Company Secretary. And now if we go on to our other directors, we also have on Caroline's left, Dick Boer. Dick is our Deputy Chair, and he's the Senior Independent Non-Executive Director. He's a member of the Audit and Risk, Nomination and Succession and Remuneration committees. Attending the meeting virtually, and who you can see live on the screen, we have Anne Godbehere, who's Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee and is a member of the Nomination and Succession Committee. Catherine Hughes, who's Chair of the Sustainability Committee and a member of the Audit and Risk Committee. And finally, Neil Carson, who's Chair of the Remuneration Committee and a member of the Sustainability Committee. The other non-executives, whose pictures you can see on the screen now, are also attending the AGM virtually. So, ladies and gentlemen, let's now move to the business of the meeting, and that starts with my talk. So I'd like to reflect on the- ... The The UN Secretary General says we are on the edge of an abyss, and this company is not Paris 1.5 aligned. I urge all shareholders to vote for Follow This. I'll start at the top. As I was saying, I want to reflect on changing times and how they shape Shell's beliefs about the way the world will achieve a balanced energy transition. Imagine if we were to wind the clock forward 25 years from today to the eve of 2050. I think we'd all hope to find a world that's moved to a low-carbon energy system, and Shell's transformation into a net zero emissions energy business should be complete through a mix of low-carbon solutions and emissions from our remaining oil and gas production balanced out through a range of innovations in both abatement and permanent carbon removal. Now, achieving this transition in just a quarter of a century is challenging, but we feel with a collective effort from government, industry, and customers, it can be done. Now, imagine if we were to wind the clock back 25 years from today. We'd leave this age of artificial intelligence and smartphones and return to a time of fax machines, floppy disks, and payphones. So I tell you that as a reminder that the speed and shape of change can be huge, and people often overestimate this in the short term, but underestimate what can change in the long term. And today's challenges are far too complex to risk falling into that trap. The greatest of these changes is tackling climate change and doing so at the same time as making sure the world has a secure supply of affordable energy. While it might be tempting to try to stop using oil and gas before it all is ready, before the world is ready, we must not do so at the expense of the energy needs and aspirations of a growing global population. We must remember that today, over 700 million people still have no access to electricity. More than one in four children born in the world today are in Africa. Almost two in four are in Asia. The world of 2050 will probably have nearly 10 million people in it, and all of them will need reliable access to energy to meet both basic demands and bold ambitions. Even as governments, industry, and customers act to lower emissions over the next 25 years, energy demand will inevitably have to grow to keep up with rising populations and rising ambitions. So in that context, Shell must put forward plans that are attainable as well as ambitious. And you can see this in what we set out at our Capital Markets Day last year, as well as in Shell's updated energy transition strategy, which we published in March.... And these two standout moments were expressions of Shell's firmly held beliefs of how we feel the world's transition to net zero can be achieved. So let me highlight just a few. First, Shell believes the world needs more liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which will be a crucial fuel throughout the energy transition. Natural gas, often as LNG, is an effective replacement for coal in power generation, especially in Asia. Natural gas has been has around half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal when used to generate electricity, and it gives the power system the flexibility it needs at a time when renewable generation is growing rapidly. LNG can also boost energy security because it can be easily shipped to where it's needed most. And what's more, LNG readied us-- readies us for a time when we can decarbonize still further by blending it with things like biogas and hydrogen. That said, oil will play a vital role for a long time to go, because there is still a long way to go for a long way to come, because there is still a long way to go before alternatives in aviation, shipping, and road and freight become viable. So Shell believes continued investment in both oil and gas will be needed. At the same time, we also believe the world needs more solutions to reduce emissions from those slower-to-decarbonize sectors, like transport, but also in industry. And Shell has shown how to capture and store carbon effectively, as well as ways to turn it into something more useful, like blue hydrogen. And these are the kind of solutions that will be vital for a successful energy transition. Just last month, I visited Brazil, which is a place where you can see the energy transition in action. Its great deepwater assets make it a global player in oil and gas, and in turn, Shell is one of the largest players in Brazil. At the same time, Brazil is also a leader in developing low-carbon energy sources that we need for the energy transition, such as biofuels. And Shell is at the forefront there, too. So while I was in Brazil, I visited our joint venture, Raízen, whose rapid advances in biofuels show their potential as a practical alternative to fossil fuels. Today, through Raízen, we are the largest producer of second-generation ethanol and the leading sugarcane ethanol producer globally. Such progress in low-carbon energy sources underscores Shell's next belief, that by 2050, low-carbon energy will represent a large share of the world's energy, and this is something that Shell has believed for a long time. Taken together, those beliefs are shaping Shell's direction, and I want to congratulate Wael and his executive team for their leadership in doing all of this while delivering very strong shareholder returns. I believe that Shell's leaders neither overestimate what they can change in the short term, nor underestimate what they can change in the long term. In so doing, they're setting up Shell for success through the energy transition. Thank you for listening, and over to you, Wael. That's all brainwash! There's no such thing as goodbye. Goodbye. You're on your way. Shell kills. UK, Shell kills. Let me get started. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Sir Andrew, and thank you all for your patience. Looking forward to the Q&A later on as well. Now, before I talk about Shell's strategy in the context of our beliefs about the energy system, I'd like to reflect on some of the positive momentum that we are seeing in the energy transition. I saw this momentum at COP 28 in Dubai last year, where the vast majority of countries decided to triple the deployment of renewables, double energy efficiency, and drive towards near zero methane emissions by 2030. Reducing methane emissions from the production of oil and gas continues to be one of Shell's top priorities. We're proud to have signed up to the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter and to be contributing to the Global Flaring and Methane Fund, both of which were announced in Dubai. I also recently traveled to China, where electric car sales are growing so fast that around one in three cars on the road is expected to be electric by 2030. Meanwhile, here in the UK, there's been a successful reduction in coal consumption from 60 million tons a year in 2000 to 6 million tons in 2022, and there's a plan to cut coal from electric power generation completely this year. However, despite this progress, more action is urgently needed to address climate change. This reminds me of what the author Amin Maalouf once wrote, and I quote: "Progress is made in tiny surges, in successive laps, like an endless relay race, and there are links without which nothing would be passed on." End quote. For me, those links are the people who make progress possible: colleagues, customers, and our shareholders, who are taking the energy transition forward step by step, just like a relay race. As Sir Andrew just mentioned, the world needs a balanced energy transition, one that maintains secure and affordable energy supplies as the world moves to net zero. This is why, mindful of our core beliefs around future energy demand, Shell is responsibly delivering the oil and gas people need today, while helping to build the clean energy system of the future as we transform our business in the coming decades, step by step, focusing on where our strengths lie. This means we're keeping our oil production stable to 2030, and we're growing our LNG business further so that we can continue to provide a critical fuel in the energy transition. We're also investing $10-$15 billion between 2023 and the end of 2025 in low-carbon energy solutions such as electric vehicle charging, renewable power, biofuels, hydrogen, and ways to capture and to store carbon. For all our investments in oil and gas and in low-carbon energy solutions, we're making clear choices about where we can create the most value. Since our ability to raise and invest capital depends on delivering strong returns to our shareholders, which shapes the role that Shell can play in the energy transition, we believe this focus on value makes it more likely that we will achieve our climate targets and our ambitions. In short, we believe we have the right strategy to create more value with less emissions and to be the investment case through the energy transition. At the heart of this strategy, you'll find people. Let me firstly start with our staff at Shell. My colleagues are delivering our strategy by enhancing performance, embedding discipline, and enabling simplification in our businesses. I'll give you some examples of their actions. Our focus on performance can be seen at our new oil and gas platforms, such as Timi in Malaysia, that is 60% lighter than conventional platforms, making it more cost-efficient. Since Timi is also powered by wind and solar, it's a great example of how we are creating more value with less emissions. Beyond new projects, we're also improving the performance of existing assets, like our Nelson oil and gas platform off the coast of Scotland. By going from two gas-powered generation, generators to one, Nelson's carbon emissions went down, and its gas sales went up. As part of our disciplined approach, our capital spend was within our $22 billion-$25 billion a year range last year, and we've stopped selling power to households in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. We felt that our time, efforts, and capabilities can better be used in helping our customers in transport and industry. And when it comes to simplification, we are rallying behind a few specific targets. A year ago, we had more than 50 financial and business-level commitments, which risked us running in too many different directions. I believe the best version of Shell is the focused version of Shell. To deliver that focus, we now have only four financial targets, four climate targets, and a climate ambition that we have announced in pursuit of delivering more value and less emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. Now, I want to turn to the second group of people, you, our shareholders, and talk about how we've delivered against these targets. I've already outlined how we have been disciplined about our capital spend. In addition, we have reduced structural costs, delivered solid shareholder distributions, and increased growth in our free cash flow per share. We're also making good progress towards our climate targets, driving down absolute emissions from our own operations, significantly reducing methane emissions and routine flaring, and reducing the net carbon intensity of the energy products that we sell. This last metric, our net carbon intensity, shows our progress in changing the mix of the energy products as we grow the sales of low-carbon energy solutions. Which brings me to the third group of people, our customers. We're focusing on sectors where we have competitive strengths, see strong customer demand, and identify clear regulatory support from governments. In the transport sector, for example, we're building on our customer relationships and expertise to help drive the decarbonization of passenger cars, heavy-duty trucks, planes, and ships. We aim to grow our public charging network for electric vehicles and stay a leader in biofuels, including sustainable aviation fuels or renewable diesel made from waste. But don't take my word for it. Let's, for a moment, hear what our customers say. ... Yara was founded 120 so years ago. At the end of 2023, BYD has delivered more than 6.5 million NEV models globally. Penske Corporation is a global transportation services company with over 430,000 commercial trucks on the road. Tokyo Gas is the world's largest LNG company. Emirates will grow in a sustainable way wherever is possible. Our work with Shell Aviation is a demonstration of this. So the great thing when we work together with a company like Shell, that we put our collective minds together to think about solutions, is that we come with new and exciting projects. In 2023, we bought millions of gallons of biofuels from Shell, and it provides the opportunity for ourselves and our customers right now to reduce their carbon footprint. BYD needs a charging solution at a scale that could match the convenience of petrol retailing. It makes sense to go to the company that helped define the current retail network. That's Shell. I could mention one important project that we're working on right now, and that's carbon capture and storage. We have been working with Shell since the inception of LNG, and I believe we have greatly contributed to the promotion and expansion of LNG natural gas in Japan. Emirates appreciates Shell Aviation's effort in taking the steps in making SAF available for Emirates. We are pleased to work with Shell Aviation on this matter. The opportunity to work with Shell over the past decade didn't come by accident. It comes because we have shared values, what our customers require, but also what our environment needs right now. That's why it's very helpful to work with a company like Shell that has decarbonization very high on the agenda and understand the needs that we have. There are huge business opportunities connected to this. There are a lot of potential income as a result of that. Big dreams has big challenge, needs big solution, needs big partners. I'm incredibly proud of the relationships that Shell has built with our customers and hugely appreciative of the trust that they have put in us. As we grow sales of low-carbon energy solutions to our customers, we expect to gradually reduce sales of oil products, such as petrol and diesel. We've set a new ambition: to reduce customer emissions from the use of our oil products by 15%-20% by 2030 when compared to 2021. These emissions were 569 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2021 and had reduced to 517 million tons in 2023. We're making progress. We're also developing solutions to help these sectors in the long term, for example, hydrogen and ways to capture and to store carbon. How these long-term solutions will play out is uncertain, so we'll move step by step, proving these businesses are viable before we can grow them further. Acknowledging this uncertainty around the pace of change in the transition is why we have retired our net carbon intensity target for 2035 and are now focused on achieving our updated target with a newly introduced range of a 15%-20% reduction by 2030 when compared to 2016. We will continue to be transparent about how we're delivering on our targets and ambitions in our annual report. In conclusion, by providing the different kinds of energy the world needs and with our focus on performance, discipline, and simplification, we believe we are the investment case and the partner of choice through the energy transition. Now, there is much more to do. As Maalouf reminds us, "Progress is not made at once, but step by step." We're committed to playing our part, helping to deliver the secure supply of energy that benefits people all over the world today, and to deliver more and cleaner energy solutions so that they can continue to benefit now and well into the future. Thank you. Thank you, Wael. So we've now come to that part of the meeting where you have the opportunity to ask questions of us. Now, you may have seen in the notice of 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. The first of these is Resolution 22, which is proposed by the board and presents an advisory vote on Shell's energy transition update, as discussed in the latest annual report and Shell's energy transition strategy of 2024. Your directors strongly believe that Shell's energy transition strategy is in the best interest of shareholders as a whole and wider society, as Wael and I have just explained. So equally, the board and management also believe that it's important for all shareholders to have a vehicle to express their views on whether our strategy is reasonable in the current environment. This advisory vote resolution is designed to be that vehicle, and for clarity, it does not shield nor abdicate the board's or management's legal obligations under the UK Companies Act, and 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 23, and as a reminder, this is a special resolution which has been requisitioned by a group of shareholders represented by the organization Follow This. For reasons previously expressed and outlined in detail in the notice of meeting, your directors unanimously recommend that shareholders vote against this resolution. We'll shortly hear from Mr. Mark van Baal, who'll tell you more about this resolution. To make sure of an orderly discussion, I'm going to take questions in this order. First, 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 strategy, including those on Resolution 23 and our energy transition strategy, we'll take them first, and then we'll take all questions regarding the remaining resolutions. Again, if I could remind you, do keep your questions to the point, short, preferably no longer than 1-2 minutes, so we can get through as many as possible today. For those of you asking questions via the teleconference facility, I'd also ask that you give your name, and if you represent an organization, the name of that organization when you're asking a question or making a comment. So let's start with Mr. van Baal. Mr. van Baal, please, do you have a statement to make about your resolution? I think at microphone one. Welcome. Good day, Mr. Chairman, directors, fellow shareholders. It's hard to speak to stony faces. However, I hope you are paying close attention to a shareholder who represents the concerns of 20%, around 20% of your shareholders. Last year, one in five of your shareholders voted for the Follow This climate resolution to ask you to align your targets with the Paris Climate Agreement. And in a shareholder democracy, 20%... In a shareholder democracy, where ordinarily 99% votes with management, 20% is a clear shareholder rebellion. These shareholders understand mitigating climate risk as key to their, they, as key to their fiduciary duty. They see emissions, carbon-based emissions, as a threat to the global economy and in extension, as a threat to their assets. Mr. Sawan, it's your job to address the concerns, to respond to the concerns of your shareholders. They are your owners. But what did you give them in March? The opposite. They asked fuck you to align your targets with the Paris Agreement. You gave them the opposite. You not only weakened your 2030 targets, you completely scrapped your 2035 targets, and on top of that, Shell declared that in the rest of this decade, they will not further reduce emissions. Dear shareholders, get the load of this. The world has pledged to almost halve emissions by 2030 to achieve the Paris Agreement to stop global warming, and your company has no plans to further reduce emissions this decade. This is really problematic. Your board wants to continue with the business model of turning hydrocarbons into petrodollars. They just don't want to think about anything else. This business model they've mastered in the last decades of their career very successfully, and therefore, they are in the executive suites and on this stage. They simply don't want to step out of their comfort zone because they don't know how to make profits with clean energy, and they don't want to explore new business models. Dear shareholders, we have to ask ourselves the question: Are we not going to solve this problem because we're dealing with boards of oil majors who don't know how to make profits from clean energy and who don't want to explore new business models? Are we going to let climate change spiral out of control because these boards don't want to get outside their comfort zones? That's an outcome that I and many others, including many of your shareholders, do not want to entertain. Dear shareholders, you have to realize that you have to come out of your comfort zone. Your board will only change course if you vote for change, and that's what you can do today by voting for Resolution 23, a resolution filed by Follow This and 27 of your peers. Together, these 27, they include Amundi, AXA, large investors here in the UK, Brunel, Nest. Together, they represent $4 trillion. That's roughly 20 times the market capitalization of Shell. And let me remind you, this 20% of Shell is more than your largest shareholder, State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock and Nordics combined. You have to respond to them. Today we will know which shareholders are the true stewards of the global economy and which shareholders, how many shareholders, enable this board and the boards of the other oil majors to continue causing climate breakdown. We'd like to thank the investors who supported our resolution today, specifically the 27 investors who co-filed this resolution, and we hope other investors will follow their example, follow their leadership, because this board will only change if you vote for change. I'd like to end with one simple question for the chair here. For clarity, dear shareholders, you've heard Shell talking about being Paris-aligned, about believing to be Paris-aligned. Like the tobacco industry believed tobacco didn't cause cancer, like the oil industry in the past believed that climate change was not real. So, Mr. Chairman, can you please explain to your shareholders how a company that has no plans to reduce emissions this decade can be Paris-aligned? Can you explain it without using the word believe? You finished? Sorry, I wasn't- Yeah, this is my question. Please explain to your shareholders, without using the word believe- Well, I'd like- that you're Paris-aligned without reducing emissions. I'd like... Look, I'd like to now ask the CEO to respond before we invite any questions or comments. I just wondered if there is anything more you want to say before I do that? I'm okay. Yeah, I'm- You're finished? Okay. I'm eager to hear your answer. Okay. Well, I might add to Wael's answer in a moment. Look. And by the way, I apologize if we're a bit stony-faced. You know, AGMs can be a bit serious. Well, I'll try and smile a bit more. And well spoken, but Wael. Thank you, Sir Andrew. Shareholders, thank you again for the support that you have continued to show management and the board. Let me, let me maybe just start with a couple of key points. Firstly, Shell is very much aligned with achieving a net zero 2050 outcome and trying to continue to drive down the trajectory of the Paris Agreement. To be more specific, and as we have indicated in our energy transition report, we are using the most ambitious scenarios under the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report that indicate that as a company, we continue to make good progress. The resolution that is been put forward by Follow This is bad on multiple fronts. Firstly, it's bad for the environment. One of the key elements that is agreed by many is that LNG has a critical role in playing in the energy transition to be able to establish coal to gas switching. By doing that, that has actually been one of the biggest elements that has contributed to a significant reduction in emissions in the U.S. and in places like here in the U.K., and that is going to be critical for the reduction in emissions, in particular in Asia, in countries like India and China. Secondly, the resolution as proposed is bad for our customers. Many of those customers you heard from just here in the video, customers who depend on us to provide them the energy of today while working with them to establish low carbon solutions of tomorrow, and that's what we are doing. Though those customers want to be able to ensure that they can actually transform their energy demand to lower carbon energy, it doesn't happen overnight, even with the best, with the best intent. They also want to assure themselves that they can get affordable energy, both elements of which we are working with them on. If we were to divorce ourselves from supplying our customers the energy of today, we are at risk of not being there to support them on their energy of tomorrow. Thirdly, this is bad for you as our shareholders. Essentially, what the resolution, what the opposing resolution is proposing, is for us to hand over those businesses to our competitors. At the end of the day, this is about transforming energy demand, and once that energy demand is transformed, the supply will follow. By simply shifting that supply obligation away from Shell, we will be shifting businesses over to our competitors. Finally, this is bad governance. Your board, your management team, has evaluated the multiple different considerations, and we have tried through the energy transition strategy, which we presented in March of this year, to present a holistic picture of how we can deliver more value with less emissions. On the back of that, and on the back of what I've just described, your board, your management team, strongly recommend that you reject the resolution as presented. Thank you. Thank you, Wael. So thank you. Let me remind the audience of the question. The question was: How can a company that has no plans to reduce emissions this decade be Paris-aligned without using the word believe? I didn't hear an answer to that question, and I know why, because you know, you're an engineer, mister, so on. You know that we can't base strategy on beliefs. We have to base it on facts and, and science. And you know, science is clear. The world has to reduce emissions almost by half this decade. Shell is not willing to do it, so please be honest to your shareholders and just say, "I don't believe in Paris." Because by continuing to say, "We believe we are aligned with Paris," you're misleading your shareholders. ... Okay, well, thank you. I'm going to move on, but we do believe in Paris, and I'm sorry I used that word. Please use another word than believe. Well, uh- We need science and facts. Well, now, hold on, I mean. All right, we commit to Paris, if you prefer to argue about a particular verb. And that's why we have a 2050 net zero target. And I'd just remind you, we have a ambition to reduce our sale of oil products, which is new this time, between 15% and 20% by 2030. And we hold that our increased production of LNG and continued production of LNG will allow the displacement of coal. We won't get credit for that reduction, but we believe in the overall system, we are contributing to the aims of the Paris Agreement. I'd also point out that there's an awful lot of what we do are in the harder to abate sectors, where many of the changes will come in the next decade and the decades to follow rather than this decade. So we think, I'm trying to avoid not saying belief, that we are climate Paris compliant. There is no standard to determine Paris compliant, and as Wael explained, we look at a number of scenarios, including the IPCC's, as they relate to our sectors, in order to make the judgment of whether or not we're on track to get to net zero by 2050. I'm gonna leave it there 'cause other people want to ask questions, and maybe over to you, Chair. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. We don't have any questions actually at this moment on the phone, so we go into the room here, and we'd like to invite Raj Singh from the Phoenix Group as part of Climate Action 100+ to ask his first question. So Raj, where are you? Oh, Jesus. In the tablet. Could you help me out, please? There we go. All right. Let me hold that, sir. Cheers, man. Small hassle with the phone. Yeah, apologies. Ah, it's an iPad. Oh, I wasn't aware of the, Go ahead, my friend. Yeah. There we go. Thank you. Dear Mr. Chairman, dear fellow shareholders, my name is Raj Singh, and I'm here on behalf of Phoenix Group, the UK's largest long-term savings and retirement business. I'm making this statement as part of the Climate Action 100+ lead investor group, also including MN. We've been in active dialogue with Shell over the past few years and will continue to provide critical feedback as Shell moves through its transition journey. We've especially appreciated the recent discussions with your CEO, with whom we've had open and honest conversations. We note the progress that has been made and are sharing our view on areas where we feel your company can provide greater clarity and action. Shell is supporting the energy transition in a number of ways, including boosting renewables-powered operations, developing EV charging networks, and leading on biofuels production and distribution. We also welcome transparency provided on how Shell sees its low-carbon energy solution segments growing up to 2030 as part of the overall sales mix. We would like this share to be increasingly bigger and an intrinsic part of Shell's value proposition and competitive advantage in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement. It's within this context that we would like to make the following recommendations: firstly, the world is experiencing significant volatility on many fronts, and we understand that Shell needs flexibility to respond to a range of scenarios. However, we would like assurances that newly stated decarbonization targets will not translate into a dampening of ambition. We encourage Shell to think strategically about its medium-term decarbonization approach across different customer segments beyond 2030 and update the market accordingly. Secondly, we encourage Shell to commit to adequate levels of CapEx in low-carbon segments and to directly link this with a reduction in emissions in your reporting. Thirdly, we believe that Shell is and can play a role, directly or via industry associations, as an advocate for public policy measures to support well-developed carbon markets and customer demand. We would appreciate disclosure over the specific market conditions, incentives, or policy drivers that are needed to accelerate your low-carbon energy strategy. Fourthly, we commend your company for its commitment to wind down oil products, as we've discussed, with an associated Scope 3 emissions target. We therefore encourage Shell to equally reflect on its position on oil production, natural gas, and LNG in order to realize its medium to long-term ambitions on decarbonization, as a decline across all fossil fuels in future portfolios will be needed. And lastly, we would appreciate more clarity over the role that offsetting and removal technologies will play up to 2030 and beyond, greater disclosure over the provenance of carbon credits, and the extent to which these levers will be exercised to reach your company's 2030 net carbon intensity target. We kindly ask that you respond to these recommendations for further dialogue. Thank you for your attention. ... Okay, well, thank you, Mr. Singh. And clearly, there's a lot of detail in your statement, and maybe a few questions therein, and I'd encourage you to continue the dialogue with the people in Shell with whom you've spoken, including the CEO and our investor relations team. Maybe just give a sort of very quick set of answers now from on behalf of myself and the board. Medium-term decarbonization targets, you know, I think what we've explained is that we find there's so much uncertainty, we'd rather just shoot for 2030. There will be another energy transition strategy developed over the next two or three years that can then look into the next decade, and that's when those targets are likely to emerge. Low-carbon CapEx, we have plenty of low-carbon CapEx. With, as part of our Capital Markets Day last year, we signposted $10 billion-$15 billion by 2025. I think last year we invested $5.6 billion, which, from memory, was over 20% of our capital budget. In time, of course, that will rise, and we are, of course, doing the proprietary work. We're doing the pilots, we're doing the R&D, we're doing the customer dialogue and the customer solution side to see where the pool might come that will allow us to invest, particularly into the next decade. We're very active in industry associations, and in many of the advocacies that we've had, had they been more successful, I'm certain there would be more... There would be stronger customer demand today for our low-carbon products. That would actually, I think, help with some of the numbers you're wanting to see turn in your direction. But it's tough. You know, we haven't got global carbon pricing, and so on, things that companies like Shell and others have advocated for many a, many a, many a year. Sure, our oil products speak to over 50% of our Scope 3 emissions, and we are driving them down, as you described. But the idea of expanding that, in our view, to LNG, we think would not be good for decarbonization. It's the availability of LNG, as I said in my speech, that allows people to, to move away from coal, which is much more carbon heavy, and it's also critical to enable the security of energy supply in a system that is adding more and more renewable energy, providing backup power for when weather is not delivering power. Offsetting, we accept that is not a straightforward area, and having proper accreditation in all that is right. We are working very hard on that, and we're quite keen not to overuse offsetting because of the concerns that some people have about it, but it does have a role to play, and it has to be of high integrity. I personally think we as a world need to be investing a lot more in things like nature-based solutions, but whether that's a big game for Shell at the moment or not, I'm not sure. And in any case, none of that will in any way weaken our ambition, which you sort of asked about, to drive ourselves constructively forward towards net zero by 2050 and play our role in decarbonizing the world. I realize some of that may be a bit simple, but maybe hopefully I've shown that we've listened, and I would encourage you to have more conversations with our people on these things, which have, on the whole, been very constructive, so thank you for that. And thank you for your question and your statements. Thank you. What's the next question? Okay, thanks, Wael. We're now going on the online. So I have a question from Dennis Anakov from DWS Corporate Government. So he asks two questions. First one: "Since the new absolute reduction has been communicated as an ambition rather than as a target, please clarify why the term ambition was chosen. Moreover, how are ambitions measured, and how do these influence the company's commitment and accountability in achieving these reductions? How this emission will be included as a performance metric in the executive remuneration?" That's the first question. Second question: "What specific factors led to the decision to weaken the carbon intensity target by 2030? Okay, look, question one. Look, as far as we're concerned, ambition is the same as a target. You know, we as board and management will shoot to meet that ambition and to work as hard as if it were a target. The reason we call it an ambition is because it's critically dependent on changes in customer demand, and customers being willing to take products instead of oil-based products, but ones, for example, that are based on bioproducts. You heard some conversations about them and what Wael and I had to say. So we're simply saying we have the ambition, we'll try very hard to meet it, but we are dependent on one or two other things, including people wanting to buy more biofuels instead of geo-fuels, if you like. That's all, but it doesn't change anything. And absolutely, it's included in executive remuneration. When we, as a board and a remuneration committee, make decisions about, for example, the long-term performance plan of the executives, 25% of that is based on progress towards net zero 2050. We have some other things we look at, you know, including, for example, the reductions in our own emissions, which are going very well, 50% by 2030, and we're already over 60% delivered. And we'll look at our progress against that ambition very much in our decisions as to how much of that bonus to award. Carbon intensity target by 2030, very simply, I mean, Wael mentioned it in his speech. We chose, as a matter of strategy, that we would move away from the business to customer, the B2C, selling to retail customers in a number of countries, but particularly in Europe, here, Netherlands, Germany. It wasn't a good business for us. It didn't play to Shell's strengths, and one of the things that Wael has been excellent at is focusing on what we do well and aiming to do that a lot more effectively by focusing on that rather than spreading our resources too thinly. So some of the quickest to decarbonize sectors at the moment are in that B2C, business to customer sector. So we've given that away, and what remains is something which is slightly harder to decarbonize and is moving at a slower rate. We haven't given up on the 20% target, but we've signaled that our decision not to play in the business to customer sector meant that we may not hit it. And that underplay will be no more than 25%, down to 15%. But we still try and meet the 20%, we'll still try and meet the 20% as a target. We're just being transparent and open with you, and I think you want that. You want more transparency, you want a bit more disclosure, and we work with you on all of that, and this is an example of that, too. Thank you, Chair. Next question, I'd like to invite Nick Spooner, representing ACCR, to the phone. Nick? Thank you. We note the company's increased focus on capital discipline, but we also note at the Capital Markets Day last year that the company's been reducing the hurdle rates associated with oil and gas projects. And we also note that the commodity price assumptions that the company uses above that, the average of peers, particularly around gas and above that of future market prices as well. So please, could you help us, sort of conjoin these points in terms of, showing to shareholders how these two parts of the investment framework are consistent with a disciplined approach to capital expenditure? Okay, thank you for your question. I'm gonna look at Wael or maybe Sinead. Maybe, Wael, either you start or- Sure. Maybe Sinead to answer that. Certainly. Thank you, Nick, and, I believe congratulations are in order personally with the birth of your daughter. From our perspective, how do we handle things? We look at it from both an, as you said, a price perspective, and we set relevant targets in place. With respect to the IRR or the investment hurdles that we've set, we did lower the one for integrated gas or for our gas investments very recently. The reason we did so is that we do not include the trading upside or the sales part of that. So all in all, very little difference. In terms of the prices that we have, we review prices against the set in terms of what is in the market, what we see as realistic going forward, but also, of course, we work with our auditors to look at whether our price lines look sensible or not versus our peers. We feel they're very much in line, and in many cases, conservative compared to others. So it's a balanced effect, but all in all, it's about ensuring we give an appropriate return to our shareholders. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Nick, and congratulations with the birth of your daughter a couple of weeks ago. We will now continue, and we will go to Gerben Everts from the Dutch Shareholders Association, VEB. Gerben, maybe you can keep it to a couple of questions. We know we have a whole list, but we'll come back on some of them later. Thanks. Okay, many thanks. Many thanks for giving me and us the floor. I will only limit it to the questions on climate and transition. Thanks ... That's the topic for today. So my name is Gerben Everts. I represent what is now known as Royal Dutch. Since March this year, we are the Royal Dutch Shareholder Association, also known as European Investors. We represent about 30,000 retail investors. For many of them, Shell is their most significant investment. And our members are extremely worried about the energy transition and the lack of speed Shell applies in the transition. However, they realize in our global economy, it's built on fossil. Excluding oil and gas instantly will mean that the economy will significantly be impacted. Dubious regimes will continue to provide oil, gas, and perhaps even coal, and these regimes will then have the most thriving economies. So this we can ill afford, so despite often good intentions, as exclusion sounds very well, fresh, and responsible, the stop Shell is socially and geo- geopolitically totally unacceptable. At the same time, in the transition, we would like to see Shell as the best in class. In our view, this means that Shell needs to, to be more ambitious and transparent on its transition path to net zero, while at the same time, Shell needs to create the best value for investors out of its current oil and especially gas and liquid gas operations. I have, three short questions. We already heard that Shell has downgraded its climate targets, however, it maintained its net zero ambition. How committed is Shell to achieve the net zero ambition in 2050, as the carbon intensity targets were lowered, which is a bit of a strange halfway path? Hasn't climate litigation risk and potential impacts from public, private lawsuits generally increased for oil and gas companies over the last years, and for Shell specifically? And the last question, Follow This, we just heard Mark van Baal state in his resolution that Shell asserting that targets were aligned with Paris are unfounded, and no third-party source indicates that Shell's medium target is aligned with the 1.5 degrees scenario in Paris. So what is Shell's reflection on this claim, and should investors be worried about more litigation? I believe very much aligned customer preference, competition pressures, those are not convincing arguments. We need a renewable energy industry, and Shell is as responsible for achieving this in the near future. Two small questions for the auditor, and then I'll leave it to others. Because EY has done the audit, we haven't heard the auditor, at least not yet, but please, could EY also confirm what audit procedures were informed to ascertain that Shell's targets are fully aligned with the 1.5 degrees warming scenario? And the second question: Can EY also confirm that Shell targets and strategy are fully aligned? So that, that's the same. But, please, could you reflect on that, please? ... Okay, there's quite a few questions in there, and I think I might do a couple, and then I think we have to ask maybe Sinead and then Ian Wye to deal with your sec questions. If there's anything left at the end, I might ask Wael to help out. First of all, can I acknowledge that you see that the challenge that we have as a company, which is part of our, you know, in my view, our appeal as an investment opportunity, is how we balance creating new value with less emissions. You've heard a lot of that from the management team. You know, and I would put it to you that there are very, very few companies that account for carbon as rigorously as they account for dollars or euros, and trying to find a way to optimize less of the carbon and more of the dollars. It's tough, and it's something I think we are working our way through. I just want to correct one thing. We haven't downgraded, and it might relate to some of the other points I want to make re in relation to your questions. We've not downgraded our targets. We've simply said, as a result of being more focused, that we can no longer be confident of meeting the NCI target of t... of 20% by 2030, in the way we were previously, because we've chosen not to invest, because we don't think we have strengths in this area, in the business-to-customer retail sector, where a lot of our fast decarbonization is occurring. And so we're left with a harder to decarbonize sector, which we're gonna have to make perform even better than our previous plan. So I don't think that's a downgrade. And I actually want to sort of challenge you a bit. You're sort of advocating that we should make take more of our money and invest it in renewable energy. We are investing in renewable energy, but we're pretty clear that at Shell, these are not actually skills that sit strongly in Shell. You know, we have been, for over a hundred years, a company that primarily served the transport sector with molecules. A bit around it in the margin, I accept that. Actually, that's where we want to place our focus, because that is a harder to decarbonize sector and where the strength of Shell in that area means that we have a greater chance of having a bigger impact than we would otherwise by reducing our focus, by spreading things elsewhere. I think that that's kind of almost a setup for much of what you've said. Maybe we could go to the EY questions, and then you can come back if there's anything you think I haven't covered. Go ahead. Or do we, should we bring EY in? Certainly, if Gary can make his way to a microphone. While he does so- EY, I should say, not E&Y. Apologize. Very bad for brand recognition. In summary, I would say that EY, as our auditor, provides a robust challenge through their audit procedures, specifically around the financial matters, and specifically around whether our assets are still viable at certain points in time on certain criteria. Gary, may I pass to you, please? Thank you for the question. I can confirm that climate change is a key audit matter, which we include extensive disclosure and audit opinion on. I can also confirm, which we include in our opinion, that Shell's targets are reflected in their operating plan and how they value those assets. So we very much focus on the impact of the targets on the financial statements. Thank you. Yeah. Wael, Wael like to add before he's catching some of the things that I missed. Okay? Yeah, just a couple of quick points. Thank you, Andrew. Look, to your first question around our commitment, I mean, let me assure you, we are absolutely committed to our net-zero 2050 target. I think we spend a lot of time talking about targets in the future. I would just also caution that we talk about what we have done. So let me tell you what we have done. Since 2016, our methane emissions are down by 70%. Since 2016, our routine flaring is down by 91%. Since 2016, we have committed to be able to continue to drive down our Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030. We have achieved 31% reduction in that period, and we have also reduced our Scope 3 net carbon intensity by 6.8%, which is roughly 2-3 times what the world has done. So I think as much as, as important as it is to keep talking about the future targets, the biggest thing we're trying to hold ourselves accountable for is what we do, not just what we say. And I think our track record is the best demonstration of what we're doing, rather than promising new numbers. And that has been our commitment, I think, as, as a management team, to be able to demonstrate to our shareholders the intent. I think on your, on your point around litigation, what I would say is, the world is more litigious. It's not specifically around, climate change, but it's litigious on multiple topics. Do we expect more litigation? Yes, it is part of the reality of the world we live in. I am very confident in the standing of the positions we have, and we are indeed, through a very capable legal team, defending our shareholder interests. And you have seen us do that time and time again in a way that is measured, responsible, but at the end of the day, that protects the value that you hold in the company. That's it. Okay. Thank you. If I may, a short reflection and a recommendation. Please, please. Many thanks for the answers, and it's, you know, the confirmation of EY that Shell is still on the path according to their views. And of course, regulation will kick in as per next year, that makes, you know, these issues quite transparent. So we look forward to next year's annual accounts. Your reflection, and Sir Andrew, you referred at the start of this meeting to that people tend to overestimate the short term and ignore a bit what's happening in the long term. I am worried about Shell, and I knew some former colleagues of yours that were very keen on thinking in models. A lot of people in technology, in oil and gas, they think into models, and the practice need to adhere to the models instead of the models to the practice. May I give you a recommendation? Because I really think that if you look into offshore wind, if you look in solar, geothermal power, the CapEx is pretty high, it's extremely high. But the OpEx is very low, and the sustainability of all these renewable sources is rather unlimited. A 30-year, 50-year, or even more, continuity of these power plants is possible. Are your models aligned to actually be very fair in the assessment between oil, gas, and these renewables, renewable sources? Or just like you said, is the long term ignored by Shell? Because I really think that if you change the models, accept that you need to invest, convince it to the shareholders, we are able to assess your assessment. And I believe currently, a lot of potential is ignored simply because the models cannot take this in, and the models need to change, and that's my recommendation to you. I look at these issues as from an investor point of view, and if you need to invest $1 billion in renewables, and it, this will make sure that Shell is best of class, will be sustainable in 10 years, 20 years, and will still be able to deliver energy to all of us, that's the best investment you can make. But if the models allow that, please, and if, if they don't, really reassess whether these long-term investments are actually captured in a fair way into your investment decisions. Thank you. Okay, I mean, message received. You know, we'll obviously, lots of people are listening to this meeting, we'll obviously continue to think about that. You know, there's no complacency on behalf of Shell. Maybe worry is not the word I would use. You know, we know the challenge is huge, and we believe as a company, we offer the best way through the energy transition that provides affordable energy, with less and less emissions, and at the same time, gives our shareholders a competitive return. You know, and we own that challenge, and yeah, we're big investors in renewables. All we're saying is that it's not always the case that we're going to be the biggest driver of the decarbonization of the power generation sector, because our sectors are elsewhere in transport and in industry, users of renewable energy. And in order to make that happen, of course, we cede a lot of investment. But, you know, we keep thinking, we'll keep challenging our models, and, you know, your suggestions are heard in a very open way. So thank you for that. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. We'll go on to another question online here from Kathleen Hodgins. "Given that we are already regularly experiencing temperatures of 1.5 degrees warming over the pre-industrial temperatures, is it realistic or achievable to expect to meet your climate commitments on your proposed transition trajectory, especially as there seems to be no commitments to significantly reduce Shell's fossil fuel extraction with immediate effect, as is strongly recommended by the IPCC and others?" Finish question. Yeah. I mean, obviously, we've covered many aspects of this, of this already, and, I mean, and there are multiple reasons why we're experiencing very high temperatures at the moment, predominantly climate change, but obviously, we're just coming out of an El Niño phase. I wouldn't extrapolate that too far, but we're absolutely clear we need to get to Net Zero by 2050, and we base that on the models that say without that, without the world getting there, we will see a rise in temperature, absent other effects that might perturb things on a more short-term basis, of 1.5 degrees warming. That's where our commitment is, and, and we do believe that we are actually following and using the scenarios provided by others, including IPCC, as, as Will mentioned. I, I don't know if there's anything, Will, you want to add? No. Okay. Okay. Then we'll go back into the room. Can I invite Barbara Wright to ask her question? Thank you, Barbara. Can you hear me? Yeah. So I'd like to address Sir Andrew Mackenzie, the board, and most of all, all the other shareholders here. And I'll just read my question out because I imagine that's what you expect. How soon... Is that okay? How soon are Shell going to recognize the enormous consequences of tipping points and the irreversible changes that put all assets in irredeemable places? Sooner or later, we will have to face a future that is unlivable if we don't act now. And I'd just like to add briefly that I'm heartened to hear that so many of the previous speakers, some of them absolutely amazingly put together in their questions, are raising this important issue about the climate and how it's changing. And I have to point out that as far as I can hear, most of your reference relates to 2050. Now, the scientists have made it very clear, we only have 3, 5, 7 years. Everything is happening faster than expected, and when I refer to tipping points, it is the problem that if you push something too far, you can't put it back. If you have a glacier that melts, and you have large areas of India that are relying on that water to annually- ... melt, flow down, irrigate fields, and keep everybody well-fed. And then suddenly, everything gets so hot that the glacier melts to the point that it's not going to freeze the next winter. There isn't any water. In fact, there's massive flooding. And the same thing is happening globally, and we have kelp dying off the Californian coast. These were places where people assumed there was going to be good fishing for everybody long into the future. In fact, the things that the fish really rely on are dying off. We have... You mentioned Brazil. You mentioned having gone there recently. I think Sir Andrew Mackenzie is saying that you were very impressed with what was going on there. But what's actually happening is, and I think an area, if I'm right, that's almost four times the size of Denmark has been flooded. Those people can't go back home. So the real danger with all of this is not recognizing that, in a sense, we're all in denial, and that's speaking for me, too. I think it's very hard to recognize the very difficult future we face. And I can well understand that the board is doing, I think, which you've said, Sir Andrew Mackenzie, doing what they do very well. You're actually keeping your customers happy with the sort of comforting announcements of what you're going to do in the future, how you've got everything controlled. But as the last questioner said, you're not looking at the models. The models fit your customers and your clients, but they actually don't fit what science is telling us. And I would really like to know how you feel about denial, whether any of you there feel life is very comfortable now, and, and, and we don't want to lose what we have. And this applies to everybody here, even people who have objected to the group who are raising trouble and wanting to point out all the terrible things Shell has done. So I would really like you to, and all the shareholders here, to think about what, what we're going to do about this, this impossible question of how we square up to a future that we're facing and we can't avoid. And it does mean no new fossil fuels. We've got enough. We've just got to... We've got to really try and look at the future in a different way. Thank you. Well, well, thank you, Barbara, if I could call you that. We, we think about all of this in Shell. I mean, we clearly also have to worry about the affordability of energy. I would point out in passing that Brazil is hoping to get to net zero by 2040, not 2050, so that's part of behind some of the good things they're doing. And yes, they've had some terrible weather in the very south of the country recently. And we, we completely understand the concept of tipping points or nonlinearity for all the reasons that you describe. But we are in this together. I mean, we do need to see the development of demand. We need to see many of our customers being more prepared to take chances on lower carbon products, which we are producing and offering. But, you know, we are looking forward. We're big investors in hydrogen. We're working very hard to reformulate parts of our refineries to take in biofuels, including some of the things I spoke to you in my talk about what we're seeing in Brazil. You know, if there were more demand for that, but they're expensive right now, then, of course, we might be able to go faster. But as both Wael and I have said, we are working with this together. It can't just be an issue of supply. You actually have to solve the demand as well, and that means another set of companies and another set of customers and another set of AGMs. But we understand everything you're saying, and we are seriously trying to do our bit whilst protecting our returns and making sure that in the short term, energy doesn't get unaffordable for some of the poorest people. Well, just, I'd just like to say once again, no new fossil fuel projects. There is enough in the system. And I can understand when you say you, you need to have a transition that doesn't allow, that doesn't leave your customers in a, you know, suddenly with the lights going off. Yeah, well- But the problem is, what we face now is the lights going off either way. Well- That's the real problem. Maybe. Thank you. Maybe so. But I would just say that of course, we don't, as a consensus, agree with you on no new fossil fuel projects. I mean, the reality is that if we don't produce more gas and more LNG, it's unlikely we're going to be able to displace coal, which of course will be continued to be mined from existing projects. If we don't have more gas, it's almost certain that certain places will not be able to go as fast in developing renewable power because it's not always available. And there are many uses of energy which cannot be entirely supplied through electricity. So they have a role to play, and that's why we invest in certain abatement processes like carbon capture and storage, and in some senses, nature-based solutions. You know, most of those carbon capture, all those projects, they're never going to, they're never going to move fast enough for what we face now. On the whole- I can quite sort of point to the next- We need to leave time for more questions. Okay, thank you. But- I really- I think the next one is on Carbon Capture and Storage, maybe. Good, and I hope that you recognize that so many of these questions have been about climate. 20% of your shareholders may be concerned. I suspect in the next two or three years, it'll be far more than that. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your comments. Thanks. We'll go back online. We've got a question from Janet Barton: How far away is Shell from implementing Carbon Capture and Storage to address all its Scope 1 and 2 emissions? I'm going to ask Wael maybe to cover the detail, but, but we are quite big investors in quite a number of, of carbon capture and storage projects around the world, with the aim of it being available to the world, but also to, for our own emissions, to, to provide abatement in the way I've just described. Wael? ... not a huge amount to add, Sir Andrew. I, I think suffice it to say, we have been working on carbon capture and sequestration for a long time. We have a project in Canada called Quest that has been sequestering to the tune of around 1 million tons a year. We also have a project in partnership with Chevron in Australia, where we are also sequestering, and we're working on a number of opportunities, including here in the UK, in the Netherlands, potentially more in Canada and in other parts of the world. Carbon capture and sequestration will be an important part of our journey to achieving the 50% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, and there are a number of live projects that need to come to play to be able to allow us to do that. So I do think it is going to be an important lever. It won't be sufficient on its own, but it's an important one as part of a broader mix of mitigations. Thanks, Wael. Thanks. Thanks, Wael. I will now invite Tarek Bouhouch to come and ask his question. Tarek? Hello, my name is Tarek Bouhouch, and I work for Follow This. I wanted to say that in your recent update of your energy transition strategy, you scrapped your 2035 target. You took this decision 1 year before this target entered your 10-year strategic planning period. The concomitance of these two events is unfortunate, to say the least. It means you could also scrap your 2050 target 11 years before the deadline, the exact same way you decided to scrap the 2035 target this year. So my question is, can you reassure us that Shell will not scrap your 2050 target, net zero target between now and 2039? Okay. Look, first of all, maybe just comment on the 2035 target. The reason we chose to remove this primarily was because we were looking forward to certain developments that would allow us to be able to properly account for our customers' or Scope 1 and 2 emissions and count them as Scope 3 emissions reductions for us and therefore a net carbon intensity. We've been pushing quite hard, you heard me talk briefly about this earlier, about having better processes for carbon accounting and things that are, that are agreed, possibly at the COPs, that allow more transparency in the way that we could achieve credits, for our customers' foregone Scope 1 and 2 emissions, using our products and using our, hopefully, lower carbon products, in order to us to meet what it was, it was quite a demanding target for 2035. And we've just been somewhat disappointed in the progress in the developing of this accounting process. And the things are very complex. It's very hard to see specifically that far ahead, and know, and know with certain certainty when we're so dependent for Scope 3 targets on the attitudes of customers, on regulators and governments. But we'll look again at 2035 or somewhere between 2030 and 2035 when we do the next refresh of our energy transition strategy in 2027. 2027. I mean, right now, we are absolutely committed to 2050. We develop everything from that, and we use the scenarios to make sure we're on track to get there. And that's the planning basis we have for now. I'm not sure I want to answer your question in exactly the way you've asked it, but this management team and this board, seeing what we can see going forward, believes that 2050 is an important trajectory for us to plan Shell against. Okay, next question. Excuse me. I'm afraid I didn't hear a firm answer to my question. You know, the 15 years to come might face a scrapping of your 2050 target. And that was a long answer, but I want to remind my question for those who got distracted. I think I've said all I want to say on this subject. I mean, we're- Oh, okay ... we're- Then if you- We're driving hard to get to net zero by 2050 now. It's shaping what the board does, it's shaping what management will do. And maybe going back to what Wael said, I mean, look at our track record. You know, we, you know, look at all the things that Wael mentioned in our cuts in methane emissions and flaring and the cuts in our own emissions. You know, our commitment to... Sorry, our ambition to get to 15%-20% less oil products. We're doing a number of things which we think add up to, in the fullness of time, the right trajectory to get to 2050. Your track record is the scrapping of an interesting target the year before it enters your strategic planning period. I'm afraid this is not reassuring, and it leaves the 2050 net zero target empty, so we should focus on meaningful medium-term targets. Well, we see things with a slightly different emphasis. We believe that too much of the world right now is arguing about who's got the better target, and more should be about who's delivering most against the targets. And I think Shell shapes up very well. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I think we've answered the question. Thanks, Tarek. Not to your satisfaction, but I think we've had the debate. Only half of it, sir. Thank you. Okay. ... I'll move now to another question online from Kathryn Mulvey. "Good morning, my name is Kathy Mulvey. I'm representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. Internal corporate documents made public through a bicameral congressional investigation in the U.S. demonstrate that the days after President Trump was elected, a Shell media manager worked to soften methane reduction language and still to be true to ourselves in an effort not to upset the Trump administration, which sought to roll back methane standards. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute, in which Shell holds a leadership role, launched a voluntary methane program in 2017 that internal documents reveal was explicitly designed to stave off future regulation. Why then did Shell, Gretchen Watkins," that's our country chair in the U.S., "call the final watered-down EPA regulations frustrating and disappointing in 2020? I mean, I can answer in general, but I think there's some specifics in there, and Gretchen Watkins ultimately reports through to Wael, so maybe, Wael, you might want to take this one. I mean, there's a lot of he said, she said, so I won't be able to point exactly who said what at what point in time. Let me echo a couple of things. One is our commitment to methane emissions has been on the record for a long, long time, and we have been driving down our methane emissions very actively for many years. And this is one of the numbers I quoted earlier, 70% reduction since 2016. Within the organization that is mentioned there, we indeed are a participant, an active participant, and actually one of the biggest things we've been focused on is ensuring that the organization focuses on advocacy around reducing methane emissions. We've been very transparent with colleagues in that body, and we have also been very active, not just in the U.S., but around the world in encouraging increased regulations to be able to minimize methane emissions. This is why we were one of the players who committed to near zero methane emissions by 2030. This is a prize that is in our collective grasp, and it's back to the frustration that I hear in some of the voices in the audience. This is something we can all go after. Shell is leading the charge in that space, and we can continue to influence others in that, in that arena, and we are, and this is one of the areas actually I'm very proud of how the organization is shaping up. We are recognized as a gold standard, that's a technical term, in terms of how far we've taken our own methane measurements and methane emissions, and that, I think, all speaks to our effort in that space. And so you'll see us continue to advocate in favor of more methane regulations to be able to minimize those emissions. Thank you. Thank you, Wael. We now move back into the room. We have a question from Paul Rosenberger. Thank you. At the close of COP28, the UN Secretary-General said that limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees will be impossible without the phase out of all fossil fuels on a timeframe consistent with this limit. This has been recognized by a growing and diverse number of countries. When is Shell going to cease fossil fuel production? And if it is not, will you please explain why the Secretary-General of the United Nations is wrong? Okay. Well, we clearly disagree. We believe- You've told me that before. Okay, well, I make the same point. I mean, we actually think in order to maintain standards of living that we're comfortable with and to allow some of the poorest people in the world to get access to energy from which they've been denied, as they increase their population going further, we need to keep hydrocarbons, fossil fuels, if you like, in the mix. There's more we can do to reduce the carbon intensity, and we are doing of those fossil fuels by replacing coal with natural gas and by reducing the emissions that we cause through producing and refining, fossil fuels for that we would produce or others would produce, you know, for the use of energy or indeed in the manufacture of other things like lubricants and plastics. And we're doing all of that, and whilst at the same time growing a lot of new energy from different sources based either on bio sources or renewable sources, and we're also considering the possibility of large offsets, in some cases, abatement through carbon capture and storage, in other case, through the use of things like nature-based solutions. And that's how we think we'll get to net zero in a way that we arrive there in a just way that doesn't lead to quite unacceptable disruptions to supply or increases in price. And we would put it humbly to the Secretary-General of the UN; we need to come up with a strategy that gets to net zero, that includes fossil fuels for the sake of being fair to all of the world. Certainly in the transfer, yes, there will be a need for fossil fuels. And I'm not talking about lubricants or plastics, but actually fuels which are used to produce energy. I think you need to be clear, very publicly, why he's wrong. And if I could ask one question which has arisen from an earlier statement you made. You said that some energy requirements cannot be met by electricity. Cannot, that's a very absolute word. Which? Well, I mean, right now, where you need a very high temperature very quickly in certain parts of industrial manufacture. It's very hard to see that being supplied by electricity. There is work going on, I agree with you. It can do more, but I would say it's very hard to imagine an electric plane for flying large distances, and therefore, they're going to need some kind of fuel, either Sustainable Aviation Fuel based on biofuels, or maybe ultimately hydrogen. But even that is problematic because you'll need a lot more volume in your tanks for hydrogen than you would need for a biofuel or for jet fuel. So, I think we would find it very difficult to imagine that you could use electricity to drive large ships, which is why we say in the short term, we should drive them on LNG and have that LNG increasingly replaced by hydrogen and its derivatives. So I think there are many aspects of industrial production where CO₂ is a byproduct, like steel and cement and some fertilizers. It's not just there as a result of energy for heat. So they all are part of the hard-to-abate sector. I could go on. The agricultural sector produces a lot of methane, a lot of CO₂. They all need to be dealt with, and the solution is not build more renewable power. I think the only thing I'd add would be that Orville and Wilbur Wright probably wouldn't have believed that Concorde was possible. Well, okay. I think a lot more is possible, Sir Andrew, than you believe. Well, I- We need time, perhaps. Yeah, well- I hope we've got it. Yeah, well, if you forgive me, it's all very well to make those statements. But you know, I happen to have a reasonable experience in handling a lot of technical and economic issues throughout my career. Of course, nothing's impossible, but it's also about probability. I would say it's very, very improbable we can navigate our way through the whole energy transition, including steelmaking, including cement making, including running ships, including running planes, and I think the whole thing can be solved by renewable electricity, and in a way that would be affordable to most people. But we should have to agree to differ on that. Doesn't mean we can't dream. You may prove... I may be proved wrong, but we also have to be practical about what we invest in as Shell to maintain a return for you as a shareholder. I don't like saying I hope someone's wrong, but I think in this case, I do- Okay. as a retired mechanical engineer who's had to do the, on a smaller scale, some of the things you have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberger. We've got quite a few questions still left, both in the room and online. So if you can keep your questions short, then we'll try to go through all of this with all of you. Next question is online again from Ruby Marfa Hazard: "Are we on track for clean energy, solar, wind, et cetera? Are we in profit? What's the plan for the next five years? Thank you. I'm not sure how to answer that question, actually. I mean, you know, we are, I mean, in terms of what our plan is, we've said that we will continue to invest in a number of clean energy areas, and we've committed to $10 billion-$15 billion by, in, since we gave our capital markets day in the middle of 2023, by the end of 2025. That's the plan, and we're working on a number of other things that might prove investable in the fullness of time. But as you've heard in the recent debate, there's a lot of technical and economic imponderables to be clear exactly what we're going to invest in. But we're getting ready to invest when the demand is there and the technology is there, and some of the regulation is there. And of course, we're trying to contribute to all of that as well. Thanks, Sir Andrew. We've got now two questions from Cosima Gretton. First question is: "Your plan to invest billions in low-carbon solutions, could you provide a breakdown of your investments in low-carbon alternative fuel companies today? What are you doing to ensure these companies are successful, and what's the evidence of your ongoing support?" So that's the first question. Her second question is: "What are Shell's specific plans to reduce the carbon intensity of LNG, and how do you address the criticism that investing in LNG infrastructure may lock in emissions for decades to come? Yeah, look, I don't have the breakdown of all the small companies. And we do this. We that we invest in, who are playing in the low-carbon sector. I mean, maybe Sinead has. I think that's something we'd have to talk to you about offline, but we do that work. Happy with that? I think just the very short one would be that, in 2023, we spent some $5.4 billion on low-carbon investments, and actually a similar amount the year before, and we've committed to between $10 billion and $15 billion between 2023 and 2025, providing significant investment levels going forward. Each of these companies has ongoing support from us through, both secondments, technology, and many other aspects as well, Sir Andrew. Yeah, look, I mean, Wael may want to add to this, but, I mean, there's lots we can do to reduce the carbon intensity of LNG. I mean, clearly, it is quite a carbon-intense process, you know, particularly in the liquefaction phase. You know, we are looking at ways in which we can increase the use of renewable electricity, for example, and also in ways in which we can increase the efficiency of the whole liquefaction process so that less fuel gets burned in making the liquid and is retained, returned in the final product. And there, I know from my visits to Shell's research facilities and so on, that our engineers and our scientists are trying to continually drive that down. Okay? Yeah. Okay. ... Thanks, Chair. We've got a question online from Richard Trafetchnik: Why does Shell continue down the path of using surplus cash for share buybacks, i.e., boosting shareholder returns, instead of plowing those surpluses into accelerating the energy transition to e- renewable energy? I would be willing to forego any near-term returns for a safer future for the next and coming generation. Could Shell ask shareholders whether they would be willing to accept lower dividends and total returns in exchange for a shorter time to net zero, to net zero carbon? End of question. Well, we do ask our major shareholders that question, and right now, buying back shares is a very efficient way of returning cash to shareholders who would like to see a decent cash return, because we believe our shares are very cheap relative to what we think is the value of your company. And so we have strong approval for this. And I don't think at this stage this means that investments are forgone that might otherwise lead to a greater lower carbon future. Indeed, I would say to the people receiving those cash returns, if they believe that, then it's they're perfectly able to reinvest that in companies who may be in those sectors that we are not, particularly in something like the power sector, which I've said is not gonna. It's where Shell doesn't have the same sort of skill set as we do have in things like transport. So, yeah, I think we've not felt a lot of pressure to actually give up buybacks and in turn, invest a lot more of projects that we don't think are ready yet to be invested at the level that would work within Shell. Good. We're moving now back into the room. Can I invite Bibian Elbers to ask a question? Bibi's gone to the toilet. Okay. So I also submitted a question- Needs to happen. Yeah. Michaela Loach. Can I just do mine now? Is that fine? Yeah, sure. I want to preface my question with some context. Maybe you first introduce yourself. Oh, I'm Michaela Loach. I'm here on behalf of We The People in the Niger Delta. Cool. If it's all right, because I would like to address the people who are watching the show as well, I'd like to look to the camera while I give the context, and then I will turn back so you can see. As long as you keep it short and sweet, it's- Yeah, no doubt. I mean, other people have also taken some time, so I think I'm allowed that as well. Lovely. Okay. On account of your fossil fuel production in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, the life expectancy there is currently only between 41 and 46 years of age. Am I meant to be looking over there? Thanks. That's younger than most of the people in this room today. How can you be comfortable profiting from limiting the lives of millions of people? The money that lines your pockets and allows you to comfortably grow old prevents that same dignity for people in the Niger Delta. In the 70 years where you made stupendous profits for your shareholders, you transformed the Niger Delta into the most polluted place on Earth, and its people among the poorest and most poisoned. In that period, your company has been complicit in flaring gas nonstop at 178 flare points all over the Niger Delta, emitting millions of tons of CO₂ yearly and poisoning over 40 million people with cancer and other respiratory illnesses. Several reputable studies have established that methane, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals from flared gas poison people with cancer, respiratory illnesses, birth defects, and diseases of the skin. When it rains, the poisonous chemicals in the atmosphere return to further pollute the soil and rivers, reducing farm fertility and killing fishes. Several scientific reports, including those from the United Nations Environment Program, have been published, all of them indicting you for massive pollution and poisoning. They have confirmed that your activities have led directly to major health risks and livelihood losses. This is not speculation, these are facts. But it feels important now to share a human story. Our friend's only water source, a hand-dug well, has produced nothing but crude oil for three years. In one year alone, our friend unexpectedly lost his sister, his father, and his baby niece. Up until now, Shell has refused to accept that its ruptured pipe is the source of the pollution that has contaminated the drinking water of the entire community. I'm sorry, could you maybe ask a question? I'm, I'm, it's, it's- I said one to two minutes. I've already given you near four. No, no, no- Sorry. Could you ask a question? Thank you. Thank you. Heartbreakingly, this is the reality for countless families as a result of your pollution. Who will fix the health of millions of people you have poisoned? For years, you've pushed back against the legal case from the Ogale and Bille communities against you for your decades and decades of pollution. The Ogale and Bille communities are of many hundreds of communities whose livelihoods have been devastated by Shell and who are now suing Shell this year in the UK courts for a violation of their health and to... for their right to health and a clean environment. It's convenient that this case coincides with you selling off your onshore oil assets to shadow consortiums that were conveniently only set up recently. Now, that the case can be heard in the UK courts, we know that you are rushing to sell off your assets, to avoid accountability. You're attempting to walk away from seven decades of reckless oil extraction and its attendant ecological health and livelihood impacts. As you always have, you're attempting to avoid justice and reparations. Okay, we've got your question. We will not let you do that. I'm going to ask the- You will not get away- I'm going to ask the CEO- ... with the destruction of our communities I'm going to ask the CEO to answer- People across the world are rising up against the Delta and against Shell. I said 1-2 minutes. Your days of profiting- I said 1-2 minutes. ... from destroying our lives are numbered. Yes- You're gonna be asked to leave the auditorium. I've heard your question. Other people have- ... Can you please go this way, please? Thank you. Okay, just finish your question. Leave her for a minute. Leave her for a minute. Security, leave her for a minute. Leave her for a minute. No, no- Leave her- Please, leave her for a minute. Leave her for a minute. Could you maybe turn and face the people who you're asking the question? Yes, I can. I think you've asked your question. I haven't asked my question. My question is, who will clean up nearly 70 years' worth of oil spills and gas flaring in the Niger Delta? Who will fix the health of indigenous people? Down! Who will res- Sit down! Who will restore their livelihood? Okay, thank you. I just want you to know that your days of profiting off our lives are numbered. Right, o- We will end your, your profits. We will end your company. You do not deserve to continue profiting from us, and I will leave now. Well, you don't need... Well, we'll give you an answer. We'll give you an answer. Stand at, 'cause we'll, we'll, Wael will, Wael will attempt an answer, but please, can... We've heard you for a long time. I also think that it's very rude- Please, please- ... you try and remove me from the room when I'm trying to ask a question like anyone else. But when I started the meeting, I said 1-2 minutes. You spoke for over 5. So that's all. Wael. Thank you for the question. Look, firstly, I think just to acknowledge how difficult the situation is in the Niger Delta, and I just want to give you some, some numbers as well related to that. We see significant leaks in the area, leaks that are material in size, often over 100 kilograms. 95% of those are coming from sabotage, third parties coming in and sabotaging these pipelines. You know that's not true. Can I just finish the- Yeah, I'll let you finish. Yeah. Thank you. This is reviewed by the government on a regular basis. It's all transparent. We list every single leak that we have on our website, and those are audited. We have a, the SPDC joint venture is the party that is essentially operating there. SPDC, as a joint venture, has a capability that remediates all of those leaks on a regular basis, at least the ones where they can access, because some of them they cannot access for security reasons. Your question was specifically about who is going to clean up. SPDC joint venture, through the transaction that we are going through at the moment, continues to have the obligations and the commitments because it's a joint venture that continues as was. The roles and responsibilities will not change. That joint venture will continue to have the operational capability to be able to do what it needs to do from a remediation perspective, and the share that we are selling, the SPDC part, will continue to have the financial wherewithal to be able to execute its own commitments. So rest assured that that does not suddenly disappear. It continues to be held to account for anything that might happen and anything that will happen, and that's like any other company in any other part of the world. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next question. Thank you. We now move into the room, and we have John Collingwood, who wants to ask a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, can I say a big thank you to all the security guards who have helped manage the meeting today? Unlike the previous two years, the meeting, I feel, has gone very well. Thank you. My question is concerning newspaper reports that Shell is looking at changing its stock exchange location from London to New York. Having recently changed from a joint Amsterdam-London listing, why does the company now want to move to New York, and what accountability will the UK shareholders have if there is no annual general meeting in the UK? Okay, well, let me reassure you that this is not a live issue that is being discussed at the Shell board. There is a lot of speculative media about it, and of course, we have to acknowledge if there is some way in which we can close the valuation gap between us and our U.S. competitors, we will explore it in time, but it's not a live issue right now. Right now, we are determined to pursue our energy transition strategy to increase free cash flow and free cash flow per share, and Wael and his team are doing a remarkable job in actually lifting the performance of this company. While that goes on, when we really don't know quite how to benchmark ourselves against other places in the world. But be reassured, yes, it's not that long since we've moved here, and we don't have itchy feet. We just have to entertain possibilities all the time to increase the share price, but it's not a live issue. Should you decide to move to New York, will there be a shareholder vote on that, or will it be automatically to be fine? Well, I think you're going much further than I would do. You're having a discussion with me that we've not even had a discussion at the board with. But of course there's a vote. It cannot happen without a vote, and it needs a substantial majority. Yeah. Thank you. It is not a live issue. It's not being discussed, and right now, we're committed to improve the performance of this company, and as we are so doing, by remaining here in London. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Collingwood. I'm asking now Mr. Robert Barrett, although he had a similar question, so does Mr. Barrett still want to ask his question? Okay, go ahead, Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Where we got to now? Well, it's afternoon, so good afternoon, everybody. I have submitted three questions, but first of all, this would Shell, one about the listing. I had, ... Maybe you could ask the two that are not about the listing. I hope I've dealt with that. Well, it's really about would you enable us to buy registered shares as well as American depositary receipts in on both exchanges, Look, I'm not going to answer that question. It's giving a— Right - credibility to the possibility we might- For the audience. that is not live. Well, the next one is about financial figures for the last 15 years on the website and showing the operating cash flow, both per share plus for the group, for the last 15 years. I wonder if we could see that on the website as well as on the, in the, in the reports, printed reports. And the other question is, I don't think oil companies are responsible for consumer behavior, but how can we, as a c- a company, encourage consumer behavioral change, like long-lasting quality cars, other uses of, uses of oil at, as secondary sources of energy? Okay, well, let me do the second part, and Sinead will, you know, if, if it's clear, Sinead- Yeah. You can handle the first part. You know, we're a customer-facing company. You know, we have a great brand, and so we can influence customer behavior. And where we feel we have a product, particularly if you're hinting whether we have a lower carbon product, we know how to market it and promote it and promote some of the changes that the customers would enjoy if they were to move to a product that had less carbon in it. So, you know, we're on it. But... And that's part of the area where we're prepared, perfectly prepared to accept accountability. But Sinead. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Appreciate the review of both the website and the annual report. We continue to try and find balance in terms of what we disclose, and as you rightly put, we have more on the website in terms of the previous years, so we go up to 10 years with some of the data. Let me continue to look at how we provide you with transparency and where that data is available. As I say, it's a complete balance in terms of what we put into a very large report versus what we put on the website. We'll continue to look at that for you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Sinead. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. We've got a question from Peter Brandt, which is also about the New York Stock Exchange, but just question whether you still want to ask your question. I mean, I think I've answered- Oh, no, you yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've already answered my question about whether we should be, or whether we are considering listing on the New York Stock Exchange in addition to London. I think and you, you've already said that it's not a live issue. Now, although I respect your opinion, I think it, it is, or at least it ought to be, a live issue because it affects the value of our shares. Could you please give me your comments and observations on that, please? Thank you. Well, what I'm trying to explain is that we are not currently debating the possibility of moving to New York as a board. Right now, what we're debating is how we can lift the performance of this company in all ways possible through running it in a more focused and simple way, increasing free cash flow per share and free cash flow, so that we can close the apparent valuation gap with some of our competitors who are listed in New York. Until we've completed that, there is no way in which we can benchmark the alternatives that might be available to us. But I keep coming back to that. I can't be any clearer, it is not a live issue, and therefore, there's no reason why it should have any significant impact on our current share price. We'll impact that through the way in which we run this company better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Now to go online to a question from Donald Freestone. It's good to see that Shell has had another good year and that shareholders and employees are benefiting from that. Might I ask Shell's management now to spare a thought for its former U.K.-based employees, now beneficiary of the SCPF and the SOCPF pension funds, who have now missed out on the discretionary increases in pensions in line with the RPI over the past few years and are now 6.5%-10.8% worse off in real terms. Discretionary increases in times of high RPI were formerly in the 1990s, routinely despite the maximum guaranteed 7% increase, and the pension funds have ample reserves to deal with this. Shell has not had to contribute to these funds anyway since 2014, and it had to, it would seem any requirement to guarantee future pensions is well within the company's financial capabilities. Okay, I might ask Sinead to add a bit of detail on this, but I mean, I would point out, we do think that our pension fund is a very attractive and progressive and effective fund. And we've seen increases of 7% in 2022 and 2023, and this year we've done our increase in line with RPI. I take your point, but it's a long time ago, when we may have considered discretionary increases above that, but 7%, 7%, and then RPI, we think is a good outcome for current pensioners, but also is a good outcome for the fund as we look to pay a decent pension in the years to come. ... Nothing to add, Chair. Okay. We have now a question from David Somers in the room. Mr. Somers, go ahead. Thank you, Chairman. It's on the same and similar subject, but if there might be a little bit of repetition, but I just want to amplify a few points, if I may, sir. Shell continue to have superb profits. In 2023, they were almost $28-- they were some $28 billion, and in 2022, the profits were a 150-year company record of almost $40 billion. Over the same period, you and your colleague, directors and senior executives had substantial increases in your re- remuneration and bonuses, which no doubt at least preserved your real terms earnings. Please contrast this with the Shell defined benefit pensioners in the UK, many of whom are no doubt also loyal shareholders, who are now enduring a permanent real terms cut in their Shell pension of between 6.5% and 10.8%. The Shell Company's pension fund and its overseas equivalent is amply funded to fund full indexation, i.e., beyond the 5% and 7% caps, without a call on Shell for funds. Indeed, Shell has had a contribution holiday since 2014. Why was this indexation not fully reflected in the pension award, awards in 2022 and 2023, as has happened on previous occasions? Why, with RPI inflation in 2022 of 13.4%, was the discretion to avoid pension increases in 2023 above the 5% and 7% caps not exercised as it had been done previously? Can I please request that this is reconsidered? Otherwise, the consequence is a permanent real terms reduction in the Shell pension of between 6.5% and 10.8%. Whatever happened to go well with Shell? Thank you. Okay, well, thank you for your comment. Look, of course, well, we understand some of the pressures that the recent high levels of inflation have put on people, including Shell pensioners, and we, you know, we understand all issues of the cost of living crisis. I'm on slightly thin ground here, but I don't think it's right to say that the increases enjoyed by Shell staff has in some way been in excess of what we've been able to pay our pensioners. And I think the rest of the questions, part of the question I've answered already. I don't know if there's anything you want to add, Sinead? No, I think, Chair, you've, you've said it well, that we, the pension is paid in full in line with the trust, and you're correct, sir, that the last time that it was above RPI was 30-plus years before. That was the last time we did so. But I think, Sir Andrew, you've answered it. Okay. But if I may, sir, as I've just said, you've very recently had record profits, and I think there should be some similar reconsideration because this real terms reduction is significant and stays with pensioners, loyal pensioners, people who worked for Shell and probably been the bedrock on which this company now is surviving and, and going forward. So I'd urge you to reconsider. Thank you. Well, we'll continue to talk to you and your representatives, but thank you for that. Thank you. We will now move back into the room again. Can I remind people to have short questions, please, because we still have quite a few to go through. Mr. Joshua Wiertz, please, you have a question. Hello, thank you, Chair. My question regards the rise of generative AI and its effects on the infrastructure investment that we bring of the live LNG super cycle, and we maintain the proxy revolution of the shareholder distribution that we bring digital infrastructure into a regenerative approach. Green infrastructure will inevitably hold onto changing times, player onto a gallant energy transition ballad out to achieve with a collective effort to the generative, the shape of the change. Tackling climate change, we must not do so, and we, the world of 2050, must meet basic demands to keep up with rising ambitions. LNG, especially in Asia, boasts energy blending with big gas... Excuse me, before transitions into more solutions. Brazil, deepwater access into biofuels at the forefront, the leading player for delivering shareholder returns. Through the energy transition in the energy mix, the positive transition in the energy mix, global flaring in 2013. Despite this action, more is needed to address climate change. We are taking the energy transition forward in the energy mix, growing our LNG portfolio to low carbon energy transition, which shapes the role that Shell can play in the investment case through energy transition, powered by wind and solar to create more assets per emission as part of our dis- Sorry. Can I... Sorry. Can I... what's your question? I'm sorry, Look, I was, with an earlier question, I said 1-2 minutes. My, my, my apologies, I'll just round it up. Okay. ... I want to deliver to you, our shareholders, an increased flow. Reducing flaring shows our progress as we grow our customer expertise. We aim to grow bio activities made from waste as we gradually reduce customer emissions by 5,669 million tons by 2023. But, but sorry, this is not a question, this is a statement. I mean, what is your question? I'm sorry, I'm just Please wrap up and ask a question. For example, hydrogen, proving these businesses and are how focused and achieving about how we are focusing on simplification as at once, step by step, all over the world into the future. Look, I, I'm being extremely patient, as are the rest of the audience here. But this is a statement, it's not a question. What is the question? Your vote today will which shareholders are the stewards of the global economy. Specifically, the 27 investors of this board believe that climate change is not real. As we have indicated in our energy transition report, one of the key elements- But I don't think... I think you've lost the whole audience, so maybe you could just ask this question or sit down. I wonder if you could just respond to what I've been saying. Maybe To be honest, I couldn't fully follow it, so if you could fashion it into just a simple question, I'll see whether myself, Wael or Sinead can answer it for you. As we have indicated in our energy transition report, one of the key elements by doing that, which has contributed, in particular in India and China, it doesn't happen overnight. If we are at risk as our shareholders to our competitors to deliver more value with less emission, be long and say you are aligned with Paris to align the aims of the Paris Agreement- Oh, oh- that we needed to win. Oh, come on. Come on. Come on, you're just reading the script. You've got a great pack there. Just ask me a simple question. Please, this, well, this is about- Am I not being... I'm really sorry, am I not being clear? No, you're not being clear, I'm afraid. I don't, there's, I struggle to focus my thoughts. Can you just sit down and focus on the question? So to wind down, we have therefore an LNG, and lastly, we would appreciate the proven net carbon intensity target. We signposted over 20% of our capital budget. Look, I'm sorry, if you cannot ask a question, I'm going to have to cut the microphone off because you're wasting all our time here. I mean, it's not clear. I mean, the essence of my question is in terms of the impact of Generative AI on Shell's desire to green their industry. Great question. That's a good question. Let's try and answer that. Okay? So, okay. Maybe, Wael, you'd like to talk about some of the things we're doing with AI. Sure. Look, so there is... technology has been at the heart of Shell's progress for decades. Generative AI is playing a big role. Rather than give you a theoretical answer, let me give you a more practical one in one specific example with Holland Hydrogen, which is our green hydrogen facility, the largest in Europe, that's being built at the moment. It's a project which we are looking to, over the years, if we can create the value out of it, that we expect to scale up. And, AI is being used to be able to anticipate, for example, weather patterns, to be able to modulate between green electricity that's coming from the offshore wind farm into the electrolyzer that converts that electricity into hydrogen, and which can be sold to industry as well into the trucking space. You need a capability that's able to reflect in seconds what changing wind patterns are, changing demand patterns are, potentially changing supply patterns are. While we would have typically done that manually, our ability to be able to use AI and all the capabilities that come with it, I think will significantly enhance the opportunity to create value out of this. There are many examples like these that are being applied, and I think are going to be critical, as you rightly say, to the green transition, and that's what we're going to be driving forward. Thank you for answering my question. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry about the issue. I apologize. No, that's, Thanks, Mr. Wijers. ... thank you for saying that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Next question? We've got another question in the room from Rajeev Gunawardana. It's also about AI. Maybe focus the question on AI. Rajeev, yeah. Good afternoon, board. My name is Rajeev Gunawardana, a retired investment banker. My question is based upon AI: How are you going to deploy this? Earlier on, you tried to answer that gentleman's question, but AI should be used for exploration, in my opinion, in a very big way, because there's a huge game changer happening, and I want you guys to really look into this area because this could actually make things really, really good for all the shareholders. Maybe I can just look at... One of the things I can say, observing from, you know, sort of a bit removed, being a non-executive chair, you know, Shell is doing an enormous amount on AI, and has been really for quite a while, even before it became more fashionable and where people were excited about the recent breakthroughs. I meet it all the time. They're trying, they're pushing at the boundaries, seeing what's possible. And indeed, if I look at sort of the technology strategy of the company, it's sort of, of course, we've got some existing businesses we want to make more efficient, but it's dominated by the digital and by the low carbon side of things, with AI being very prominent in it. I can assure you they're on it. ... Good to hear that. And also, you know, I'm quite saddened to see there's only five people from the board of directors here. Can you explain to me why there's a huge absence of all the other parties who are supposed to be here? I sure can. I mean, some other people have alluded to it. We're after the very difficult meetings we've had last year and the year before last year, we're struggling to find a format that actually, you know, allows a little bit of protest, but not one that actually wrecks the whole meeting. And one that makes, you know, the best access to the most shareholders in a way that an AGM was designed to do and has, you know, the lowest cost. I decided, particularly after last year, when we had, you know, a very ugly incident when some people chose to storm the stage with all of the board on it, that it's easier to keep 5 people safe than it is 15, and it's also low cost. In some ways, it sort of represents the fact that we're running things on a hybrid basis. They're with us, you know, they're listening. You know, the committee chairs are available if I think there's a question that we cannot answer. So, we're trying things, we're experimenting, to see what's the best way to do things in what is, as you've seen, quite a difficult environment in which to try and pull off a successful and complete AGM. So- But at the end of the day, as shareholders, I turned up today, and I expect the board to turn up as well. I understand all the challenges we might face- I, I, uh- ... But I think going forward in the future, everybody should be here. Okay, I- Because I think it's fundamental that we have an engagement, 'cause once a year, we might meet you guys. Well, but we might find that it's better to have an engagement by being fully hybrid. We're not allowed to do that. So it's... We're We're trying things, you know, and you know, some people have kindly said it's worked better this year than the previous two years. Probably not related to the number of board members here, but nonetheless, you know, bear with us and we'll find the best way to get the most interaction in the way an AGM was pre- to- Also, yeah, a final point I'd like to mention is that when shareholders wants to engage with the board, I find it quite unusual and extraordinary that the operator is not prepared to transfer the call. If I want to speak to your good self, I should be able to do that as a shareholder, but I understand that there might be challenges. But still, there has to be some mechanism where shareholders can approach on ideas and strategies- Yeah, sure ... one could engage with. Sure. So, well, we'll take that back and see how, and maybe ask the- There, there shouldn't be a situation where the operator actually blocks me from speaking to yourselves. That's unacceptable. You could talk to the investor relations department- Yeah, yeah ... and then we'll have the discussion with you. There is a mechanism for this. There is. But maybe you could meet with them. We'll take- Absolutely. The key thing is that we need to have more interaction- Understood ... so that people who are demonstrating here, there must be a forum for them to be in rather than disturbing all of us. I would suggest that you engage with them on a different platform- We, we- than this platform. We do engage with them on a different platform. All right. Thank you. But they still want to come, so... We have another question in the room from Francis Callaghan. This is on the second question. Mm. Good afternoon. A private shareholder. Just two very simple questions: Why did the board go for a 10:00 A.M. meeting rather than 11:00 A.M. or 11:30 A.M., as your peers do? This is particularly difficult for your older shareholders. I, I, I- I had to travel in an absolutely packed tube train to get here on time. Yeah, okay. That's the first question. The second question is, it's very unusual for there not to be a set of audited accounts available before the meeting. Yeah, okay. Every other company does provide that. Right. Okay. That's all. I know all these issues. I mean, you know, look, blame me. I mean, I don't know how these meetings are going to go. It's very important for the smooth running of Shell that we get to get through all the business, and given the track record of the previous two years, we found that, you know, it could go on and on because of all the protests. I just wanted to build in some contingency to make sure we had enough time to get the meeting done today. We'll continue to reflect on that. On the annual report, it is available online, of course, and you can pick up a hard copy at the registration desk after the meeting. It's quite heavy and- There will be no hard copies available before the meeting. No, I know, but they will be available after the meeting. You may laugh, but it's partly a safety consideration 'cause they're very heavy, and people throw things at our meetings, so... But you can get them after the meeting. Yeah, okay, I understand. But equally, you could access them online if you wanted and have them on a tablet. But okay, message received. Okay, next question. We will go now to another question in the room from Sarah Brewin, also representing ACCR. ... Please keep your questions short. Thank you. My question regards the company's exploration CapEx, which is around double that of peers. Which is notable in light of the fact that energy from these projects and positive shareholder returns would not be realized for at least a decade, and against the backdrop of the International Energy Agency stating that no new fossil fuel projects are needed within a 1.5-degree scenario. So my question is: how does this investment in exploration for new oil and gas projects represent good use of shareholder capital? And would the company consider ceasing exploration for oil and gas projects? Okay, a couple of things on that. I mean, you've heard, somewhat contentiously for some people, but that we think that hydrocarbon production is going to be required for many decades to come, particularly as it relates to gas. And so, it is appropriate to continue to provide ourselves with a range of opportunities to develop in the future. I think, if I may, on a personal level, just challenge some of what the IEA says. There's a sort of an assumption that the carbon footprint of oil is the same, irrespective of the field, irrespective of the composition of the oil, irrespective of what you make it into. It's not. It's vastly different. Actually, through doing exploration, you can provide opportunities to move to lower carbon forms of production if we want to reduce the carbon footprint of even just making hydrocarbons. And that's an optionality I think the world and Shell would have. I'd also commend to you the fact that we live in some very uncertain times. There's a lot of geopolitical cracks appearing on the Earth, which may actually mean that there are many parts of the world may not be able to supply the other parts of the world, and therefore, some diversification of supply, I think, is sensible. But that's all against the backdrop of us wanting to get to net zero, but in a way that we assume that hydrocarbons will still be in the mix, but appropriately abated. And so I think it's an appropriate use of our CapEx, and it will also have to meet all the challenges that Sinead and the board apply to make sure that it's giving a decent return to the shareholder on a risk basis. Okay, next question. Thank you. Thanks. We've got a question online from Mr. Donovan. Mr. Donovan has a comment and a consideration for our board: "In the first instance, I would like to thank our board for the continuous performance of the company in the light of opposition and harassment from many nefarious organizations. It is possible that the political conditions in the United Kingdom in terms of doing business could worsen significantly in the foreseeable future. Whilst the board may not wish to comment, this shareholder would like the board to acknowledge that they have at least listened to his point of view. The board should not hesitate, should there be a deterioration in the conditions for doing business in the UK, in giving consideration to moving our business away from the UK and finding a more welcoming place to situate the headquarters of our company. The board should consider the risk of re-imposition of exchange controls in the UK and how it might impact our company. End of question and statement. Look, I think I've commented on this general issue in some of the questions about the listing earlier. You've given me the opportunity not to comment further, and I... We, as a board, consider these risks continually. I think it's a part of a skill that Shell has through its scenario planning, you know, about what is the right place and the right way to run this company in the future. But right now, as I've said, you know, a move away from the UK is not a live issue. We're here, and we're determined to lift the performance of the company in the way that we've already built up a very strong track record. Do you acknowledge in your question? Thanks, Chair. I would like to ask Brynn O'Brien for a question in the room. Hello, Sir Andrew, Mr. Chairman, CEO, board members, fellow shareholders. Sir Andrew, my name is Brynn O'Brien. I also represent the ACCR. You may remember conversations we had when you were CEO of BHP. I do indeed. So, I'm going to come to my question, but first I'd like to offer two brief observations. One is just about the conduct of this AGM, and I just want to note for fellow shareholders that the one shareholder who has been surrounded by security staff for going a little over time was a young woman of color. That makes me, as a shareholder, feel deeply uncomfortable, and I hope that it makes the board feel uncomfortable and fellow shareholders, because literally, you had a performance art piece that you just threatened to cut off the microphone for. That wasn't an option that was offered to the young woman who asked the question about some very serious human rights concerns, and I just think it's very important for the board to reflect on that moment, which was highly, highly regrettable in my view. The other observation I'd like to make is about your use, the board's use today and in documentation about the term low carbon when it's applied to LNG. The observation I would make, and particularly given the litigious environment in which we operate and the legal risks that shareholders do not want to be exposed to, and I note that I personally am a shareholder and so is my organization. The use of low carbon, the use of that term in relation to LNG, the days of the use of that term are numbered. I really think that you need to find other ways of talking about a fossil fuel that is not a low-carbon product, particularly when you take into account the life cycle of that product, the extraction, the liquefaction, the transportation, and so on. So they're my two observations. You're welcome to respond to them if you wish, but I don't expect an answer. My question is about Shell's political influence, particularly in emerging markets, and we've been fortunate to have a dialogue with your team. We welcome Shell's commitment to make more disclosures about the lobbying that the company is doing in emerging markets. However, we've been having those conversations as, at a certain level, at the, in the, within the company, and I really want to ventilate this concern, which is a real concern for us and other shareholders around Shell's lobbying directly and indirectly for the lock-in of further fossil fuels demand in emerging markets. Let me give you one example, and that's from our, we've published a report on this, but the Federation of Indian Petroleum Industry, FIPPI, Shell's a member of the governing body. It's a member of various committees, and that, that organization is not just advocating for coal to gas switching, and I think that's another area of concern in the narrative from this company, that that coal to gas switching narrative comes without context. That's a problem. We'd like to see more context on it, but the other areas of lobbying by this organization are advocating for market creation in terms of the use of LNG in transportation, lobbying for tax changes to incentivize fossil fuels consumption. I guess, the concern is, and then the question to you is: if you find in your review of industry associations and your direct and indirect lobbying, that in emerging markets where you're not currently making disclosures about the lobbying that this company is doing, if you find that there is lobbying going on that is squeezing out renewables, vital, cheap renewables and battery storage coming into those systems, will you see, as you did at BHP, will you see that lobbying come to an end? Look, I can't comment on the individual association, but maybe I can comment a bit more general on some of the issues that you've raised. You know, I know of examples, including from my time at BHP, where the provision of LNG was absolutely critical for a country to go from coal to renewables. So I've seen it work, and I've been proud to be associated with that, where I brought LNG into a company that displaced coal power generation, but ultimately created a surge in investment in solar and wind. So it can work. I think it's fine to think about batteries and so on to bring stability to the grid when you do these things, but for countries which, in many cases, have no domestic supply of energy and are importing things otherwise, who then want to go into renewables, having coal-fired, sorry, gas-fired power stations is a great way of doing that. So... That's all I can comment from my own experience. From my experience at Shell, they do, as was done at BHP, and we do—I'm sure they still do it, review all of their associations in deciding which ones to remain a member and not, and choose to leave some and stay in others. For a number of reasons, sometimes because there are some things we don't agree with them on, but there are other things we do. That's a reason for staying in something, because you want the lobbying for the things that you do, and you don't find the other lobbying particularly discordant, even though you may not fully agree with it. But I guess it's one thing to say that you think that there's a role for LNG. It is another, in the context of an opening statement today, where you talked about the need for governments and customers to be active on the transition. You wish you could wind the clock forward, in your words, to a better future. And at the same time, you are lobbying, Shell is lobbying with shareholders' money. It is lobbying to slow down that transition. And so you may not know that it is doing that. We've published a report on it. You're welcome to read it, and we look forward to ongoing dialogue. But that is the case. You are lobbying to lock in future demand for fossil fuels and to slow down transition. Well- If you are genuinely committed to the transition, I call on you to eliminate that lobbying from your portfolio of industry associations. Well... Thank you. We'll look at it, but we do report our lobbying annually. It's published, and if organizations are not aligned, we stop membership. But let's maybe leave it there. I do want to come back to your initial statements, by the way. I mean, let me just formally say, it was a very difficult situation for me to handle the issue from, on, Nigeria. The lady was speaking to the camera, had her back turned to the people she was addressing, and it wasn't my choice. Obviously, we have a number of processes in place to keep the good order of the meeting, and I'm sorry if it didn't occur in the right way because it wasn't, it was not exactly the way I wanted it to occur. I wanted to bring it to a question that we could deal with, and I was. And that was all I was trying to do from the chair. I appreciate you saying that- Yeah. The apology is not owed to me. Okay. Well, okay. ... All right, next question. Next question. We've got a question in the room from Bonaventure D'Mello. Mr. Chairman and board of directors, I am very surprised at the criticisms on all of you, where I can see the criticism should be on the government of this country. Instead of improving the environment, they're building factories which is going to pollute the atmosphere, and I'm disgusted. But I will commend all the oil companies. They're doing their best. They're cutting down pollution. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your short question. I mean, rather than answer it, I just would say, look, as I've said, we all see navigating our way through the energy transition requires a partnership between the private sector, between governments, and customers, and we all have our part to play. Okay, next question. Got two more questions. We've got one more question online and one more question in the room. Sheryl Cuisia has the following statement and question: "I'm both a private investor in your company and a representative of the, of the TEA, The Engagement Appeal, a constructive..." Difficult word for a Dutch guy, "constructivist organization that seeks increased alignment between companies and individuals as a route for modernizing investor relations. In your opinion, what matters most of the younger generation of individual investors?" First question: "Especially within our difficult economic circumstances, what impact do you think, if any, could individual investors deliver to Shell's overall performance? Last question: What more, if anything, can companies like Shell do to educate, empower, or engage individuals on capital markets and investing to improve your relationship and engagement with protesters? Okay, let me. I'm a little bit at a loss here. I'm just trying to reflect on that so I give you an intelligent answer to this. But, you know, I think ultimately the younger generation, like the people in this room, wants to invest in a company that provides a decent return for their savings, and possibly, if they're younger, they may not care about this much for their retirement. But does it in a way that they believe, which is quite subjective at times, is ethical. I think what Shell are trying to do is honestly show how we can balance the pursuit of high returns to the shareholder with less emissions in a way that sustains this company and grows this company for decades to come, and therefore makes us a very attractive proposition that will allow a decent return to shareholder against a number of scenarios that we are ready to respond to using the skills we've got. I would like to think that if we did this in the right way, then ultimately the world would see it as a tough job to do, but one that we're doing in the most honest and practical way we can. Therefore, maybe our relationship with people like the protesters would improve. But in the meantime, we have to have debates. You know, we're entirely open to hear different views. You know, as long as it doesn't disrupt this meeting, we're interested in people who would like to protest, and we've no problems with people protesting outside. But again, there we have to balance their form of protest with being able to handle things at this meeting so you all can get a proper Annual General Meeting. And we'll keep trying. I'm sure we don't always get it right, and we'll learn from our mistakes and build on our successes. Thank you, Chair. We'll have the last question from Mr. Peter Torre. He is in the room. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, board of directors, my fellow shareholders. Peter Torre, Hendon. If anybody doesn't know where Hendon is, well, come and see me. Three quick items, Mr. Chairman. I'm not gonna make anything controversial here. Coming out the tube station this morning, I was a complete loss as to where I was to go, directed. May I suggest somebody with a sign, Shell AGM, and an arrow? Quite simple, no technology, no Facebook, hands up, stand up, whatever they call it nowadays. And I still don't know who this Swift Taylor person is. Anyway, and I don't want to know. Just a suggestion there, Mr. Chairman. Also, going back to my other colleague here who said about the staff, I've never been addressed so many times as "Sir" this morning. My God, it takes me back to my teenage days when I was in the Air Training Corps, so thank you very much. The last item, and I'll go to Miss Barbara. She mentioned something about the future, et cetera. Is my hair really that white? Gee, can't you make this a negative picture and make it black again? There was a film made in 1972 or 1973 starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson. You must see it. It's set in the future, 2022, which we've passed. It's called Soylent Green. S-O-Y-L-E-N-T-... "Soylent Green." I want to see it come up on the screen. Do watch it. It's very, very frightening. It's set in the future where there's no food, the world is overpopulated, there's no energy, there's no green fields, there's no running water, there's no animals, and Edward G. Robinson, who was actually dying during the film, he died 18 months late—18 days later. The younger generation have got no idea who I'm talking about. As I say, I don't know who that, don't know who this Swift Taylor is. So do watch it, and it's very, very frightening. We're looking at the future way back in 1972, 1973. Soylent Green. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity of saying my few words. It's gone a little bit longer than I've, I've wanted to go on to, but thank you. That's very good. Thank you. We'll take a note of your suggestions for next time. As I say that as somebody who knows where Hendon is, and that's actually does know the film Soylent Green. I'm not sure dystopia is always the best way to cheer us up, but maybe you could cheer yourself up because I don't think the world we now live in, with even with all of its challenges, is quite as bad as is in the film. Anyway, thank you. I think there are no further questions. So, No, no further questions. Nope. Nope. Okay. Okay. So, we, we've, I think, looking around, yeah, we've appeared to cover all the questions registered, so that brings us to the conclusion of the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll leave you to your voting. And a breakdown of the proxy results we've received ahead of the meeting will shortly be shown on the two screens behind me. For clarity, if you sign off by closing the Lumi platform, please rest assured that your votes cast before the voting cut-off time will still be counted. But before we close today, I would like to say a few final words to all of you who've waited patiently through, you know, the disruption, which, as some of you have commented, it was, thankfully a bit shorter than I had expected, if you like. But nonetheless, I'm grateful for your patience and understanding. And to those of you remaining who may maybe feel sympathy with the protesters or are protesters who've chosen just to listen, I believe it's right that we should hear your views today. An AGM must be a two-way forum, but clearly, I would have preferred to handle the discussions early on through Q&A than just all of us having to listen to their shouting. But somehow we have to find forums where all shareholders are ultimately heard. And indeed, we did present the Energy Transition Strategy 2024 resolution in that spirit, as an advisory vote and a chance for shareholders to challenge and give criticism where they feel it's justified. And sure, I've definitely got a lot of feedback from that. But I do, just before I move on, just want to say a little bit about the complexity of handling a meeting. You know, I made some mistakes last year. You know, I think I asked somebody to remove who was actually asking a civil question. You know, trying to balance everything and getting things through is not easy. All the time, my idea is to try and keep everybody safe, because safety is a core value for us. Also to make sure we maintain the kind of order of the meeting, its decorum, so everybody gets a chance to ask a question and to listen to responses and to put myself and indeed the other board members who are here with me on the platform on the spot. And, you know, yeah, I said earlier, I mean, I would have wanted things to have gone a little bit different from the lady on the Nigeria issue. I was simply trying to make sure in the right way that we got a discussion about it rather than, you know, a presentation to a camera so that we could address the concerns, as ultimately we were able to allow Will to do so. I apologize. That's definitely one of my mistakes this year, and I'll have to figure out how I get that better next year. But on the whole, we are dealing with some emotive issues, I mean, and climate change is one of them. And rightly so, because tackling it requires real changes, as I've said, not just from us, but from government, the rest of industry and customers, and other companies as well as Shell. Our Energy Transition Strategy 2024 not only sets out the scope and shape of how Shell is changing, but our real, very real attention, intention to be part of the solution to climate change. I believe, on balance, the results of today's vote show that we're on that right track. We know there's much more to do, much more to do, and we'll continue to update you on our progress. On behalf of the board, I want to thank you for your support, for your understanding, your patience, and thank you for everybody for coming. I hope we get it even better next year, and in the meantime, I formally declare this year's Annual General Meeting closed. Thank you.